[sword-devel] Module changes

[Jerry Hastings]

At 12:51 PM 4/9/2002 -0700, Chris Little wrote:

>It's primarily for the purpose of consistency.  We have some books in a
>posessive form and others not, and I just want to be consistent across all
>of them.

Are you talking about books that all have the possessive form in the 
titles? Or, do some of the books not even have any form of the authors 
names in the titles, but are referred by the authors names? _Figures or 
Speech Used in the Bible_ in some contexts may simply  be called Bullinger 
and _The Works of Josephus_ may be called Josephus. Are you trying to make 
books like Strong's EC consistent with book likes those?

>The non-posessive form seems to be more prevalent and more
>sensible, so I conformed the others to that.

Is there a style book rule for this? What I can remember of my experience 
in higher ed. at secular institutions, the books we used were seldom 
referred to by title, but referred to by the authors names in the 
non-possessive form. What you say seems consistent with that. However, I 
don't remember using any book then that had the author's name in the title 
in the possessive form. I don't think I was ever in a class that used a 
book with a title like, _Gray's Anatomy_. I don't know if it would have 
been referred to as Gray's or Gray. And, mudding things more, I never used 
a "Christian" book in those institutions. But, in non-educational Christian 
circles, I hear titles with the possessive form shortened to simply the 
possessive form. I don't hear those books referred to by the author in the 
non-possessive form. I do however see both kinds of file names. I don't 
know how typical my experience is.

Still curious.

Jerry