esprix: the word “tho” did not come up, as far as I know. And you saying it, does not make it improper. Nor does your source mention the word, from your cites so far. The Oxford English dictionary is far more than just a 'dictionary", it also has agrammar section, and “the Oxford Companion to the English Language”, which is a grammar & usage guide. Oh, and just so YOU know, “gay” & “guy” are “colloq.”, ie not accepted in formal English–it should be “Inquire of the Homosexual Fellow” 
And I said “folks” weere calling me subliterate, not you, but I’m wrong again…
And as far as Capitalization goes, I quote fron the above mentioned source: The Oxford Companion to the English Language: “Despite the expectation that there are or should be rules for capitalization, above all for proper nouns, conventions remain unstable” They go on tos ay there is a consensus in titles, eg. “the Earl of Essex”, so it appears “the District Attorney”, etc is correct, or at least generally accepted. They also accept the cap. of abstract nouns such as “Truth”, but they suggest that is declining. They also allow: “Initial capitals are widely used to highlight or dramatize certain words”- ie. my use of what some have called “random caps” is mostly OK.
As for our friend the Apostrophe: they indicate that the use for omission, elision & plurality is decreasing, and perhaps losing general acceptance, so you might be just ahead of your time if you do not “’” “lets”. However, Yosemite will be glad to hear they call “illiterate” the use of additional, unnecessary apostrophes, such as “We sell shepherds pie’s”. As far as “’” in plural abbrv. such as “V.I.P.” they accept both “VIP’s” and VIPs", altho the former is better. In dates, “1980’s” is better than “1980s”, altho both are acceptable, as is “the '80s”, as “the '80’s” is awkward.
They go on at length on all these subjects, going into the historical and trends in usage, as well as what is “std.” now (1992). I hope this makes you all happy.
