Page 62 of The Elements of Stlye makes this reference to the word type, but not "type of." This type of car. That type of person. Are these vulgarisms as well?
No. Strunk (& White) is contrasting the 'vulgar' 'that type employee' with the acceptable 'that type of employee'.
not really, mm... the s/w reference states that 'type of' should be 'kind of'... read it again... it doesn't say 'type of' anywhere...
Yeah I read that the other day (first time actually reading S&W), and couldn't believe that terrible piece of advice. "Type of" is fine.
it's not at all 'terrible'... or at least wasn't, when the 4th ed. was publsihed, but since 'type of' is in common use, it may be a bit out of date...
It's also worth noting that some sins of wording are worse than others. And since style guides like Strunk and White point them out, they are probably in wide use at the time that edition is assembled. Some may get such widespread use that they become more or less reputable. Others are simply so foul that they get frog-marched off to oblivion. It's generally best to at least be aware of Strunk and White's recommendations, and understand them. But then you will have to develop a sense of when you can viloate those guidelines with impunity, and when you should treat it as gospel. You'll never get into trouble by following their recommendations, though.
