Just a note. When I first learned this DTP (graphic design) stuff in the mid-80’s – there was no one to teach it, so we all learned by flying by the seat of our pants.
To this end, I did some serious study of typography, scouring the local library for any and all books about the subject.
One thing came up about the ampersand (BTW I agree with you about the lovliness [sic] of the ligature). It is not strictly a replacement for “and.” According to my research, there is a “possessive” quality to the ampersand, and to simply replace “and” with an amperand [sic] is not correct in all cases.
For example, “Sanford & Son” is a correct usage, but “Moving & Storage” is not.
I don’t know if this matters to you, you may just be in it for the typography, but I always thought it was an interesting “factoid.”
Michael
I’ve never heard this before. Yes, I know I am the curator of the ampersand blog, but some of the granular details of proper ampersand usage are beyond me. Thoughts? Corrections? Please leave a comment or email if you have something to add. I want to hear from the real grammar folks on this one.
Tags: ampersand, grammar, usage
I don’t think that’s proper.
Then again, I’m only basing it off the dictionary definition:
ampersand |ˈampərˌsand|
noun
the sign & (standing for and, as in Smith & Co., or the Latin et, as in &c.).
ORIGIN mid 19th cent.: alteration of and per se and ‘ & by itself is and,’ chanted as an aid to learning the sign.