0
Usenet Posted 22 years ago
English in UK
The Sorcerer's Apostrophe
That's a joke for the Americans, of course, who haven't heard of a philosopher. The Canadians manage all right with "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" - except that it's "Harry Potter à l'Ecole des Sorciers" in French! But I digress. Despite the Latin translation being entitled "Harrius Potter et Philophi Lapis", the correct Latin term is, of course, 'lapis philosophorum'. So, it should be "philosophers' stone". But why isn't it? Comments anyone?
John Briggs
John Briggs
Top answer
In article [nq:1]That's a joke for the Americans, of course, who haven't heard of a philosopher. The Canadians manage all right with ... correct Latin term is, of course, 'lapis philosophorum'.
- In article [nq:1]That's a joke for the Americans, of course, who haven't heard of a philosopher.
- The Canadians manage all right with ...
- correct Latin term is, of course, 'lapis philosophorum'.
- So, it should be "philosophers' stone".
- But why isn't it?
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
26 Answers
0
In article
[nq:1]That's a joke for the Americans, of course, who haven't heard of a philosopher. The Canadians manage all right with ... correct Latin term is, of course, 'lapis philosophorum'. So, it should be "philosophers' stone". But why isn't it? Comments anyone?[/nq]
Only one of them has it. The rest are still searching.
(URL removed)
...the few remaining haddocks were
[nq:1]That's a joke for the Americans, of course, who haven't heard of a philosopher. The Canadians manage all right with ... correct Latin term is, of course, 'lapis philosophorum'. So, it should be "philosophers' stone". But why isn't it? Comments anyone?[/nq]
Only one of them has it. The rest are still searching.
(URL removed)
...the few remaining haddocks were
00
"John Briggs" (Email Removed) ha scritto nel messaggio
[nq:1]That's a joke for the Americans, of course, who haven't heard of a philosopher. The Canadians manage all right with "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" - except that it's "Harry Potter à l'Ecole des Sorciers" in French! But I digress.[/nq]
And so do I: in italian it is "Harry Potter e la pietra filosofale", so the title i
[nq:1]That's a joke for the Americans, of course, who haven't heard of a philosopher. The Canadians manage all right with "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" - except that it's "Harry Potter à l'Ecole des Sorciers" in French! But I digress.[/nq]
And so do I: in italian it is "Harry Potter e la pietra filosofale", so the title i
00
[nq:1]That's a joke for the Americans, of course, who haven't heard of a philosopher. The Canadians manage all right with ... correct Latin term is, of course, 'lapis philosophorum'. So, it should be "philosophers' stone". But why isn't it? Comments anyone?[/nq]
OED confirms:
(tr. med.L. lapis philosophorum, the stone of the philosophers (see philosopher 2), also lapis philosophicus, -ical
OED confirms:
(tr. med.L. lapis philosophorum, the stone of the philosophers (see philosopher 2), also lapis philosophicus, -ical
00
[nq:2]That's a joke for the Americans, of course, who haven't ... should be "philosophers' stone". But why isn't it? Comments anyone?[/nq]
[nq:1]OED confirms: (tr. med.L. lapis philosophorum, the stone of the philosophers (see philosopher 2), also lapis philosophicus, -icalis; in F. pierre philosophale, Ger. der Stein der Weisen. See Note below.) and
[nq:1]OED confirms: (tr. med.L. lapis philosophorum, the stone of the philosophers (see philosopher 2), also lapis philosophicus, -icalis; in F. pierre philosophale, Ger. der Stein der Weisen. See Note below.) and
00
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 01:55:59 -00, "John Briggs"
[nq:1]But it's not just J.K. Rowling (who read French and Classics!); the usual English form is 'Philosopher's stone' - presumably even in the head form of the OED entry.[/nq]
In OED2, it is "philosophers' stone". In Chambers 21st Century, it is "philosopher's stone".
Take your pick.
Giles.
[nq:1]But it's not just J.K. Rowling (who read French and Classics!); the usual English form is 'Philosopher's stone' - presumably even in the head form of the OED entry.[/nq]
In OED2, it is "philosophers' stone". In Chambers 21st Century, it is "philosopher's stone".
Take your pick.
Giles.
00
[nq:2]But it's not just J.K. Rowling (who read French and ... presumably even in the head form of the OED entry.[/nq]
[nq:1]In OED2, it is "philosophers' stone". In Chambers 21st Century, it is "philosopher's stone". Take your pick.[/nq]
But apparently the OED give no examples to support their choice. We all know that they should be right, but it would appear that no one has ever used it c
[nq:1]In OED2, it is "philosophers' stone". In Chambers 21st Century, it is "philosopher's stone". Take your pick.[/nq]
But apparently the OED give no examples to support their choice. We all know that they should be right, but it would appear that no one has ever used it c
00
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 00:04:58 -00, "John Briggs"
[nq:2]In OED2, it is "philosophers' stone". In Chambers 21st Century, it is "philosopher's stone". Take your pick.[/nq]
[nq:1]But apparently the OED give no examples to support their choice. We all know that they should be right, but it would appear that no one has ever used it correctly![/nq]
In the absence of an academy defining "correc
[nq:2]In OED2, it is "philosophers' stone". In Chambers 21st Century, it is "philosopher's stone". Take your pick.[/nq]
[nq:1]But apparently the OED give no examples to support their choice. We all know that they should be right, but it would appear that no one has ever used it correctly![/nq]
In the absence of an academy defining "correc
00
[nq:2]But apparently the OED give no examples to support their ... would appear that no one has ever used it correctly![/nq]
[nq:1]In the absence of an academy defining "correct" English use, common usage has to take its place. An etymological derivation ... may depend more on how you wish to be seen by others than on any metaphysical conception of absolute correctness.[/nq]
It is, neverth
[nq:1]In the absence of an academy defining "correct" English use, common usage has to take its place. An etymological derivation ... may depend more on how you wish to be seen by others than on any metaphysical conception of absolute correctness.[/nq]
It is, neverth
00
[nq:1]In OED2, it is "philosophers' stone". In Chambers 21st Century, it is "philosopher's stone".[/nq]
FWIW, my 1999 edition of Brewer has "philosopher's stone".
John Hall
Johnson: "Well, we had a good talk."
Boswell: "Yes, Sir, you tossed and gored several persons." Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-84); James Boswell (1740-95)
FWIW, my 1999 edition of Brewer has "philosopher's stone".
John Hall
Johnson: "Well, we had a good talk."
Boswell: "Yes, Sir, you tossed and gored several persons." Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-84); James Boswell (1740-95)
00
[nq:2]In OED2, it is "philosophers' stone". In Chambers 21st Century, it is "philosopher's stone".[/nq]
[nq:1]FWIW, my 1999 edition of Brewer has "philosopher's stone".[/nq]
Ha! My Brewer, which is undated but must be in the range 1946-1956, has "Philosophers' Stone" and "Philosophers' Tree", but "Philosopher's Egg".
My first edition (2000) of the Oxford DoP&F has all three entrie
[nq:1]FWIW, my 1999 edition of Brewer has "philosopher's stone".[/nq]
Ha! My Brewer, which is undated but must be in the range 1946-1956, has "Philosophers' Stone" and "Philosophers' Tree", but "Philosopher's Egg".
My first edition (2000) of the Oxford DoP&F has all three entrie
0
Related Questions