6 ms·

> the authoritative source of rules No, it isn't. It is influential, not authoritative. And, in this instance, it is outdated.

• tokenadult 16y ago
  "Outdated" is a fairly specific factual claim. What is your evidence for that claim? That is, what is the evidence that current professional editors are on record as saying that the quoted advice is old-fashioned and not to be regarded? (This subthread started, after all, with an HN participant noting that editors were FOLLOWING the quoted rule.)
  • chbarts 16y ago
    > What is your evidence for that claim? Common usage, which you can see as easily as I can. For example, do news agencies typically use FBI or F.B.I.? Do they typically use UN or U.N.? > That is, what is the evidence that current professional editors are on record as saying that the quoted advice is old-fashioned and not to be regarded? You again misunderstand the role professional editors (and, by extension, style guides) fill. They enforce what's commonly known as a 'house style', which may be influential outside of a given 'house' (company or newsroom) but is not authoritative in any sense anywhere but that single location. Language is not defined by books: it is described by them. > (This subthread started, after all, with an HN participant noting that editors were FOLLOWING the quoted rule.) That comment was deleted before I got to it.