Home « Forum « Author Hangout

Forum: Author Hangout

Smith & Wesson

Switch Blayde

I just started a new story. In it, the private eye has a Smith & Wesson pistol. I Googled it and it seems the company refers to the name with the ampersand so I guess whenever I write it it would be "Smith & Wesson" (not "Smith and Wesson).

I don't know if it will be used in dialogue, but if it is will the ampersand be replaced with "and"? I think not.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Crumbly Writer

In dialogue, you write it the way it sounds (as you're reporting the words spoken, not what they refer to). However, in this case, your naming your story using a registered trademark, which could get dicey. Legally, you'd be forced to pull it if they object to it (if they ever notice, that is). Changing the title to "Smith and Wesson" might piss off a few gun fans, but would avoid the obvious trademark violation.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde

@Crumbly Writer

your naming your story using a registered trademark,


It's not the name of the story. The sentence in the story is:

The black Leica S-2P digital camera was as comfortable in my hands as my Smith & Wesson pistol.


It might be the only place I use the name. I was just thinking ahead.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Ernest Bywater

@Switch Blayde

Smith & Wesson or Smith and Wesson in narrative (your choice), but Smith and Wesson in dialogue. Once you mention it in narrative the first time you can shorten it to S&W if you want to, which is what most people do, even in official reports.

Crumbly Writer

@Switch Blayde

It might be the only place I use the name. I was just thinking ahead.

Sorry, for some reason I was thinking this was a question by a newbie. You're right, used as you describe, it's the legitimate name of the weapon and thus is correct. However, in dialogue I wouldn't use the ampersand. As we've discussed in the past, dialogue is about what someone says, and I've never heard anyone say "I took out my Smith Ampersand Wesson and ...".

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde

@Ernest Bywater

Smith & Wesson or Smith and Wesson in narrative (your choice)


Thanks

Switch Blayde
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer


However, in dialogue I wouldn't use the ampersand. As we've discussed in the past, dialogue is about what someone says, and I've never heard anyone say "I took out my Smith Ampersand Wesson and ..."


I used to believe that too. Then in the novel I just completed I had FBI in the dialogue. The character didn't say, "Ef bee eye." Same with "iPhone." So I was wondering about "Smith & Wesson." But in this case, I believe you're right and it would be "My Smith and Wesson..." in dialogue.

Now if he referred it the way Ernest said, I would guess the dialogue would me, "My S&W."

Ernest Bywater

@Switch Blayde

"Ef bee eye." Same with "iPhone."


Dialogue is always what is said: thus you write the full words said, but that doesn't mean you write it as a phonetic. FBI is said as F B I, unless you say it in full as The Federal Bureau of Investigation. Thus is OK which is said and written as OK not Oh Kay. Which is why it should be Mister Smith and not Mr Smith in the dialogue. Thus it's always Smith and Wesson in the dialogue.

Two plus two equals four is the dialogue while the narrative can be that or 2 + 2 = 4.

Narrative is another issue. There can write Mr Smith, Smith & Weston, and once you introduce it you can use S&W in the narrative (but not the dialogue).

Crumbly Writer
Updated:

@Switch Blayde


I used to believe that too. Then in the novel I just completed I had FBI in the dialogue. The character didn't say, "Ef bee eye." Same with "iPhone." So I was wondering about "Smith & Wesson." But in this case, I believe you're right and it would be "My Smith and Wesson..." in dialogue.


No, in the dialogue, the characters actually spell out letters when using Acronyms, so they'd say "FBI", not "ef bee eye". The same with "iPhone", they'd say what it's called, which is the trademark. However, with Smith & Wesson, they say "and" rather than "Ampersand".

However, I disagree with Ernest above, in that I'd spell out "okay" in dialogue because they're saying the full phrase, rather than spelling out an Acronym.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@Ernest Bywater

Smith & Wesson or Smith and Wesson in narrative (your choice)

I think only Smith & Wesson in narrative, on the grounds it is a proper noun.
I would definitely use the ampersand in narrative, for the same reasons I would use 'iPhone'.
***
I am dubious about using 'and' in dialogue.
I DO AGREE there exists general principle is sounds in dialogue should be spelled out as words, but I think there's another general principle here which overrides that in this situation.
***
My gut feeling is that all rules and conventions of grammar get tossed out the window as soon as capitals are used for a proper noun, and the entire thing is then treated as a single uncorruptable word in all circumstances.
***
Can anyone cite any references to state proper nouns are not written as they otherwise would be in dialogue?

Ross at Play

@Crumbly Writer

The same with "iPhone"

Great minds think alike! I cited "iPhone" as my evidence before reading your next post.

I'd spell out "okay" in dialogue because they're saying the full phrase, rather than spelling out an Acronym.

That's exactly what I thought until I looked it up in the Oxford Dictionary. It's primary definition of the word (not acronym) is 'OK' spelt with two capital letters. It then gives an alternative spelling for the word as 'okay'.

Crumbly Writer

@Ross at Play

It's primary definition of the word (not acronym) is 'OK' spelt with two capital letters. It then gives an alternative spelling for the word as 'okay'.

That's because, no one has ever been able to identify where the original term came from, thus they now list all three variations as being equally plausible.

However, being older, I'm more used to the "Okay" version, and see the "OK" as a Acronym abbreviation. Thus, I see the "FBI" acronym as spoken shorthand for "Federal Bureau of Investigations", while I see "OK" as a written shorthand for "okay".

Although, for younger readers, fewer people are used to the "okay" version, so there's a legitimate argument for eliminating it, though I'm still reluctant to do it myself. (i.e. there's an argument, just not a convincing one.)

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Crumbly Writer


However, being older, I'm more used to the "Okay" version, and see the "OK" as a Acronym abbreviation.


The odd thing about this, for me, is I only ever saw the 'OK' version while growing up, and it's only in the last twenty years have I seen it as 'okay.' Thus I wonder if the way of spelling it is regional. Of the various explanations of the source, I feel the one using 'Oche Aye' being corrupted from Scots is the most likely. But, as you say, there is no clear source noted.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Ross at Play

Are we agreed? ... No-one knows the origin of "OK", so it cannot be considered an acronym, and it's all right to use either "OK" or "okay" in any situation.
***
Back to the original question ... I am still convinced that grammatically "Smith & Wesson" is an indivisible unit and should be written that way in every situation.

ustourist

@Ross at Play

When I say Smith & Wesson I don't emphasize the 'and' the same way I would when saying 'ball and chain' or 'pizza and beer'. I do shorten it to almost an 'n', so the ampersand may be a more suitable way to express the shortened 'and' - particularly when using a trademark name that is widely used.
I agree with your gut feeling.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
awnlee jawking

@Ross at Play

I don't know what the rules are, or even whether there are any since ye olde englishe didn't have problems with trademarks. But purely from the point of readability I'd use 'Smith & Wesson' throughout. It's what readers are used to and the ampersand would be 'invisible'. Writing 'Smith and Wesson' potentially distracts readers while they convert it back to the recognised trade name.

Irrelevant factoid: I used to own a miniscule sliver of Smith & Wesson, back in the days when it was part of mini-conglomerate Tomkins.

AJ

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Ernest Bywater

The odd thing about this, for me, is I only ever saw the 'OK' version while growing up, and it's only in the last twenty years have I seen it as 'okay.' Thus I wonder if the way of spelling it is regional.

I strongly suspect that it is, and since it wasn't 'local' to Australia, you probably only saw the derivative "OK" form, while I remember the early (in my experience) "Okay" version (mostly from my parents and grandparents' generations).

Crumbly Writer

@Ross at Play

Back to the original question ... I am still convinced that grammatically "Smith & Wesson" is an indivisible unit and should be written that way in every situation.

I agree with Ernest in this regard. In dialogue, you'd use "Smith and Wesson", simply because no one says "ampersand". In narrative, you'd use the trademark form, simply because that's what people are familiar with, so I'd use "Smith & Wesson", at least initially. However, once you've introduced it, you can then switch it to something more personal, just as you can substitute the proper nouns "Mr. John Jay Smith" for the more familiar "John", once you've established you have a person relationship with them.

However, I don't have any documented 'proof' for that, my interpretation is simply based on logic, much as my interpretation of "okay" being correct because "OK" seems like an acronym. But they both fit into the logic of my worldview, so I'll stick with them until some one demonstrates they're wrong. (And hey, isn't that the best any of us can really do, since we're not language mavens equipped to perform original research on the history of words?)

Crumbly Writer

@ustourist

When I say Smith & Wesson I don't emphasize the 'and' the same way I would when saying 'ball and chain' or 'pizza and beer'. I do shorten it to almost an 'n', so the ampersand may be a more suitable way to express the shortened 'and' - particularly when using a trademark name that is widely used.

Except, almost the only place ampersands are traditionally used are in legal forms (ex: Funkerbell, Wittgerstein & Snauser). In that case, it denotes a very formal relationship, certainly not an 'n type of relationship.

It's fine to use the trade name in the narrative, but it's always possible to substitute a familiar name for a proper one, so as long as you introduce the name properly, you can then substitute it after that. Just as you substitute "Mrs. Alice Winkerstein" for "Mom".

Crumbly Writer

@awnlee jawking

But purely from the point of readability I'd use 'Smith & Wesson' throughout. It's what readers are used to and the ampersand would be 'invisible'.

This is my main point (despite my continued qualifiers). Stick to the accepted form, but if you're familiar enough with the product to have a pet name for it, then it's perfectly fine to substitute the pet name as a way of demonstrating your personal feelings for the product (just as someone might refer to a "crackberry" phone). But, in ALL other circumstances, I'd use the trade name.

Switch Blayde

@Ernest Bywater

why it should be Mister Smith and not Mr Smith in the dialogue.


Actually, it is "Mr. Smith" in dialogue. And "Dr. Smith." I once researched it and even went to some novels searching for it. I think in "Treasure Island" both Mr. and Dr. were used early on.

However, you'd write: "Mister, please give me a quarter." (But "Mr. Smith, please give me a quarter.")

As to OK, I always write it as okay in both the narrative and dialogue.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Switch Blayde

Thanks, everyone. I will write it as "Smith & Wesson" in the narrative and avoid using it in dialogue.

Ross at Play

@Switch Blayde

Actually, it is "Mr. Smith" in dialogue. And "Dr. Smith." I once researched it and even went to some novels searching for it. I think in "Treasure Island" both Mr. and Dr. were used early on.
However, you'd write: "Mister, please give me a quarter." (But "Mr. Smith, please give me a quarter.")

"Mr. Smith" is acceptable in dialogue. That convinces me it cannot be wrong to use "Smith & Wesson" in dialogue - on the grounds that a proper noun (including any punctuation marks included in how it is usually written) may be treated as sacrosanct, even in dialogue.
I would NOT CLAIM that implies other ways of writing it could not be acceptable too.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Ross at Play

"Mr. Smith" is acceptable in dialogue. That convinces me it cannot be wrong to use "Smith & Wesson" in dialogue - on the grounds that a proper noun (including any punctuation marks included in how it is usually written) may be treated as sacrosanct, even in dialogue.

I remember when Switch first brought this up (and documented it). This is a special case for surnames, NOT a catchall for proper names in general.

The key, is that "Dr." is consider a full surname, even though it's pronounced "Doctor" in dialogue. This was establish way, way back in the 1800's, so it's not a recent development.

You sir, in your insistence on discovering some golden rules, are in a rush to discover rules which apply in every case, but often, these are largely one-off rules, where they only apply to specific circumstances, not to every conceivable usage in a broader context.

In short, proper names are NOT trademarks, and neither are they surnames.

awnlee jawking

@Crumbly Writer

"Dr." is consider a full surname


So "Who" is his forename ;)

AJ

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Switch Blayde

This seems to be a good description of when to abbreviate and when to spell out - http://fandom-grammar.livejournal.com/79880.html

It ends with:

Spelling out all titles other than Mr., Mrs., or Ms. in dialogue and narrative is only a recommendation, but it has a logic that works for fiction writers. The only real rule is that once you've decided how you want to deal with titles, keep your style consistent throughout your story.


As to Dr., it says:

The title "Doctor" falls between Chicago and invitation rules. The abbreviation "Dr." is common enough—more common than "Capt." or "Prof."—that a reader will probably have no problem mentally translating it quickly. However the reader also is used to seeing the word "doctor" spelled out; it's not an unusual word that would trip up a reader. My personal preference is to spell it out in dialogue to maintain the sound of the character's speech.


So it's not so clear on Dr. or Doctor.

The article also addresses other titles, such as Captain. It says to always spell those out.

awnlee jawking

@Switch Blayde

It also says:

Write dialogue that allows the reader "hear" your characters speak. By spelling out as much as possible, you signal to the reader exactly what the character is saying.


I think that makes it clear that the article is a blog in which the author is expressing their personal preference rather than any hard and fast rules.

AJ

Crumbly Writer

@awnlee jawking

So "Who" is his forename ;)

Sorry, "Dr." is consider a full term of address.

A bit of terminology mismatch.

Slutsinger

@Ernest Bywater

You're asserting some things very strongly which I can't find any rules for. Do you have any citations for the claim that "Mr. Smith," would be wrong in dialogue, or that for large numbers, writing them out rather than spelling them would be wrong in dialogue. All your examples seem reasonable to do, but you're asserting them as if there are hard rules here, and many of them fall into what I believe to be author's choice.

Crumbly Writer

@Slutsinger

Do you have any citations for the claim that "Mr. Smith," would be wrong in dialogue, or that for large numbers, writing them out rather than spelling them would be wrong in dialogue.

Most of these are issues we've discussed before, so the references are buried on the forum (or our old one) somewhere. The spelling out of numbers (under one hundred) is to keep to the premise of the dialogue sounding like it's spoken, while not spelling them out (over one hundred) is an attempt not to overburden readers with too much information.

The bit about "Mr." and "Dr." not being appropriate in dialogue is Ernest disagreeing with Switch's and my statement that those rules (concerning dialogue) have been in existence (since the mid to late 1800's) much longer than the oldest style guides. They're not in keeping with many of the newest guidelines, but no one has yet overruled them.

Ernest Bywater

@Slutsinger

Do you have any citations for the claim that "Mr. Smith," would be wrong in dialogue,


Many grammar rules are hard and fast, many others aren't so hard and fast. Some are different for newspapers as well. While some vary from country to country, and I go with what i was taught way back when. Another part of the problem we have with grammar discussion here is the majority of materials available for guidance today are aimed at writing academic or media documents, not fictional stories.

I had previously found a lot of reference links, but, sadly, they're in the system still held by the Gestapo. However, it really comes down to a few major aspects:

1. Dialogue is the written words of what is spoken.

2. Clarity of what you're conveying.

3. Uniformity of how you present things in your work.

What you write as dialogue should make complete sense to the reader with the words just as they are. Thus, Marcus Welby MD is read as MD not as Medical Doctor which it's short for. Agent Smith of the FBI is read as FBI and not as Federal Bureau of Investigation which it's short for. The same applies to all other titles and ranks.

Take Capt. If a character says, "Ask Capt. Benelli." Is he instructing the person to speak with Captain Benelli, or Capitaine Benelli because the same abbreviation is used for both, one is the rank in English and the other is Italian, but they can be two different people.

On the same front a person can ask, "Did you see Mr Renior?" and mean either the US man Mister Renoir or the Frenchman Monsiuer Renior from which the word Mister is derived and both use the same abbreviation.

Is Dr. short for doctor or drive? Do you use the same short versions for the non-English equivalents so Mr. Smith talks to S. Lopez?

I read a story here at SoL where I couldn't work out why a character's name kept jumping from John to the initials LT. I wrote to the author to be told it's the abbreviation for Lieutenant. Yet I've never seen or heard of that version before, I've always seen it as Lieut. Smith for the rank as an abbreviation.

For me the litmus test for dialogue is how a text to speech renders the work. You get some real weird things if you aren't careful In a recent story I mentioned a shotgun as .410 and then said it was a four-ten shotgun in the dialogue. The text to speech software says four-ten well, but renders the .410 as 'dot four one zero' and an other piece of software says 'decimal four hundred and ten.' - which do you use in real life?

In the end it all comes down to an author writing how he, or she or it, wants to write, but don't get mad at readers if they don't like a work due to it not be clear or uniform in how the you treat things in the story.

Switch Blayde

@awnlee jawking

I think that makes it clear that the article is a blog in which the author is expressing their personal preference rather than any hard and fast rules.


The blog is definitely his opinion. He said so. He did reference the Chicago Manual and another, but it's definitely his opinion.

Ross at Play

@Crumbly Writer

You sir, in your insistence on discovering some golden rules, are in a rush to discover rules which apply in every case, but often, these are largely one-off rules, where they only apply to specific circumstances, not to every conceivable usage in a broader context.

NO! I have never said the existence of some principle precludes the possibility that other principles may take precedence in some situations. You misinterpret my words almost every time you use the word "every" to label something I have written, and you do that frequently.
***
However, there is one broad principle I have yet to see any situation where some other contradictory principle is important enough to apply in its place.
***
The broad principle I see is there are a variety of ways in which punctuation is used to enclose segments of text, and the rules applied are then determined by what type of text is enclosed, not anything external to that text.
The most obvious examples of this are:
* quotation marks to enclose speech and material quoted from some other source
* italics for the entire title of some work
* parentheses enclosing a clarifying note inside narrative.
***
I see the capitals used to distinguish proper names as another example of a segment of text being cut out from any surrounding text. The capitals alter readers that everything enclosed within the span of word(s) should be interpreted as a proper name - in exactly the same way quotation marks enclose words that should be interpreted as dialogue.
***
Once text has been separated out from surrounding you apply whatever the rules are for that type of text (and whatever exists on either side is irrelevant).
***
The rule for proper names is very simple: BE RESPECTFUL OF NAMES - and stylise them in the way their owner prefers.
***
I would always write the names of authors such as F. Scott Fitzgerald and E. E. 'Doc' Smith exactly as they write them.
I would write Dick Van Dyke with a capital V because he preferred it that way. With no other information I write the names of most of his relatives with a lowercase v.
I happily start a sentence with 'iPhobe' or 'eBay', although I cannot think of any other time I would not start a sentence with a capital.
It seems grossly inconsistent to write Smith & Wesson in any way except that which is preferred by the business.
***
You may think I'm always looking for rules to obey - I don't think it's extreme to suggest punctuating things according to what they truly are!

Replies:   richardshagrin
awnlee_jawking

@Switch Blayde

So it's not so clear on Dr. or Doctor.


I tried a very unscientific and very flawed experiment to compare the use of 'Dr' and 'Doctor' as a person's title in speech in a story. The result confirmed what I hoped (since it's what I've used in my latest affront to literature), that 'Dr' takes marginally less time for the brain to process than 'Doctor' and is therefore justified for being easier to read.

I'm sure cultural differences would lead to different results elsewhere in the world (Ernest, for example) so I wouldn't dream of insisting that other authors do the same.

AJ

richardshagrin

@Ross at Play

I happily start a sentence with 'iPhobe' or 'eBay', although I cannot think of any other time I would not start a sentence with a capital.

Perhaps a sentence that starts with the name of the poet, e. e. cummings.

richardshagrin

@awnlee jawking

hard and fast rules

At my age (72 yesterday) I can only use soft and slow rules.

awnlee jawking

@Ross at Play

It's primary definition of the word (not acronym) is 'OK' spelt with two capital letters.


It is primary definition????? Tsk tsk ;)

I've just used 'okayed' in another thread. What do they give as the past tense of OK? OKed?

AJ

Replies:   Ross at Play
awnlee jawking

@richardshagrin

OK


But soft and slow rules aren't effective at administering a spanking.

AJ

(spoiler - a play on the word 'rule' being a synonym of 'ruler' cf slide rule)

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@richardshagrin

At my age (72 yesterday) I can only use soft and slow rules.

Rules that are easily gummed, or at the very least, boiled until soft.

Crumbly Writer

@awnlee jawking

But soft and slow rules aren't effective at administering a spanking.

It all depends on who's spanking who, and why. A 'naughty girl' spanking is harsh and brisk, but a 'soft and caring' spanking spends more time caressing the abused flesh than bruising it.

P.S. I've never known anyone to use a slide rule for a spanking, not only were the devices prohibitively expensive, but it took too long to derrive the sin curse to be effective. (ex: "What was I spanking you for again?" "Who knows? I've already forgotten. By the way, those metal tips are especially harsh!")

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@awnlee jawking

It is primary definition????? Tsk tsk ;)

I've just used 'okayed' in another thread. What do they give as the past tense of OK? OKed?

My 'primary definition' I meant OK is the only one in the index. 'Okay' is only mentioned as an available alternative.
***
'Okay' is not in any irregular verb list, so 'okayed' is correct. The dictionary does not list those.
***
It does give the forms of the verb OK as OK's, OK'd, and OK'ing ... which makes me wonder how that did not make the list of irregular verbs.

Ross at Play
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer


I've never known anyone to use a slide rule for a spanking


cos it's a sin to tan a naughty girl's arse if you have the power to root her?

Replies:   paliden
paliden

@Ross at Play

cos it's a sin to tan a naughty girl's arse if you have the power to root her?

I agree, if for no other reason, she may refuse to allow you to root her any more.

StarFleet Carl

I'd take a look at what actual dead tree writers use. In current popular fiction, you'll see someone say, "I'm FBI Agent Smith." While our ears hear eff bee eye, actually writing FBI in conversation would be fine. In narrative you might say, I was introduced to FBI Agent Smith. If you want to pad your word count, you could say I was introduced to Federal Bureau of Investigation Agent Smith. I'm not sure why, though.

As for Smith & Wesson - in general conversation, we typically just say 'My Smith'. You could write 'I've an S&W' and be perfectly acceptable. Our eyes are going to see the ampersand, and if you were reading it aloud, you wouldn't actually say S Ampersand W, you'd say Ess and Dubya.

Although Glock and Sig are better ... but that's a subject for another topic... :)

Slutsinger

@Ernest Bywater

For me the litmus test for dialogue is how a text to speech renders the work. You get some real weird things if you aren't careful In a recent story I mentioned a shotgun as .410 and then

I think that's a mistake:-) I think I have as many filters in my brain between me and my TTS as any reader is likely to have between them and their eyes. I absolutely hate audio books.
I do appreciate the answer though. As I said I find your advice helpful, although I'd quibble about it as hard and fast rules. I do agree all the points you bring up are worth considering and thanks for making them.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
StarFleet Carl

@Ernest Bywater

read a story here at SoL where I couldn't work out why a character's name kept jumping from John to the initials LT. I wrote to the author to be told it's the abbreviation for Lieutenant. Yet I've never seen or heard of that version before, I've always seen it as Lieut. Smith for the rank as an abbreviation.


I've seen military writer have characters say 'Ell Tee', since that's how it sounds. In either event, LT is perfectly acceptable in the military. Cap or CPT is Captain, SGT is sergeant or sarge, MAJ is Major (very seldom said as mage), COL is Colonel - pronounced kernel, but you'll always spell it Colonel, unless your character is from the deep south, where every old man in a white suit is Col. someone or other...

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@StarFleet Carl

In either event, LT is perfectly acceptable in the military.


I've worked with thousands of military personnel, and never once heard them say the rank as LT or the others as Capt or Col - they usually get Looey (for lieutenant) captain or colonel or sarge when spoken, but what goes in written documents as a title in the equivalent of a narrative is another issue, but not what we've been discussing.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
StarFleet Carl
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater

I've worked with thousands of military personnel


Ditto here, since we were the only NBC unit in the division. I'm prior service, so when we were talking within the unit, I would ask my Ell Tee for instruction, or talk to the Cap'n. (I was in during the Cold War, and served with a lot of Vietnam vets.)

Where you can run into confusion is in dealing with squids versus grunts. Army rank 0-3 is Captain, abbreviated CPT. Navy O-6 (every one else's bird colonel) is also Captain, abbreviate CAPT. (And in unit, we didn't care if the Lieutenant was a butter or silver bar, even though those are 2LT versus 1LT.)

(Please note, Ernest, I'm not trying to sound like an ass here, it's just have I real world experience as a member of the U.S. military to back up what I said earlier).

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@StarFleet Carl

I real world experience as a member of the U.S. military to back up what I said earlier)


I spent many years working on Aussie military bases with foreign officers on detached duty to us, never once was anyone referred to as LT, in fact the most common abbreviation for a Lieutenant used by the US personnel I worked with was said as Looey - not sure if that's how they meant it to be spelled - It was often "Frank, did the Looey sign that form for you?" type of conversation. On papers it was always Liet. Jones etc. The other foreign officers who had the rank of Lieutenant used either the full title or shortened version of only the first syllable and thus sounded close to Looey, but not always the same.

Sometime you'd get Hi Cap'n' but never Hi Capt.

Crumbly Writer
Updated:

@Slutsinger


I think that's a mistake:-) I think I have as many filters in my brain between me and my TTS as any reader is likely to have between them and their eyes. I absolutely hate audio books.


If I'm not mistaken (and I might well be), if you add an "< alt="text">" command in your ebooks, it should override the normal text and pronounce it properly, though I doubt few here would go to that much trouble, much less just to test it out.

Note: Sorry, but my response got butchered after I posted it (I forgot about the angle quote limit on the site). Re-edited to add the proper command.

Back to Top