TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
That's what I was thinking: as a generic class of thingies (oops, thingie),
it should be singular. I apply the same rule to indexing: I index the
singular rather than plural.
Also a type of guy,
Lindsey
> -----Original Message-----
> Would those in the "types of cars" camp also say "type of cars" if there
> were only one type?
>
> e.g.: "There is only one good type of cars on the market today."
>
> If you don't agree with that usage, then there is no argument for
> putting car in the plural, when clearly it is the number of types with
> which we are concerned.
>
> "of car" is a genitive construction which explains to what class of
> thing the "type" belongs (or refers). You would only put the object in
> the plural if a plural were called for conceptually. We could have a
> hill of beans (because you can't have a hill with only one bean in it),
> for example, but the hill would still consist of one, or possibly many
> types of bean. The very notion of a type precludes plurality--that's why
> we divided the objects into types, presumably to make a distinction. So
> say I. But hey, I'm just that type of guys.
>
> Chris Kowalchuk
>
> From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=
> =
>
>
