plural of et al - views please

[tearinghairout]

Ok: 'Smith et al's research shows that...'
Can I stick an 's' on Latin?

Or could it be Smith's et al research?

(Might just go with 'Research by Smith et al' but I'd like to know anyway!

Thanks

[BecauseImWorthIt]

Isn't 'et al' a plural in the first place?

Therefore Smith et al's research ...'?

[tearinghairout]

So Smith et al's is OK? It just seems funny to put an 's' on a Latin phrase.

[Poledra]

You're not looking for a plural here, you're looking for the possessive (well, it is Pedants' Corner).

I have seen 'Smith et al's research...' but I personally don't like it. I like your second option best, or you can just say 'Research has shown that...(Smith et al, 2001).'

[bumpybecky]

I'd go with the second option or Poledra's alternative.

[tearinghairout]

Poledra, yes, you're right. That was sloppy of me. Am very tired and very bored proofing a very boring document... any excuse to get onto MN!

[gruber]

It is a plural already, short for "et alii" - "and others". Agree with Poledra, best option sounds ...(Smith et al, 2001).

Hope the document works out ok!

[tearinghairout]

Yes, didn't mean plural, meant 'Can I stick an 's' on it' Sorry, am nearly asleep. Only 118 pages to go. Yawn.

So, the concensus is to go for Smith's et al (1980) research. The thing with that is that it sounds as though only Smith was researching, the et al were standing about looking on!

Or cop out with Research by.. etc

[tearinghairout]

Thanks, I agree Ruby.

Everyone - Just to brighten your day: the author is talking about ADHD and I've just read that Ratline has been shown to improve it.

Just shows, once again, the wonder of spellcheck

[tearinghairout]

Doesn't kill the little blighters then? (Rats or children, take your pick)