4

I am writing a scientific paper. In this context, it is usual to cite other works with the last name of the first author followed by "et al." when there are many. If I want to use a possessive form, how should I use the Saxon genitive?

For example, is "Smith's et al." correct?

user54604
  • 43

1 Answers1

2

First of all, et al. should be in italics. That said, the common way to refer to a publication like that would be:

Smith and coworkers'...

or

Smith and colleagues'

Et al. means and others, it is an abbreviation of the latin et alii. If you really really wanted to use it in the possessive, you would write

Smith et al's

but don't do that, it is ugly and unclear. Paraphrase, use and coworkers or similar constructs.

terdon
  • 21,559
  • Shouldn't it be Smith and coworkers'? – Armen Ծիրունյան Oct 21 '13 at 17:36
  • 1
    What about the dot? Smith et al.'s ? – user54604 Oct 21 '13 at 17:38
  • Forget the dot. – John Lawler Oct 21 '13 at 17:40
  • @ArmenԾիրունյան ouch, yes, of course it should, thanks. – terdon Oct 21 '13 at 18:26
  • 1
    'Coworkers' strikes me as rather dumbed-down English to use in such circumstances, especially with a Latin phrase. (How much milk might they have produced?) It is not much used at all in Britain. What is wrong with 'colleagues'? – WS2 Oct 21 '13 at 20:20
  • Et alii would stand for male coworkers only; therefore, this being a scientific paper, et al., if used, would mean et alia. Unless the study was undertaken in one of those men's colleges... – Talia Ford Oct 21 '13 at 20:37
  • Coworkers always looks too much like cow-workers for my liking! – WS2 Oct 21 '13 at 21:40
  • @TaliaFord thanks, I was just repeating what I learned in the link I gave, I have no Latin whatsoever. That said, the term hails from a time when science was published only by men and those few women who were doing science would have to hide behind their spouses or use pseudonyms so so it probably is indeed an abbreviation of et alli. – terdon Oct 21 '13 at 21:43
  • @WS2 colleagues is fine as well. Both are used in scientific papers. – terdon Oct 21 '13 at 21:46
  • People do write 's after et al. (I don't actually think it's ugly or unclear, but that's just me.) –  Oct 21 '13 at 21:59
  • 1
    @TaliaFord: You seem to be saying that unidentified authors are neuter rather than masculine. If so, I don't think you're right either in Latin or English. – Tim Lymington Oct 21 '13 at 22:06
  • @TimLymington I don't think I seem to be saying that. There's grammar, and then there's usage. Grammatically speaking, you're right: m.pl. alii, f.pl. aliae, n.pl. alia. However, pragmatically speaking, people use the neuter gender when the sex of a plural referent is unknown. They just do, by convention. – Talia Ford Oct 21 '13 at 22:22
  • @TaliaFord they do? I haven't had the privilege of observing native Latin speakers in conversation :). Joking apart, many languages use the neuter for mixed sex groups so I imagine Latin does so as well, this is not really relevant to this Q&A though since the abbreviation in question does seem to come from the male form, which is understandable given the historical context. – terdon Oct 21 '13 at 22:24
  • @terdon It's simple: if you were asked by your editor to expand the abbreviation et al. in the context of the op, what would you write? You should write et alia, because that's what people do. That the originating language is formally dead and that et al. ages ago was an abbreviation only for et alii, are irrelevant for the now. – Talia Ford Oct 21 '13 at 22:34
  • 1
    @TaliaFord so you're saying that I should change what abbreviations stand for to better fit the times? Perhaps but I find that strange, an abbreviation has a specific meaning, I would not consider it correct to adapt that. Would you also correct hoi polloi to ta polla to make it neuter? Greek of course uses the male and not the neuter when the sex in unknown so this might not be the best example, did Latin really use the neuter? – terdon Oct 21 '13 at 22:45
  • First, I'm not saying et al. should be expanded. But, if you were asked to (for whatever reason), it is not I who's saying that in some context you should use alia, but WordNet 3.0 is, Webster's (2010) is, and OED (1989) is, and so is COCA. Second, I was considering an abbreviation, not "abbreviations." Your hoi polloi thus ends up acting as a straw man as big as the Wicker Man. Last, I dunno in which c. et alia gained a foothold, but it's inconsequential whether it did while Latin was still alive. Today, the convention is et alia; you can break it,but you will be breaking it. – Talia Ford Oct 21 '13 at 23:41
  • @TaliaFord: Do you have some evidence to support that ? Collins, for example (http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/et-al) says clearly that it stands for et alii. – Tim Lymington Oct 22 '13 at 09:08
  • wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=et+al., definitions.uslegal.com/e/et-alia, www.wordwebonline.com/en/ETALIA, english.stackexchange.com/questions/33304/et-cetera-vs-et-al. But yes, some dictionaries, Collins not being the only one, are adhering to the old way of things, which I didn't know until a moment ago. So, sure, you go the old way if you must. I won't. – Talia Ford Oct 22 '13 at 09:35
  • EtymOnline says: abbreviation of Latin et alii (masc.), et aliæ (fem.), or et alia (neuter), in any case meaning "and others." –  Oct 22 '13 at 09:44