Don’t assume the obvious

[Steve GarnettParticipant @stevegarnett62550]

Posted by blowlamp on 01/08/2011 02:30:40:

If we are changing names, then how about Engineers Home Workshop, with or without apostrophy?

 

 

The apostrophe either has a legitimate place in a sentence, or it doesn’t – can’t have it both ways. In your example, without an apostrophe it becomes plural engineers sharing a singular workshop. With it it becomes, rather more reasonably, the home workshop of an engineer.

 

The trouble with apostrophes is that they do several jobs – and have a number of quirks. Originally they were intended to mark missing letters (the word comes from the Greek, meaning ‘turning away’ but was also used in Latin), and that was quite straightforward. Since then, their usage has increased so that there are another eight legitimate, separate, uses for them. So I’m not surprised that there’s some confusion over this, quite frankly.

 

Nobody else has misunderstood the differences between the two ‘report’
sentences, and it originally came from a very highly regarded source
(only the original name has been changed, obviously). If he says it reverses the meaning, I’m inclined to agree with him.

 

*******************************************************

 

I agree with John Stevenson’s thoughts about the title – I have no idea why ‘Model’ has to be in the title at all, apart from it being a spin-off of Model Engineer magazine. Since, according to the readership survey results, there are a very considerable number of non-model-making engineers around with private workshops, the title does seem to be somewhat inappropriate.

 

********************************************************

 

 

Posted by David Clark 1 on 01/08/2011 01:40:00:

I did MEW basically on my own for almost 4 years.

I don’t think it was that bad on grammar.

It is very difficult to check your own editing.

 

 

David, please don’t take anything I said as a slur upon your efforts. It wasn’t that bad compared to a lot of other publications, and I fully appreciate the difficulty of editing your own stuff, believe me. And, as you discovered, doing the whole job on your own was basically a non-starter if you wanted any life of your own at all, and having Diane now must be a real boon.

[Steve GarnettParticipant @stevegarnett62550]

Posted by Geoff Sheppard on 01/08/2011 10:22:39:

 

We debated the title of MEW many years ago. The magazine itself was thought to be ‘the workshop’ and it was for more than one model engineer (an ambiguous title in itself, but traditional), hence the position of the apostrophy.

 

 

Please forgive me for thinking that this is perhaps a bit of a limited way to look at it… I can’t imagine many situations (the now amazingly rare college workshops and the SMEE and other club headquarters being the only ones that immediately spring to mind) where this situation would appertain.

 

I have also to say that it took me a little while to realise that the magazine wasn’t just about miniature scale workshop tooling…

[Geoff SheppardParticipant @geoffsheppard46476]

My attitude was that it was a magazine for anyone who had a home workshop, whatever the type of work carried on within it. However, the title was well established by then, so there was no prospect of a change.

 

As an aside, in 1947, Percival Marshall published a book entitled “Mechanics in Miniature” in which he defined model engineering as “engineering in miniature”. Interesting, in view of later developments.

 

Geoff

[Peter G. ShawParticipant @peterg-shaw75338]

re the title of MEW.

 

I have every issue going back to the very first issue as produced by Stan Bray, and in his very first editorial he says this:

 

Paragraph 1. “..a brand new magazine specially compiled for all those who are interested in using model engineering machinery at home to make models, tools and a host of other items.”

 

Paragraph 3. “…the magazine exists to concentrate primarily on workshops and their use, it will also contain extensive information on the making of models and it is our intention to cover in depth the multiplicity of techniques involved in their construction.”

 

Paragraph 11. “MEW is a workshop magazine and,…”

 

From the above, it is obvious that the original emphasis was on the practicalities of actually doing something, not as so often happens with ME, the end result. Whether or not the title was, or is, correct, will always be open to discussion, certainly for me, a better title would have been something like Home Workshop Engineering, but as we are now approaching 200 issues, the title is, I suggest, now a fixture and perhaps should not be changed.

 

Interestingly, Bray, in paragraph 7, does discuss electronics and what is now called CNC, and says this: “This does not mean that, even if they could afford it, all model engineers will want to connect their machine to a drawing, put in the metal and wait for the finished article to appear at the end – there would not be a great deal of fun to be had in that…..” He then goes on to say that limited electronic control can be very useful by making it possible to be much more accurate and that “Where they are applicable to the home enthusiast, we will take all these developments on board over the issues ahead just as enthusiastically as we will continue to concentrate on the traditional model engineering techniques.”

 

So the magazine was to cater for the old diehards, and the modernists, and everyone in between.

 

Regards,

 

Peter G. Shaw

[Geoff SheppardParticipant @geoffsheppard46476]

Thank you for reminding us of Stan’s words, Peter. MEW was very much Stan’s brain-child and we owe him a lot. The then Editorial Management team had their doubts that a magazine purely based on workshop practice and technology would attract much interest, so they insisted that some photos of models be included, to try to ‘connect’ with the model engineering readership. It’s popularity soon showed that this was not necessary and the magazine could stand on its own feet.

 

I think that all the subsequent editors have tried to stick to Stan’s line.

 

Geoff

[Gone AwayParticipant @goneaway]

Posted by Steve Garnett on 01/08/2011 10:47:29:

The apostrophe either has a legitimate place in a sentence, or it doesn’t – can’t have it both ways. In your example, without an apostrophe it becomes plural engineers sharing a singular workshop. With it it becomes, rather more reasonably, the home workshop of an engineer.

 

 

If the intention is of the (single) workshop of (plural) engineers, it still needs an apostrophe to denote possession.

 

The only possibilities that I can see are:

 

Model Engineer’s (singular) Workshop (singular)

 

Model Engineers’ (plural)  Workshop (singular)

 

Model Engineer’s (singular) Workshops (plural)

 

model Engineers’ (plural) Workshops (plural)

 

take your pick

erbage on 01/08/2011 14:39:44

Edited By Sid Herbage on 01/08/2011 14:51:15

[Peter G. ShawParticipant @peterg-shaw75338]

Sid,

 

Given what I wrote above about Stan Bray’s original ideas for the magazine, I would plump for the first definition as I am sure that Bray was writing for the Model Engineer in his Workshop, ie the Workshop of, or belonging to, a Model Engineer, ie Model Engineer’s Workshop.

 

Regards,

 

Peter G. Shaw

[Gone AwayParticipant @goneaway]

Posted by Peter G. Shaw on 01/08/2011 15:08:31:

I would plump for the first definition….

Me too if you interpret “Workshop” in the literal sense of what you and I have in our homes. If you consider it a metaphor for the magazine itself, then I think the current title fits OK.

[Steve GarnettParticipant @stevegarnett62550]

Posted by Sid Herbage on 01/08/2011 14:39:16:

 

If the intention is of the (single) workshop of (plural) engineers, it still needs an apostrophe to denote possession.

 

 

I don’t think it necessarily does to become a workshop of engineers – it rather depends upon who or what is doing the possessing, as far as I can tell. So it can quite legitimately become a (singular) workshop of (plural) engineers without any apostrophe at all.

 

That’s the problem really – the whole thing is, to say the very least, ambiguous. Which strikes me as being a good reason for updating it! And yes, Peter’s version would do.

Edited By Steve Garnett on 01/08/2011 19:26:12

[David Paterson 4Participant @davidpaterson4]

I am possessed by the workshop – at least that’s what the family tells me

[mickParticipant @mick65121]

I call my workshop (shed) The Liberal Party. If anybody phones up and asks to speak to me, my wife tells them I’m in The Liberal Party and they never call back!!

[NeillParticipant @neill]

A dangerous tactic every 5 years or so though Mick

[Chris TriceParticipant @christrice43267]

I think the use of the word “Model” instantly tells us who the primary target audience is, the type of work it deals with and the typical scale being worked at. If you say ‘model engineer’ to most people, it conjures up an image in me that I imagine is exactly the sort of people who are buying the magazine. Doesn’t mean it has to be exclusively bought by only people using the content to build models. If you take the title too literally, no one with a TV should be buying the “Radio Times”.

[Author]

Posts