Changing Mrs. to Mrs in Word 2003

[James99]

Hello I have a 100,00 word document that needs editing. I would like to
change Mrs. Mr. to Mrs, Mr etc. (ie without a fullstop). Is it possible in
Word 2003 for it to reformat a document to this. I've tried to format
autocorrect but that seems to work on new documents only. I would appreciate
any help. Thanks

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

Have you tried using Find and Replace?

 

[grammatim]

If you know that none of the abbreviations comes at the end of a
sentence (which seems likely), you can simply do Find/Replace of each
abbreviaton. (The "etc." in your description is troubling, though.)

Or, you could switch your SpellCheck language to English (UK) and see
if it catches them.

 

[Peter A]

Hello I have a 100,00 word document that needs editing. I would like to
change Mrs. Mr. to Mrs, Mr etc. (ie without a fullstop). Is it possible in
Word 2003 for it to reformat a document to this. I've tried to format
autocorrect but that seems to work on new documents only. I would appreciate
any help. Thanks

Use search and replace.

 

[Graham Mayor]

There is no reason why English UK spell check should catch this as the lack
of a full stop is wrong in British English. These are abbreviations and
their omission is simply sloppy practice. However.a wildcard search for
([MD]{1}[rs]{1,2}).
replace with
\1
will remove the stop from Mr. Mrs. and Dr. It will also catch Ms. which is
not an abbreviation, but which is usually given a stop for consistency.
Other salutations eg Messrs. require an extra search

--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor - Word MVP

My web site www.gmayor.com

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>

 

[grammatim]

No, the rule for punctuating abbreviations in British style is that if
the abbreviation includes the last letter of the abbreviated word,
there is no period. This holds for M(iste)r, Mist)r(es)s, and
D(octo)r.

There is no reason why English UK spell check should catch this as the lack
of a full stop is wrong in British English. These are abbreviations and
their omission is simply sloppy practice. However.a wildcard search for
([MD]{1}[rs]{1,2}).
replace with
\1
will remove the stop from Mr. Mrs. and Dr. It will also catch Ms. which is
not an abbreviation, but which is usually given a stop for consistency.
Other salutations eg Messrs. require an extra search

--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor -  Word MVP

My web sitewww.gmayor.com
Word MVP web sitehttp://word.mvps.org
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>

If you know that none of the abbreviations comes at the end of a
sentence (which seems likely), you can simply do Find/Replace of each
abbreviaton. (The "etc." in your description is troubling, though.)

Or, you could switch your SpellCheck language to English (UK) and see
if it catches them.

- Show quoted text -

 

[Graham Mayor]

Can you point to a reputable British reference that indicates this as a
fact - rather than American ones - as this was certainly not what I was
taught in my English education - in England!

--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor - Word MVP

My web site www.gmayor.com

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>

No, the rule for punctuating abbreviations in British style is that if
the abbreviation includes the last letter of the abbreviated word,
there is no period. This holds for M(iste)r, Mist)r(es)s, and
D(octo)r.

There is no reason why English UK spell check should catch this as
the lack of a full stop is wrong in British English. These are
abbreviations and their omission is simply sloppy practice.
However.a wildcard search for ([MD]{1}[rs]{1,2}).
replace with
\1
will remove the stop from Mr. Mrs. and Dr. It will also catch Ms.
which is not an abbreviation, but which is usually given a stop for
consistency. Other salutations eg Messrs. require an extra search

--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor - Word MVP

My web sitewww.gmayor.com
Word MVP web sitehttp://word.mvps.org
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>

If you know that none of the abbreviations comes at the end of a
sentence (which seems likely), you can simply do Find/Replace of
each abbreviaton. (The "etc." in your description is troubling,
though.)

Or, you could switch your SpellCheck language to English (UK) and
see if it catches them.

On Jun 8, 12:42 pm, James99 <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hello I have a 100,00 word document that needs editing. I would
like to change Mrs. Mr. to Mrs, Mr etc. (ie without a fullstop).
Is it possible in Word 2003 for it to reformat a document to this.
I've tried to format autocorrect but that seems to work on new
documents only. I would appreciate any help. Thanks- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

I don't know what the rule is or may be, but it certainly seems to be
publishing convention in the UK these days, as opposed to the US, which uses
periods for all.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA

Can you point to a reputable British reference that indicates this as a
fact - rather than American ones - as this was certainly not what I was
taught in my English education - in England!

--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor - Word MVP

My web site www.gmayor.com

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>

No, the rule for punctuating abbreviations in British style is that if
the abbreviation includes the last letter of the abbreviated word,
there is no period. This holds for M(iste)r, Mist)r(es)s, and
D(octo)r.

There is no reason why English UK spell check should catch this as
the lack of a full stop is wrong in British English. These are
abbreviations and their omission is simply sloppy practice.
However.a wildcard search for ([MD]{1}[rs]{1,2}).
replace with
\1
will remove the stop from Mr. Mrs. and Dr. It will also catch Ms.
which is not an abbreviation, but which is usually given a stop for
consistency. Other salutations eg Messrs. require an extra search

--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor - Word MVP

My web sitewww.gmayor.com
Word MVP web sitehttp://word.mvps.org
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>



grammatim wrote:
If you know that none of the abbreviations comes at the end of a
sentence (which seems likely), you can simply do Find/Replace of
each abbreviaton. (The "etc." in your description is troubling,
though.)

Or, you could switch your SpellCheck language to English (UK) and
see if it catches them.

On Jun 8, 12:42 pm, James99 <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hello I have a 100,00 word document that needs editing. I would
like to change Mrs. Mr. to Mrs, Mr etc. (ie without a fullstop).
Is it possible in Word 2003 for it to reformat a document to this.
I've tried to format autocorrect but that seems to work on new
documents only. I would appreciate any help. Thanks- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[Graham Mayor]

For a number of years, the standard of English language education in the UK
has been pitiful. We have graduates - even teachers - who cannot spell and
who have the scantest appreciation of grammar. It was not always like that.
Those who set the 'standards' would say that English is an evolving
language.

--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor - Word MVP

My web site www.gmayor.com

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>

I don't know what the rule is or may be, but it certainly seems to be
publishing convention in the UK these days, as opposed to the US,
which uses periods for all.

Can you point to a reputable British reference that indicates this
as a fact - rather than American ones - as this was certainly not
what I was taught in my English education - in England!

--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor - Word MVP

My web site www.gmayor.com

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>

No, the rule for punctuating abbreviations in British style is that
if the abbreviation includes the last letter of the abbreviated
word, there is no period. This holds for M(iste)r, Mist)r(es)s, and
D(octo)r.

On Jun 9, 12:57 am, "Graham Mayor" <[email protected]>
wrote:
There is no reason why English UK spell check should catch this as
the lack of a full stop is wrong in British English. These are
abbreviations and their omission is simply sloppy practice.
However.a wildcard search for ([MD]{1}[rs]{1,2}).
replace with
\1
will remove the stop from Mr. Mrs. and Dr. It will also catch Ms.
which is not an abbreviation, but which is usually given a stop for
consistency. Other salutations eg Messrs. require an extra search

--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor - Word MVP

My web sitewww.gmayor.com
Word MVP web sitehttp://word.mvps.org
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>



grammatim wrote:
If you know that none of the abbreviations comes at the end of a
sentence (which seems likely), you can simply do Find/Replace of
each abbreviaton. (The "etc." in your description is troubling,
though.)

Or, you could switch your SpellCheck language to English (UK) and
see if it catches them.

On Jun 8, 12:42 pm, James99 <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hello I have a 100,00 word document that needs editing. I would
like to change Mrs. Mr. to Mrs, Mr etc. (ie without a fullstop).
Is it possible in Word 2003 for it to reformat a document to
this. I've tried to format autocorrect but that seems to work on
new documents only. I would appreciate any help. Thanks- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[grammatim]

Several English friends have confirmed that punctuation is not taught
in British (elementary) schools as it is in US schools.

Poor spelling in the younger end of the baby boom generation can to
some extent be attributed to the "ita" "initial teaching alphabet"
experiment done in the 1960s: it's a scheme of somewhat phonetic
spelling that resembles traditional orthography (t.o.), and was shown
to have some advantage in teaching children to read somewhat faster
than teaching them in t.o., with no ill effects in transitioning to
ordinary reading matter in t.o. However, either they did not test, or
they did not report unfavorable results, for t.o. spelling ability. I
suspect the reason was a remnant of class division: lower-class
schoolboys were not expected to ever need to write anything (except
possibly greengroc'ers signs), so spelling ability was not considered
important.

As for "appreciation of grammar," that's quite a different field from
being able to put together a coherent sentence (or even being a good
writer). In 12th grade we had a semester of Cultural Anthropology,
which included one class where the teacher showed us a phonemic
analysis of a language. It may have been that one hour that pointed me
eventually in the direction of linguistics.

Now forty years later, there's no reason to suppose that linguistics
is yet mentioned in high school -- although now, unlike then, books
are available for the general public on what linguistics is and what
linguists do.

PS The fact that English (like every language) is "evolving" (i.e.,
constantly changing) has nothing to do with teaching the standard
language. There is a register known as "formal written English" that
is what schools need to be concerned with. What they should _not_ be
concerned with is trying to make kids _speak_ Formal Written English.

For a number of years, the standard of English language education in the UK
has been pitiful. We have graduates - even teachers - who cannot spell and
who have the scantest appreciation of grammar. It was not always like that..
 Those who set the 'standards' would say that English is an evolving
language.

--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor -  Word MVP

My web sitewww.gmayor.com
Word MVP web sitehttp://word.mvps.org
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>

I don't know what the rule is or may be, but it certainly seems to be
publishing convention in the UK these days, as opposed to the US,
which uses periods for all.

Can you point to a reputable British reference that indicates this
as a fact - rather than American ones - as this was certainly not
what I was taught in my English education - in England!
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor -  Word MVP
My web sitewww.gmayor.com
Word MVP web sitehttp://word.mvps.org
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
grammatim wrote:
No, the rule for punctuating abbreviations in British style is that
if the abbreviation includes the last letter of the abbreviated
word, there is no period. This holds for M(iste)r, Mist)r(es)s, and
D(octo)r.
On Jun 9, 12:57 am, "Graham Mayor" <[email protected]>
wrote:
There is no reason why English UK spell check should catch this as
the lack of a full stop is wrong in British English. These are
abbreviations and their omission is simply sloppy practice.
However.a wildcard search for ([MD]{1}[rs]{1,2}).
replace with
\1
will remove the stop from Mr. Mrs. and Dr. It will also catch Ms.
which is not an abbreviation, but which is usually given a stop for
consistency. Other salutations eg Messrs. require an extra search
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor - Word MVP
My web sitewww.gmayor.com
Word MVP web sitehttp://word.mvps.org
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
grammatim wrote:
If you know that none of the abbreviations comes at the end of a
sentence (which seems likely), you can simply do Find/Replace of
each abbreviaton. (The "etc." in your description is troubling,
though.)
Or, you could switch your SpellCheck language to English (UK) and
see if it catches them.
On Jun 8, 12:42 pm, James99 <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hello I have a 100,00 word document that needs editing. I would
like to change Mrs. Mr. to Mrs, Mr etc. (ie without a fullstop).
Is it possible in Word 2003 for it to reformat a document to
this. I've tried to format autocorrect but that seems to work on
new documents only. I would appreciate any help. Thanks- Hide
quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[JoAnn Paules]

I have used government and industry standards for abbreviations for years.
The rule is no periods unless the abbreviation could be misinterpreted as a
word. Spell check hates me for that.

--

JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]
Tech Editor for "Microsoft Publisher 2007 For Dummies"

I don't know what the rule is or may be, but it certainly seems to be
publishing convention in the UK these days, as opposed to the US, which
uses periods for all.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA

Can you point to a reputable British reference that indicates this as a
fact - rather than American ones - as this was certainly not what I was
taught in my English education - in England!

--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor - Word MVP

My web site www.gmayor.com

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>

No, the rule for punctuating abbreviations in British style is that if
the abbreviation includes the last letter of the abbreviated word,
there is no period. This holds for M(iste)r, Mist)r(es)s, and
D(octo)r.

There is no reason why English UK spell check should catch this as
the lack of a full stop is wrong in British English. These are
abbreviations and their omission is simply sloppy practice.
However.a wildcard search for ([MD]{1}[rs]{1,2}).
replace with
\1
will remove the stop from Mr. Mrs. and Dr. It will also catch Ms.
which is not an abbreviation, but which is usually given a stop for
consistency. Other salutations eg Messrs. require an extra search

--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor - Word MVP

My web sitewww.gmayor.com
Word MVP web sitehttp://word.mvps.org
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>



grammatim wrote:
If you know that none of the abbreviations comes at the end of a
sentence (which seems likely), you can simply do Find/Replace of
each abbreviaton. (The "etc." in your description is troubling,
though.)

Or, you could switch your SpellCheck language to English (UK) and
see if it catches them.

On Jun 8, 12:42 pm, James99 <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hello I have a 100,00 word document that needs editing. I would
like to change Mrs. Mr. to Mrs, Mr etc. (ie without a fullstop).
Is it possible in Word 2003 for it to reformat a document to this.
I've tried to format autocorrect but that seems to work on new
documents only. I would appreciate any help. Thanks- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[Graham Mayor]

I agree - and particularly with your postscript. Unfortunately it isn't
happening. It seems that the use of correct English is considered elitist,
and in a 'multi-racial society' probably has racist overtones!

--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor - Word MVP

My web site www.gmayor.com

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>

Several English friends have confirmed that punctuation is not taught
in British (elementary) schools as it is in US schools.

Poor spelling in the younger end of the baby boom generation can to
some extent be attributed to the "ita" "initial teaching alphabet"
experiment done in the 1960s: it's a scheme of somewhat phonetic
spelling that resembles traditional orthography (t.o.), and was shown
to have some advantage in teaching children to read somewhat faster
than teaching them in t.o., with no ill effects in transitioning to
ordinary reading matter in t.o. However, either they did not test, or
they did not report unfavorable results, for t.o. spelling ability. I
suspect the reason was a remnant of class division: lower-class
schoolboys were not expected to ever need to write anything (except
possibly greengroc'ers signs), so spelling ability was not considered
important.

As for "appreciation of grammar," that's quite a different field from
being able to put together a coherent sentence (or even being a good
writer). In 12th grade we had a semester of Cultural Anthropology,
which included one class where the teacher showed us a phonemic
analysis of a language. It may have been that one hour that pointed me
eventually in the direction of linguistics.

Now forty years later, there's no reason to suppose that linguistics
is yet mentioned in high school -- although now, unlike then, books
are available for the general public on what linguistics is and what
linguists do.

PS The fact that English (like every language) is "evolving" (i.e.,
constantly changing) has nothing to do with teaching the standard
language. There is a register known as "formal written English" that
is what schools need to be concerned with. What they should _not_ be
concerned with is trying to make kids _speak_ Formal Written English.

For a number of years, the standard of English language education in
the UK has been pitiful. We have graduates - even teachers - who
cannot spell and who have the scantest appreciation of grammar. It
was not always like that. Those who set the 'standards' would say
that English is an evolving language.

--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor - Word MVP

My web sitewww.gmayor.com
Word MVP web sitehttp://word.mvps.org
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>

I don't know what the rule is or may be, but it certainly seems to
be publishing convention in the UK these days, as opposed to the US,
which uses periods for all.

Can you point to a reputable British reference that indicates this
as a fact - rather than American ones - as this was certainly not
what I was taught in my English education - in England!

My web sitewww.gmayor.com
Word MVP web sitehttp://word.mvps.org
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>

grammatim wrote:
No, the rule for punctuating abbreviations in British style is
that if the abbreviation includes the last letter of the
abbreviated word, there is no period. This holds for M(iste)r,
Mist)r(es)s, and D(octo)r.

On Jun 9, 12:57 am, "Graham Mayor" <[email protected]>
wrote:
There is no reason why English UK spell check should catch this
as the lack of a full stop is wrong in British English. These are
abbreviations and their omission is simply sloppy practice.
However.a wildcard search for ([MD]{1}[rs]{1,2}).
replace with
\1
will remove the stop from Mr. Mrs. and Dr. It will also catch Ms.
which is not an abbreviation, but which is usually given a stop
for consistency. Other salutations eg Messrs. require an extra
search

My web sitewww.gmayor.com
Word MVP web sitehttp://word.mvps.org
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>

grammatim wrote:
If you know that none of the abbreviations comes at the end of a
sentence (which seems likely), you can simply do Find/Replace of
each abbreviaton. (The "etc." in your description is troubling,
though.)

Or, you could switch your SpellCheck language to English (UK)
and see if it catches them.

On Jun 8, 12:42 pm, James99 <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hello I have a 100,00 word document that needs editing. I would
like to change Mrs. Mr. to Mrs, Mr etc. (ie without a
fullstop). Is it possible in Word 2003 for it to reformat a
document to this. I've tried to format autocorrect but that
seems to work on new documents only. I would appreciate any
help. Thanks- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[grammatim]

What do you mean by "use"? To use forma written English in almost any
conversational situation is in fact elitist and expression of one's
own supposed class superiority.

I agree - and particularly with your postscript. Unfortunately it isn't
happening. It seems that the use of correct English is considered elitist,
and in a 'multi-racial society' probably has racist overtones!

--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor -  Word MVP

My web sitewww.gmayor.com
Word MVP web sitehttp://word.mvps.org
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>

Several English friends have confirmed that punctuation is not taught
in British (elementary) schools as it is in US schools.

Poor spelling in the younger end of the baby boom generation can to
some extent be attributed to the "ita" "initial teaching alphabet"
experiment done in the 1960s: it's a scheme of somewhat phonetic
spelling that resembles traditional orthography (t.o.), and was shown
to have some advantage in teaching children to read somewhat faster
than teaching them in t.o., with no ill effects in transitioning to
ordinary reading matter in t.o. However, either they did not test, or
they did not report unfavorable results, for t.o. spelling ability. I
suspect the reason was a remnant of class division: lower-class
schoolboys were not expected to ever need to write anything (except
possibly greengroc'ers signs), so spelling ability was not considered
important.

As for "appreciation of grammar," that's quite a different field from
being able to put together a coherent sentence (or even being a good
writer). In 12th grade we had a semester of Cultural Anthropology,
which included one class where the teacher showed us a phonemic
analysis of a language. It may have been that one hour that pointed me
eventually in the direction of linguistics.

Now forty years later, there's no reason to suppose that linguistics
is yet mentioned in high school -- although now, unlike then, books
are available for the general public on what linguistics is and what
linguists do.

PS The fact that English (like every language) is "evolving" (i.e.,
constantly changing) has nothing to do with teaching the standard
language. There is a register known as "formal written English" that
is what schools need to be concerned with. What they should _not_ be
concerned with is trying to make kids _speak_ Formal Written English.

For a number of years, the standard of English language education in
the UK has been pitiful. We have graduates - even teachers - who
cannot spell and who have the scantest appreciation of grammar. It
was not always like that. Those who set the 'standards' would say
that English is an evolving language.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor - Word MVP
My web sitewww.gmayor.com
Word MVP web sitehttp://word.mvps.org
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Suzanne S. Barnhill wrote:
I don't know what the rule is or may be, but it certainly seems to
be publishing convention in the UK these days, as opposed to the US,
which uses periods for all.
Can you point to a reputable British reference that indicates this
as a fact - rather than American ones - as this was certainly not
what I was taught in my English education - in England!
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor - Word MVP
My web sitewww.gmayor.com
Word MVP web sitehttp://word.mvps.org
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
grammatim wrote:
No, the rule for punctuating abbreviations in British style is
that if the abbreviation includes the last letter of the
abbreviated word, there is no period. This holds for M(iste)r,
Mist)r(es)s, and D(octo)r.
On Jun 9, 12:57 am, "Graham Mayor" <[email protected]>
wrote:
There is no reason why English UK spell check should catch this
as the lack of a full stop is wrong in British English. These are
abbreviations and their omission is simply sloppy practice.
However.a wildcard search for ([MD]{1}[rs]{1,2}).
replace with
\1
will remove the stop from Mr. Mrs. and Dr. It will also catch Ms.
which is not an abbreviation, but which is usually given a stop
for consistency. Other salutations eg Messrs. require an extra
search
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor - Word MVP
My web sitewww.gmayor.com
Word MVP web sitehttp://word.mvps.org
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
grammatim wrote:
If you know that none of the abbreviations comes at the end of a
sentence (which seems likely), you can simply do Find/Replace of
each abbreviaton. (The "etc." in your description is troubling,
though.)
Or, you could switch your SpellCheck language to English (UK)
and see if it catches them.
On Jun 8, 12:42 pm, James99 <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hello I have a 100,00 word document that needs editing. I would
like to change Mrs. Mr. to Mrs, Mr etc. (ie without a
fullstop). Is it possible in Word 2003 for it to reformat a
document to this. I've tried to format autocorrect but that
seems to work on new documents only. I would appreciate any
help. Thanks-

 

[Graham Mayor]

I was referring to the need to educate in the use if formal written English.

--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor - Word MVP

My web site www.gmayor.com

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>

What do you mean by "use"? To use forma written English in almost any
conversational situation is in fact elitist and expression of one's
own supposed class superiority.

I agree - and particularly with your postscript. Unfortunately it
isn't happening. It seems that the use of correct English is
considered elitist, and in a 'multi-racial society' probably has
racist overtones!

--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor - Word MVP

My web sitewww.gmayor.com
Word MVP web sitehttp://word.mvps.org
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>

Several English friends have confirmed that punctuation is not
taught in British (elementary) schools as it is in US schools.

Poor spelling in the younger end of the baby boom generation can to
some extent be attributed to the "ita" "initial teaching alphabet"
experiment done in the 1960s: it's a scheme of somewhat phonetic
spelling that resembles traditional orthography (t.o.), and was
shown to have some advantage in teaching children to read somewhat
faster than teaching them in t.o., with no ill effects in
transitioning to ordinary reading matter in t.o. However, either
they did not test, or they did not report unfavorable results, for
t.o. spelling ability. I suspect the reason was a remnant of class
division: lower-class schoolboys were not expected to ever need to
write anything (except possibly greengroc'ers signs), so spelling
ability was not considered important.

As for "appreciation of grammar," that's quite a different field
from being able to put together a coherent sentence (or even being
a good writer). In 12th grade we had a semester of Cultural
Anthropology, which included one class where the teacher showed us
a phonemic analysis of a language. It may have been that one hour
that pointed me eventually in the direction of linguistics.

Now forty years later, there's no reason to suppose that linguistics
is yet mentioned in high school -- although now, unlike then, books
are available for the general public on what linguistics is and what
linguists do.

PS The fact that English (like every language) is "evolving" (i.e.,
constantly changing) has nothing to do with teaching the standard
language. There is a register known as "formal written English" that
is what schools need to be concerned with. What they should _not_ be
concerned with is trying to make kids _speak_ Formal Written
English.

On Jun 9, 11:08 am, "Graham Mayor" <[email protected]>
wrote:
For a number of years, the standard of English language education
in the UK has been pitiful. We have graduates - even teachers - who
cannot spell and who have the scantest appreciation of grammar. It
was not always like that. Those who set the 'standards' would
say that English is an evolving language.

My web sitewww.gmayor.com
Word MVP web sitehttp://word.mvps.org
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>

Suzanne S. Barnhill wrote:
I don't know what the rule is or may be, but it certainly seems to
be publishing convention in the UK these days, as opposed to the
US, which uses periods for all.

Can you point to a reputable British reference that indicates
this as a fact - rather than American ones - as this was
certainly not what I was taught in my English education - in
England!

My web sitewww.gmayor.com
Word MVP web sitehttp://word.mvps.org
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>

grammatim wrote:
No, the rule for punctuating abbreviations in British style is
that if the abbreviation includes the last letter of the
abbreviated word, there is no period. This holds for M(iste)r,
Mist)r(es)s, and D(octo)r.

On Jun 9, 12:57 am, "Graham Mayor" <[email protected]>
wrote:
There is no reason why English UK spell check should catch this
as the lack of a full stop is wrong in British English. These
are abbreviations and their omission is simply sloppy practice.
However.a wildcard search for ([MD]{1}[rs]{1,2}).
replace with
\1
will remove the stop from Mr. Mrs. and Dr. It will also catch
Ms. which is not an abbreviation, but which is usually given a
stop for consistency. Other salutations eg Messrs. require an
extra search

My web sitewww.gmayor.com
Word MVP web sitehttp://word.mvps.org
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>

grammatim wrote:
If you know that none of the abbreviations comes at the end
of a sentence (which seems likely), you can simply do
Find/Replace of each abbreviaton. (The "etc." in your
description is troubling, though.)

Or, you could switch your SpellCheck language to English (UK)
and see if it catches them.

On Jun 8, 12:42 pm, James99
Hello I have a 100,00 word document that needs editing. I
would like to change Mrs. Mr. to Mrs, Mr etc. (ie without a
fullstop). Is it possible in Word 2003 for it to reformat a
document to this. I've tried to format autocorrect but that
seems to work on new documents only. I would appreciate any
help. Thanks-