Apologies, my earlier note was cut short in error. I meant to proceed to
point out (as Ralph immediately did) that the "s/he" case was a very
specific one, for which abbreviation could plausibly be argued, but that
there are plenty of other cases of playful punctuation which are meant
to highlight punning or multiple senses perceived as "dormant" within a
given phrase, to say nothing of nonce words and coinages such as that in
the title of a recent self-help gardening book by one David Tracey:
/Guerrilla Gardening: A Manualfesto.
Marking up the detailed analysis of such textual phenomena is an
amusing intellectual exercise, but I can't see what practical benefit it
James Cummings wrote:
> Ralph Cleminson wrote:
>> So do I -- up to a point. That is, while "s/he" is, in practice, short
>> for "he or she" (leaving aside the question of whether the writer wrote
>> the former in order to avoid writing the latter), my impression is that
>> "media/tion" may be used not to mean "media or mediation" but in order
>> to convey a concept that partakes of both but is neither. In such a
>> case it is neither regularisable nor expandable, and the only thing to
>> do is to leave it as it is.
> Yes, in that case it is simple a specialised <term>media/tion</term> which
> should be glossed I think. (or perhaps something to be marked as <distinct>
> depending on why one wants to mark this?) It certain isn't an abbreviation
> in the normal sense. You could argue that it is an abbreviation for a
> concept...but isn't that what words are?