1 2 3
To save you the trouble, OED2 doesn't mention "philosopher's stone" at all. Only "philosophers' stone".

It gives no example of that usage.
But, as I have mentioned twice before (look, it's all cited above in this post and in yours too, much ... about which form is more "correct" in contemporary English. I am merely pointing out what exists in the references cited.

But what is the purpose of this newsgroup, if it isn't for silly arguments 'which form is more "correct" in contemporary English'?
John Briggs
This is all I want to say. I am not ... am merely pointing out what exists in the references cited.

But what is the purpose of this newsgroup, if it isn't for silly arguments 'which form is more "correct" in contemporary English'?

I can't argue with that. Apologies for being snippy in my previous post.
Giles.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
But what is the purpose of this newsgroup, if it isn't for silly arguments 'which form is more "correct" in contemporary English'?

For slightly less silly arguments about whether the word "correct" is meaningful in discussing a living language? :-)

Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site (URL removed)
Old teachers never die, they simply lose their class.
But what is the purpose of this newsgroup, if it isn't for silly arguments 'which form is more "correct" in contemporary English'?

For slightly less silly arguments about whether the word "correct" is meaningful in discussing a living language? :-)

...inasmuch as it draws the line between solecism and evolution?

The line may move over time, but it always exists somewhere.

Cheers,
Tony

Tony Mountifield
For slightly less silly arguments about whether the word "correct" is meaningful in discussing a living language? :-)

...inasmuch as it draws the line between solecism and evolution? The line may move over time, but it always exists somewhere.

But where do you draw it in the case under discussion, where the OED describe "philosophers' stone" as the 'correct' version, but fail to give any examples of it ever having been employed?

John Briggs
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
...inasmuch as it draws the line between solecism and evolution? The line may move over time, but it always exists somewhere.

But where do you draw it in the case under discussion, where the OED describe "philosophers' stone" as the 'correct' version, but fail to give any examples of it ever having been employed?

I think you're making a good point, John. Have you considered asking the OED about it?
http://www.askoxford.com/contactus/?view=uk
Matti
But where do you draw it in the case under ... to give any examples of it ever having been employed?

I think you're making a good point, John. Have you considered asking the OED about it? http://www.askoxford.com/contactus/?view=uk

Yes, I have considered it :-)

John Briggs
"John Briggs" (Email Removed) ha scritto nel messaggio
Yes, I have considered it :-)

Would you mind sharing their reply with us? Unless you have considered it and have decided not to do it...
Bye, FB
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Yes, I have considered it :-)

Would you mind sharing their reply with us? Unless you have considered it and have decided not to do it...

Yes, of course.

John Briggs