While I don't normally plug commercial products or ventures, I'm "bustin' my buttons" over my S-I-L's new book - her second (that I know of!) The following excerpt is from a posting on Helen S Fletcher's blog, The Ardent Cook [Update: Pastries Like a Pro]. (Helen is Hunky Husband’s wonderful, much-loved younger sister.)
European Tarts – Divinely Doable Desserts with Little or No Baking
Copyright, Helen S. Fletcher, 2010. All rights reserved.
All photos by T. Mike Fletcher, unless otherwise noted.
European Tarts – Divinely Doable Desserts with Little or No Baking will be released on December 1st – just in time for the holidays. So start making a list of anyone you ever knew that likes to cook/bake/eat. For an advance peek at the blog, go to www.europeantarts.com,
This is a unique concept in cookbook publishing. While this book is fantastic for anyone interested in baking, the blog that accompanies it makes it almost foolproof for anyone. The blog holds a lot of how to photographs, just like this blog, to assist anyone who needs additional help or just wants to see how I do something. So please do visit it to see what I mean.
Oh, YUM! I pledge to bake every single one. Fabulous photos!
Posted by: M.E. | November 03, 2012 at 05:35 PM
ME--Helen is a fabulous cook, as was her mother. Her husband, the photographer, is also world class!
Posted by: Cop Car | November 03, 2012 at 10:17 PM
his photos of these tarts-in-the-making are indeed world class. had me drooling!!
Posted by: M.E. | November 04, 2012 at 09:54 AM
S-I-L's ??? I always thought it was S's-I-L.
But then I attach a different meaning to 'Doable European tarts' too ;-)
Posted by: Ole Phat Stu | November 04, 2012 at 11:42 PM
OK, Stu, join the rest of us up here on the sidewalk! FYI: S-I-L was awarded the title of "Most Photogenic" in St Louis - while her photographer, now-husband was still dating her younger sister circa 1960.
Posted by: Cop Car | November 05, 2012 at 07:29 AM
It would be S's-I-L if she were talking about several people, but she is using the possessive form. At least it seems right to me.
Posted by: bogie | November 06, 2012 at 12:59 AM
I disagree, Bogie. IMHO :-
The singular is S-i-L.
The plural is Ss-i-L.
Genitive singular S's-i-L.
Genitive plural Ss'-i-L.
But I may be wrong so I'll ask Xtreme English, as an editor and ex English teacher she should know.
Posted by: Ole Phat Stu | November 06, 2012 at 05:12 AM
These tarts to look and sound good!
Posted by: joared | November 06, 2012 at 05:28 AM
Stu and Bogie: S-I-L is an acronym. You could look it up in the definitive dictionary on acronyms, but that was published in 1970; S-I-L comes from contemporary TV (or literachoor?). In one online resource, S-I-L also is spelled SIL without the bloody hyphens, but that might confuse those of us who already on shaky ground.
Anyway, Cop Car's "S-I-L's" is absolutely correct. My own S-I-L's 90th birthday was this past spring. I had four S-I-Ls, but only one is left now.
BTW, the rules of spelling and punctuation already have taken a nosedive with the insane bidness of adding 's to nouns to make them plural. [Plaintive former editorial note: My whole birth family seems to have fallen into that trap! They are too smart to be a bunch of yokels or, as they would say, "yokel's"!!] I might use "yokelses," especially if I was trying to be funny, which is a strain for an editor.
Definition of editors recently seen: "mice trying to become rats."
Genug already! I have to go vote.
Posted by: M.E. | November 06, 2012 at 06:36 AM
Oops! "...who already ARE on shaky ground...."
Posted by: M.E. | November 06, 2012 at 06:37 AM
Sorry, Stu – I had thought that you were just razzing me. Now I see that a whole discussion has sprung up.
This is what I was taught, as I recall:
....Singular: sister-in-law
....Plural: sisters-in-law or sister-in-laws, depending upon the meaning; as in, “We are sisters-in-law.” Or “I have three sister-in-laws.” I believe that the second form is no longer in use; but, that is what I was taught.
Contrarily, I do not recall having been taught the relevant pluralizations of those forms. (I am so old-fashioned that I still spell the case "genetive"!) Back in those days (1940s-early 1950s), no short designator was taught, to the best of my memory. When I use S-I-L or S-i-L, each of which I would claim is not an acronym (although, SIL, is, and federal government editors would favor SiL), I apply the logic somewhat present in the formation of any other plural.
My take would be:
....Possessive Singular: sister-in-law’s
....Possessive Plural: sisters-in-law’s
Logically, it would seem that there should be a “sisters’-in-law” to match the “sisters-in-law”; but, that is so awkward that it makes me shudder.
EVERYONE - I'm OK with your using whatever comes to mind in writing about in-laws. There should be a better, unhyphenated term to start with! In fact, I should originally have written, "While I don't normally plug commercial products or ventures, I'm 'bustin' my buttons' over Hunky Husband's sister's new book...."
Posted by: Cop Car | November 06, 2012 at 08:54 AM
I stand corrected. Thankyou Mary (aka Xtreme English) for your clarification.
Posted by: Ole Phat Stu | November 06, 2012 at 09:58 AM
To anyone who cares: I repeat XE's "Genug already!" Before Bogie chides me, I'll put that in English: Enough already!
Posted by: Cop Car | November 06, 2012 at 10:52 AM
Stu: no worries. You helped clarify this whole meshuggas!!
Posted by: M.E. | November 06, 2012 at 05:01 PM
CC - we agreed on the spelling thing, so I'm perplexed as to why I should chide you.
Posted by: bogie | November 07, 2012 at 07:18 AM
Ah, Bogie, you should not. After all, I am your mother. I have noted over the years, however, your preference that we keep communications in English!
Posted by: Cop Car | November 07, 2012 at 07:31 AM