Re: Plural Form

[dalloff@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Dave Althoff)]

Wayne Stewart (waynes@intergate.bc.ca) wrote:
: I've always balked at calling group of IIe machines IIes. It looks
: like another model halfway between the IIe and the IIgs. Could
: anyone suggest a satisfactory way of writting this

Hmmm...I thought the model halfway between the IIe and the IIgs was the
IIc+...

Anyway, to heck with the plural form...I have problems with even working
out the typography for one machine.  I mean, "IIe" has never looked right
to me, and accordingly (and traditionally) I generally use "][e".  Except
that Apple changed the ROM in the enhanced ][e and made it "//e" instead. 
On the other hand, IIgs seems OK, somehow, while ][gs and //gs just don't
seem to be quite right.  I think it was the //c which was first identified
as an Apple // rather than an Apple ][...and of course if you are talking
about a ][ or a ][+, neither the // nor the II will do...it's gotta be ][.

Can you tell it's darned near ][ in the morning?

--Dave Althoff, ][.
-- 
    /^\        _      *** We'll run it in the snow if we have to! ***
   /XXX\      /X\     /X\_      _     /X\__      _     _        _____  
  /XXXXX\    /XXX\  _/XXXX\_   /X\   /XXXXX\    /X\   /X\      /XXXXX
_/XXXXXXX\__/XXXXX\/XXXXXXXX\_/XXX\_/XXXXXXX\__/XXX\_/XXX\_/\_/XXXXXX