HMS Thunder Child Vs HMS Thunderchild

[Commandingtripod]

Title may sound a little confusing but let me explain.

Lately I've been having some thought into the name of the ship.

Wells wrote it as "Thunder Child" - although I've seen many write it as "Thunderchild".

Is there really a 'correct' way to write it?

[Lensman]

To be pedantic:

The grammatically correct way to write it would be HMS Thunder Child. Ship names should be italicized. But it is Thunder Child, not Thunderchild. It's a ficticious ship, so Wells' spelling is the only authority.

[richardburton]

Agree with Lensman there. It's a fictitious ship that Wells originally named, so his should be the only spelling.

[Jonatan]

I've also seen many spell it as "Thunderchild" so that's how I thought it was to be. Even on Wikipedia and information sites I've seen the spelling.

Oh well, gues I'll have to modify all my posts then.

/Jonatan

[killraven]

jonatan said:

I've also seen many spell it as "Thunderchild" so that's how I thought it was to be. Even on Wikipedia and information sites I've seen the spelling.

Oh well, gues I'll have to modify all my posts then.

/Jonatan

That's 'cos sadly far too many people can't spell for toffee.. Neither do they bother to spellcheck before posting on Wiki

KR

[Lensman]

This wouldn't be the first time I've seen misspellings or bad grammar at Wikipedia. There's a popular opinion that spelling and grammar don't count in Internet postings, and I altho I don't agree I won't argue the point. But when something is posted as reference material, then absolutely the post-er should take care to check for spelling and grammar errors. And if they don't have the ability to do so, they should run it by someone who *can*, before posting.

[nervouspete]

Amen, Lensman. It is also amusing that a key piffling law of the internet covers the inability of anyone to spell or use grammar correctly when discussing the matter of such, even when the writer is a clever, lucid chap. As any fule kno.

(Molesworth + fragment.)

[Lensman]

Yah, they were discussing this on the Larry Niven list. Some corollary of Murphy's Law: If you criticize someone's spelling or grammar, your post is guaranteed to contain at least one such error. I forget what that "law" is called, tho.

I'll admit, tho, that I use "casual" spelling for such words as thru, tho, and even "enuff" which is only proper in Marvel Comics editorials.

But I wouldn't use such casual spelling in anything submitted to Wikipedia.

[killraven]

lensman said:

Yah, they were discussing this on the Larry Niven list. Some corollary of Murphy's Law: If you criticize someone's spelling or grammar, your post is guaranteed to contain at least one such error. I forget what that "law" is called, tho.

I'll admit, tho, that I use "casual" spelling for such words as thru, tho, and even "enuff" which is only proper in Marvel Comics editorials.

But I wouldn't use such casual spelling in anything submitted to Wikipedia.

That's entirely possible...after all, nobody's perfect ;D

However, to back up what Lensman states, names, proper nouns and other words of specific reference should be spelled correctly, since, as we have already established, there is only one way to spell these words.

Other naff spelling errors due to ignorance/poor education (e.g. 'there' in place of 'their' or 'to' in place of 'too'), although highly irritating, are not quite as important as they are not specific reference material... Of course, this doesn't mean that the offender doesn't deserve to be flayed alive

KR

[bittersound]

richardburton said:

Agree with Lensman there. It's a fictitious ship that Wells originally named, so his should be the only spelling.

Not only that but it's a *magical* ship that can sail sideways through the sea.

Must. Stop. Watching. Pendragon. Film...