Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 08:00:37 -0700 From: Bruce Gelder Subject: Re: "little" and "jr" Jerry Miller wrote: > The "Jr." problem could be solved in many cases by never using "Sr." to >designate the father in the twosome. I mean there would be "Joe Smith" and "Joe >Smith Jr." and that should suffice, especially since no one is actually named >Joe Smith Sr. on their birth certificate. It is merely a convenient way to make >sure someone understands that you are referring to the elder rather than the >younger Joe Smith, which is fine in conversation but totally unnecessary, in my >view, in written copy. Agree? Disagree? This would be fine if the reader could be assured that the convention was being used consistently. In the absence of this assurance, however, I don't think copy editors are doing any favors by allowing the designator to be omitted. I say leave it on--the added clarity is well worth the tiny extra effort. > It seems to me the Jr. has to remain in effect even after the Sr. dies, at >least in sports--and probably politics, show business (i.e., Sammy Davis Jr., >Will Rogers Jr.), etc., for the people who don't read the obituary columns. I >suppose it would be less important for us common folks, at least in >conversation (but it might be in obits?) Where I work there used to be an Edward Cheadle, Sr., and an Edward Cheadle, Jr. Once EC, Sr., retired, the "Jr." was dropped for the younger EC in all company-wide references to him (spoken and written), even in his computer log-on name (which had formerly included "jr"). For whatever that's worth. Bruce Gelder bgelder[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]