ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

While I do consider myself a Grammar Fiend, I am a little bit confused over the usage of "its" and "it's".

Obviously one uses "it's" where "it is" could be used, but when implying posession (eg. "The dog licked it's/its wounds.") which one are we supposed to use? I've been told that "it's" should be used in the above example, but if that is so, when should one use "its"? Could someone outline some example cases in which each instance is supposed to be used?

Other questions of grammar are welcome in this thread.

― Andrew (enneff), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:07 (9 years ago) Permalink

its

― mark p (Mark P), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:09 (9 years ago) Permalink

Posession = its. No apostrophe.

It Is contraction = ONLY acceptible use of it's.

(pls ignore my spelling errors, because I know I am right on the its/it's issue)

― kate (kate), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:10 (9 years ago) Permalink

you were told wrong. The dog licked its wounds.

http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000227.htm

― teeny (teeny), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:10 (9 years ago) Permalink

it's = it is ONLY

possessive of it has no apostrophe EVAH!!

viz: the dog licked its wounds

ditto plural of it ("he ended his avant-garde poem with a whole line of its"

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:11 (9 years ago) Permalink

its

otherwise it would read "the dog licked it is wounds" or "the dog licked it has wounds"

― j0e (j0e), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:11 (9 years ago) Permalink

close brackets

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:11 (9 years ago) Permalink

Its = ownership thing, think of it as like his or hers.

― Tim (Tim), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:12 (9 years ago) Permalink

and his and hers never take an apostrophe, if that helps you remember.

― teeny (teeny), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:13 (9 years ago) Permalink

grammarian cluster alert!!

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:13 (9 years ago) Permalink

What if your name is "it"?

― Sam (chirombo), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:14 (9 years ago) Permalink

it licked his wounds

― mark p (Mark P), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:14 (9 years ago) Permalink

apostrophes are so last century

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:15 (9 years ago) Permalink

theyre the microhouse of punctuation

― mark p (Mark P), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:15 (9 years ago) Permalink

"and then smog licked ott's wounds"

― mark p (Mark P), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:17 (9 years ago) Permalink

Here's my question. I'm proofing this German website which my company had translated into English so we can use it as a resource. When referring to a made-up person, like a subordinate, they alternate between him and her from sentence to sentence, so it will be like:
Giving feedback to a subordinate helps him learn.
Then
Positive rapport helps a subordinate build her self-esteem.
But in the US, we would use him/her, or his/her, like:
Giving feedback to a subordinate helps him/her learn.
But sometimes this can get really tortured. So my question is, when is it appropriate to use "them" or "their" for a single person, like:
Giving feedback to a subordinate helps them learn.
Are you just supposed to use this when it will make things clearer? Or is it grammatically incorrect but tolerated? I really hate "him/her" and would rather keep it the way the Germans wrote it, but it has to be in proper English business grammar.

― NA. (Nick A.), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:19 (9 years ago) Permalink

grammatically incorrect but tolerated etiquette-wise, basically

how abt:
Giving feedback to a subordinate helps him learn (her learn). [and then alternate the order]

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:22 (9 years ago) Permalink

Cor Mark that's even clunkier!

Grammatically incorrect but increasingly tolerated in my experience. In the version of business English our business uses here in England, no-one would even notice. Except the sort of pedants you'd like to irritate.

― Tim (Tim), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:24 (9 years ago) Permalink

just use "him"

― Dave Stelfox (Dave Stelfox), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:28 (9 years ago) Permalink

No it's not: you get a whole sentence followed by an alternative section you can easily ignore. (Because it's in brackets.)

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:28 (9 years ago) Permalink

(nutcase) Yes maybe you're right.

― Tim (Tim), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:31 (9 years ago) Permalink

How about:

Giving feedback to subordinateS helps them learn.

Dilemma solved.

― kate (kate), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:32 (9 years ago) Permalink

just use "him" but put a disclaimer at the bottom telling everyone how much women are valued in the workplace and that you're actually dead politcally correct, like, and you'll be fine...

― Dave Stelfox (Dave Stelfox), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:34 (9 years ago) Permalink

if you're going to start a fight you might as well start it by putting "her" the whole time, and then put a disclaimer at the bottom saying men can eat a bag of dicks

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:37 (9 years ago) Permalink

Use "him/the dog".

― Sam (chirombo), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:37 (9 years ago) Permalink

just include a picture of a german woman with subtitle "him" and youre sorted

― mark p (Mark P), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:39 (9 years ago) Permalink

if you're going to start a fight you might as well start it by putting "her" the whole time,

either or'sgood with me

men can eat a bag of dicks

i live for the day i see this in any corporate communication

― Dave Stelfox (Dave Stelfox), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:40 (9 years ago) Permalink

kate is OTM.

― teeny (teeny), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:41 (9 years ago) Permalink

just use "her" but put a disclaimer at the bottom telling everyone how much men are valued in the workplace and that you're actually dead politcally correct, like, and you'll be fine...

no, them is acceptable these days, and has been for years

― Alan (Alan), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:41 (9 years ago) Permalink

alternately substitute any instance of him, her, them or theirs with 'rammstein'

― mark p (Mark P), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:44 (9 years ago) Permalink

"giving feedback to a subordinate helps rammstein learn"

― mark p (Mark P), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:46 (9 years ago) Permalink

You could also alternate 'him' and 'her' in different examples - a favourite self-help book technique but never mind. I still don't like 'them' in written English.

― Archel (Archel), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:46 (9 years ago) Permalink

But it's fine in spoken English?

― RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 17 July 2003 13:59 (9 years ago) Permalink

What does Nesbit do when describing something possessed by the Psammead.

― Pete (Pete), Thursday, 17 July 2003 14:09 (9 years ago) Permalink

Everything's fine in spoken English, it's in flux and I don't pay attention anyway :)

― Archel (Archel), Thursday, 17 July 2003 14:09 (9 years ago) Permalink

Alternating him and her was the Thing to Do when I was at Hahvahd.

― Colin Meeder (Mert), Thursday, 17 July 2003 14:18 (9 years ago) Permalink

I use Shem to mean both.

― Pete (Pete), Thursday, 17 July 2003 14:19 (9 years ago) Permalink

good point ptee:

things belonging to Cousin It are Cousin It's

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 17 July 2003 14:19 (9 years ago) Permalink

"Them".

― Chris P (Chris P), Thursday, 17 July 2003 14:31 (9 years ago) Permalink

I use the third person plural rather than any of the other alternatives. If you actually put things into plural as much as possible, that helps.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Thursday, 17 July 2003 19:47 (9 years ago) Permalink

Alternating him and her was the Thing to Do when I was at Hahvahd.

That's what people kept telling me, but I was never that adventurous.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 17 July 2003 20:21 (9 years ago) Permalink

I was going to make Chris's point without solid evidence. Hurrah for 'them'.

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 17 July 2003 21:04 (9 years ago) Permalink

y'know what? that it's/its thing has been bothering me for years and now i know. didn't realise it was that simple. Its like an epiphany ;-)

― dog latin (dog latin), Friday, 18 July 2003 01:16 (9 years ago) Permalink

Using "them" or any other plural pronoun to refer to a singular antecedent is a horrible horrible thing and should be avoided.

It used to be gramatically acceptable to use a masculine pronoun (he, him, etc.) when referring to a person of unspecified gender (you know what I mean.. I can't think of any other way to put it), but now the "he or she"/"his or her" method is the proper form.

I'm not sure if it makes a difference whether you use a slash or the word "or." I suspect that the slash is unacceptable in formal writing.

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Friday, 18 July 2003 02:11 (9 years ago) Permalink

"giving feedback to a subordinate helps motherfuckers learn," italics or boldface on "learn" obv. possible/encouraged

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Friday, 18 July 2003 02:33 (9 years ago) Permalink

"I know what you're thinking. Did s/he fire six shots or only five?"

― amateurist (amateurist), Friday, 18 July 2003 03:31 (9 years ago) Permalink

I suspect that the slash is unacceptable in formal writing.

Unless it's academic writing, and it allows you to make a terrible pun somehow.

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 18 July 2003 04:31 (9 years ago) Permalink

but now the "he or she"/"his or her" method is the proper form.

Proper, maybe. But it should be pointed out that if you're having to cram this into your sentence, you;re writing a clumsy sentence, and you should probably drop back and punt.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Friday, 18 July 2003 04:34 (9 years ago) Permalink

Not that I don't write clumsy sentences all the time, mind you. It's just that I'm aware of it.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Friday, 18 July 2003 04:35 (9 years ago) Permalink

7 months pass...

Quick - is "fact-checking" hyphenated? Or is it "factchecking"? Oh no, they both look weird!

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Monday, 8 March 2004 00:24 (9 years ago) Permalink

I use the hyphen.

― Mary (Mary), Monday, 8 March 2004 00:44 (9 years ago) Permalink

So...should I?

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Monday, 8 March 2004 00:45 (9 years ago) Permalink

I am never sure with phrases like that. I don't think you'll be shot down for any of the three options. The Guardian style guide is not very helpful on this point:

hyphens
Our style is to use one word wherever possible, including some instances where a word might be hyphenated by other publications. Hyphens tend to clutter up text (particularly when the computer breaks already hyphenated words at the end of lines)

Inventions, ideas and new concepts often begin life as two words, then become hyphenated, before finally becoming accepted as one word. Why wait? "Wire-less" and "down-stairs" were once hyphenated. In pursuit of this it is preferable to go further than Collins does in many cases: eg trenchcoat is two words in Collins but one under our style

Never use hyphens after adverbs, eg politically naive, wholly owned. But do use them to form compound adjectives, eg two-tonne vessel, three-year deal

Do use hyphens where not using one would be ambiguous, eg to distinguish "black-cab drivers come under attack" from "black cab-drivers come under attack"

― N. (nickdastoor), Monday, 8 March 2004 00:48 (9 years ago) Permalink

For a US employer, I would go with fact checker, noun, and fact-check, verb, though I don't think it's that important, unless you are applying for a copyediting job as a copy editor.

― Mary (Mary), Monday, 8 March 2004 00:54 (9 years ago) Permalink

Well, it is for a US employer and it does involve some copyediting. I am going for "fact-checking". Thanks!

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Monday, 8 March 2004 00:57 (9 years ago) Permalink

But both N. and Mary advise against using a hyphen, so what are you thanking them for? I agree with both of them. If you're a "fact-checking cuz" the hyphen works, but a "fact checker" should be two words, like a "kitchen porter" or a "piano tuner." Some jobs have become one word, like "dishwasher," and maybe fact checkers are edging into this privileged group. But I think a hyphen is wrong for the noun you're looking for.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 03:45 (9 years ago) Permalink

I would go with fact checker, noun, and fact-check, verb,

Tracer, I read this as advocating the phrase "fact-checking" as a verb (sorry, should have made that clear) so thanks were in order!

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 04:16 (9 years ago) Permalink

Thanks!

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 04:16 (9 years ago) Permalink

Anyway, it's all signed, sealed, stamped, and delivered now, so we shall see what comes of it...

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 04:17 (9 years ago) Permalink

Silly Tracer: Fact checker is the noun, fact-check is the verb, and fact-checking is the gerund. When in doubt search Google News and align your style with the New York Times or similar. I've just realized that this thread title is wrong—it should be Copy editors.

― Mary (Mary), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 09:43 (9 years ago) Permalink

Yes, silly Tracer.

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 11:44 (9 years ago) Permalink

6 months pass...

grammar question:

assuming i only have one brother, would it be acceptable to write, "I went with my brother Isaac to the store" or do i have to write, "I went with my brother, Isaac, to the store" ?

for some reason i am under the impression that non-essential info can be stuck in without commas as long as it is only one or two words. but apparently, this is wrong?

― j c (j c), Friday, 1 October 2004 03:33 (8 years ago) Permalink

A former professor of mine used to refuse to grade papers where the "it's/its" mistake was made. He marked them "Apostrophe Apocalypse"

― Hurting (Hurting), Friday, 1 October 2004 03:37 (8 years ago) Permalink

I'd drop the commas, j c - that many commas were more popular in a time long past, but I think it can look a tad oldfashioned these days.

― Trayce (trayce), Friday, 1 October 2004 04:13 (8 years ago) Permalink

If Isaac's your only brother, then you need the commas, because "my brother" and "Isaac" are both referring to the same thing and "Isaac" is therefore a nonessential element. That is, if you just said "my brother," that would be enough information to know who you were talking about, since you only have one. Likewise, if you have more than one brother, the name becomes essential information, because there's no way of knowing which brother you mean unless you also include the name. "My brother Isaac" becomes like saying "my friend Sam" -- which would only be "my friend, Sam," if you only had one friend. Which would be very sad.

(fun with nonessential elements)

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Friday, 1 October 2004 05:54 (8 years ago) Permalink

sam's a pretty cool dude though

― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Friday, 1 October 2004 05:56 (8 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, if you're only going to have one friend, you can do worse.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Friday, 1 October 2004 06:16 (8 years ago) Permalink

assuming i only have one brother, would it be acceptable to write, "I went with my brother Isaac to the store" or do i have to write, "I went with my brother, Isaac, to the store" ?

'I went to the store with my brother Isaac.'

― Core of Sphagnum (Autumn Almanac), Friday, 1 October 2004 06:25 (8 years ago) Permalink

you could just say "brother Isaac" and sound all mormon

― amateur!!!st (amateurist), Friday, 1 October 2004 12:17 (8 years ago) Permalink

1 month passes...

OK, I've just been writing and re-writing this sentence for the last ten minutes:

The evidence for “Americanization” of French culture is mixed, and its extent is impossible to measure, as culture is not easily definable, let alone quantifiable.

Please can you help me arrange it so it sounds better. Most importantly I need a more essay-register way of saying "let alone", but the whole sentence seems really clumsy still and I don't know how to fix it.

I hope there's someone around who can help. My head hurts.

― Cathy (Cathy), Sunday, 28 November 2004 17:59 (8 years ago) Permalink

I always try to split up sentences when they have too many clauses.

Culture is not easily definable, much less quantifiable. Thus, not only is the evidence for "Americanization" of French culture mixed, but its actual extent is impossible to measure.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Sunday, 28 November 2004 18:08 (8 years ago) Permalink

Perfect! Thanks very much. : ))))))))

― Cathy (Cathy), Sunday, 28 November 2004 18:15 (8 years ago) Permalink

You must use "but also" if you use "not only"

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Sunday, 28 November 2004 18:16 (8 years ago) Permalink

"Culture is not easily definable, much less quantifiable; thus, the evidence for "Americanization" of French culture mixed, and its actual extent is impossible to measure."

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Sunday, 28 November 2004 18:17 (8 years ago) Permalink

(add an "is" before mixed, obv. :P)

the "not only/but" thing is unnecessary

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Sunday, 28 November 2004 18:18 (8 years ago) Permalink

actually now that I look at it, "it" has an unclear antecedent. It looks like it's saying that the extent of the evidence is immeasurable rather than the extent of "Americanization"

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Sunday, 28 November 2004 18:20 (8 years ago) Permalink

see, this is why I hate writing essays. And I have two due tomorrow for history >:(

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Sunday, 28 November 2004 18:20 (8 years ago) Permalink

I think the sentence was perfectly OK in the first place, Cathy.

― Puddin'Head Miller (PJ Miller), Sunday, 28 November 2004 18:57 (8 years ago) Permalink

Don't say that, PJ! It's changed now, and I hope (and think) for the better.

Thanks all.

I just finished my essay, wahey!!

― Cathy (Cathy), Sunday, 28 November 2004 19:27 (8 years ago) Permalink

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Sunday, 28 November 2004 19:41 (8 years ago) Permalink

I'm running into the same too many ideas/sentence thing in my papers too.

I've decided to switch from a Jan 27, 1997 format to a 27 Jan 1997 format for dates because eliminating the extra comma helps the readability of some of my nastier sentences.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Sunday, 28 November 2004 20:46 (8 years ago) Permalink

5 months pass...

REVIVE because I need someone to pimp this sentence, which is offensive to hard-core, old-fashioned grammar/usage nazis in more than one place. Winner will have his/her sentence published in an HIV/AIDS glossary famous among dozens.

Here it is: "Although there are many different types of HLA proteins, each person has only a small, relatively unique set that is inherited from their parents."

Thanks much. And, uh, I'm on deadline, so hurry up!

― quincie, Monday, 2 May 2005 17:21 (8 years ago) Permalink

just go with a singular pronoun or the old "his or her" if you're feeling PC.

― Miss Misery (thatgirl), Monday, 2 May 2005 17:26 (8 years ago) Permalink

"His or her parents" is what you want--nothing PC about it.

― The Mad Puffin, Monday, 2 May 2005 17:30 (8 years ago) Permalink

"Although many different types of HLA proteins exist, each person has only a small and realtively unique, inherited set."

― diedre mousedropping (Dave225), Monday, 2 May 2005 17:32 (8 years ago) Permalink

Although there are many different types of HLA proteins, each person inherits only a small and relatively unique subset.

Although there are many different types of HLA proteins, individuals inherit from their parents only a small and relatively unique subset.

etc.

― rogermexico (rogermexico), Monday, 2 May 2005 17:32 (8 years ago) Permalink

"Although there are many different types of HLA proteins, for every human there is only a small, relatively unique set that is inherited from his or her parents."

― ken c (ken c), Monday, 2 May 2005 17:32 (8 years ago) Permalink

"Although many different types of HLA proteins exist, each person inherits only a small, realtively unique set."

.. not sure if that meaning is accurate or not. You may want to clarify the sentence in that .. is only the inherited set small, or is the total set small?

― diedre mousedropping (Dave225), Monday, 2 May 2005 17:34 (8 years ago) Permalink

Looks like diedre and I agree: just elide the problem areas.

You don't have to be a grammar/usage nazi to object to torture in all its forms, including wrt the language.

― rogermexico (rogermexico), Monday, 2 May 2005 17:35 (8 years ago) Permalink

Where would it be inherited from if not from your parents???? Can you inherit from your uncle? I would throw that phrase out completely.

Also, I want to kill the person who prompted Andrew's initial post.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 2 May 2005 17:48 (8 years ago) Permalink

OK this is good, thank you, but the "relatively unique" thing is driving me nuts, too! Yet it rather gets the point across. . .

So, any thoughts on "relatively unique?" Oh shit I'm an idiot, I just realized that is a great pun! Maybe I should keep it, then.

― quincie, Monday, 2 May 2005 18:12 (8 years ago) Permalink

"Although there are many different types of HLA proteins, each person inherents only a small, relatively unique subset (from his or her parents)."

― The Ghost of Part in Parens Optional (Dan Perry), Monday, 2 May 2005 18:18 (8 years ago) Permalink

yeah, the "relatively unique" is what bothers me - what is it supposed to mean? Relative to the parents or relative to people other than the parents? I'm guessing there's a reason for it to be there, but if there isn't, it should just be "unique" (the subset is either unique or not unique, right?)

― rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Monday, 2 May 2005 18:29 (8 years ago) Permalink

I read that as meaning "unique across the broader population for all intents and purposes, but not strictly unique". Maybe you should say "effectively unique"?

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 2 May 2005 18:32 (8 years ago) Permalink

Should it be "small and relatively unique" or "small but relatively unique"?

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Monday, 2 May 2005 18:50 (8 years ago) Permalink

"and" before "but" I would think; there's nothing about quantity that would inherently contradict the set's uniqueness.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 2 May 2005 18:56 (8 years ago) Permalink

Also, since we're being grammar fiends, I was always taught that "there are many different types of HLA proteins" ("There are") was bad form.

― diedre mousedropping (Dave225), Monday, 2 May 2005 18:59 (8 years ago) Permalink

"Although many different types of HLA proteins exist, each person inherents only a small and relatively unique subset (from his or her parents)."

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 2 May 2005 19:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

Dan OTM with "relatively unique" meaning something like "unique across the broader population for all intents and purposes, but not strictly unique," but I don't think I can get away with "effectively unique" because that is a bit too fancy for this particular audience.

I was hoping to just get rid of the whole "unique" problem and go with something that means what Dan said, but not using that irksome word. Old-school is to insist that there are no degrees of unique; either it is or it isn't, period.

― quincie, Monday, 2 May 2005 19:02 (8 years ago) Permalink

"Although many different types of HLA proteins exist, each person inherents only a small subset (from his or her parents) that is almost distinct enough to be a genetic fingerprint."

― The Ghost of I Don't Like That Either (Dan Perry), Monday, 2 May 2005 19:06 (8 years ago) Permalink

Good point diedre but maybe this won't sound so bad in context. Here is the full definition at the moment:

HUMAN LEUKOCYTE ANTIGEN: also known as major histocompatibility complex (MHC). These proteins are found on the outside of almost every cell in the body and play an important part in controlling the immune system. Although there are many different types of HLA proteins, each person has only a small, relatively unique set that is inherited from their parents. Some HLA types are associated either a faster or slower progression of HIV disease. The type of HLA proteins a person has is also important in identifying good "matches" for tissue grafts and organ transplants.

So yeah, ya'll can go to town on the rest of it, too (if you like!).

Do I have the world's coolest job or what?

― quincie, Monday, 2 May 2005 19:07 (8 years ago) Permalink

Oh, and HLA haplotypes really can be categorized as "types" and not completely unique thingies, and it is the "type" aspect that I need to focus on. I guess I'm trying to get across the concept of "dude if you have HIV and are lucky enough to be HLA-B57 than you may end up being one of these people who never goes on to get AIDS, even without treatment."

I'm kind of sucking as a med writer right now. I'm better as an editor, I think.

― quincie, Monday, 2 May 2005 19:14 (8 years ago) Permalink

there is nothing wrong with your original sentence at all, quincie. it is simple and easy to understand, and therefore a lot more use to most readers than a) complex sentences rewritten to conform to archaic grammatical ideas, or b) most scientific writing. granted, "relatively unique" is a little lazy, but ... god damn, it gets the point across and doesn't stop you in its tracks. which, as i keep reiterating in the style book i'm currently writing for my newspaper, is the POINT.

"their" is a perfectly acceptable form of non-gender third-person-singular possessive: i have the might of the oxford dictionary on my side. (er, i think.) god damn, it's a living language: let it evolve.

right, back to ILM. it's safer there.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Monday, 2 May 2005 19:22 (8 years ago) Permalink

Grimly will you marry me?

Don't go back to ILM, stay here!!!

― quincie, Monday, 2 May 2005 19:40 (8 years ago) Permalink

I normally cringe at "his or her" but I think you can use it in this sentence, in place of the "their" without it seeming clunky. That's the only change I'd make. Otherwise, it's fine!

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 2 May 2005 19:43 (8 years ago) Permalink

There are many different types of HLA proteins. However, any given individual posesses only a small distinct set, that is inherited form his or her parents.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 01:08 (8 years ago) Permalink

"Their" is far preferable to "his or her".

― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 01:38 (8 years ago) Permalink

"his or her" is the sore thumb that says "I couldn't find a more elegant solution"

― rogermexico (rogermexico), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 02:08 (8 years ago) Permalink

However, any given individual posesses only a small distinct set, passed on through inheritance?

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 02:20 (8 years ago) Permalink

This may have been suggested above, I did not check:

There are many different types of HLA proteins, but each person inherits only a small and essentially distinct set.

― Eyeball Kicks (Eyeball Kicks), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 02:25 (8 years ago) Permalink

Although there are many types of HLA proteins, each person has only a small set inherited from his or her parents.

is how I'd do it. "exist" is a waste of a verb, because everything exists. (i know this isn't in yr orig. sentence, this was a suggestion.) "different" is superfluous, because you've already got "many types" - i assume these many types are not "the same"!!! "unique" cannot be modified by degree. "that is" is unnecessary.

also in radio you are never allowed to start a sentence with "although" because people will have their brains too full to quite follow the next bit, the bit that you actually are supposedly more concerned with anyway

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 08:44 (8 years ago) Permalink

so don't go broadcastin this now, ya hear?

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 08:57 (8 years ago) Permalink

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe we have a winner!

HUMAN LEUKOCYTE ANTIGEN: also known as major histocompatibility complex (MHC). These proteins are found on the outside of almost every cell in the body and play an important part in controlling the immune system. Although there are many types of HLA proteins, each person has only a small set inherited from his or her parents. Some HLA types are associated with either a faster or slower progression of HIV disease. The type of HLA proteins a person has is also important in identifying good "matches" for tissue grafts and organ transplants.

Thank you all for helping me out--for whatever reason this particular definition (and especially that second sentence) was giving me fits. So now one last question--do you think that definition would be helpful if you were just an average joe and came across this weird term "HLA" when reading something about HIV/AIDS?

I know I should have a real focus group for this stuff, but time and money do not permit.

― quincie, Tuesday, 3 May 2005 13:08 (8 years ago) Permalink

Wait wait: there are people who think starting a sentence with "there are" is bad form? There are people like that?

And I have no particular issue with letting language evolve, but a singular "their" is a really painful direction to let it go, if only because there will be terrible stand-up comedians in 2060 doing stupid Gallagher "English doesn't make sense" routines about how a single person pays "their" rent. I actually prefer "his or her" -- easier to read that as a workable unit than to temporarily suspend all rules of singular/plural agreement for just one case. In informal writing, it's easier to blow by, but in anything that strikes a formal tone it completely broadsides me. (Especially when it's so so easy to construct a sentence that avoids the issue entirely.)

― nabiscothingy, Tuesday, 3 May 2005 15:42 (8 years ago) Permalink

plus in this sentence in particular it's kind of neat to think about "his or her", cause you're talkin about individuals and their biology...

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 16:01 (8 years ago) Permalink

If you know about that which I am talking!!!

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 17:39 (8 years ago) Permalink

You're on a losing battle against the neutral-singular pronoun use of 'they' and 'their'. I'm all for it myself. The objection to 'there are' is too old-fashioned to bother about, I think. No one will find that odd or uncomfortable.

The Tracer version is a big improvement, but although 'relatively unique' has to go, there is some sort of meaning there that is now gone. It's hard to find a better term there. I'd probably go with 'distinctive', but I'm not that happy with it.

I can't assess the definition very well - I read a fair bit of science, and have read a reasonable amount about proteins and so on. It seems very clear, I think.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 18:04 (8 years ago) Permalink

Plus it's hardly an "evolving" for of the language -- what's the earliest cite for "singular their" again, something like 600 years ago?

The stand-up comic would have a better time with something like "A man jerks off their own penis", which is a construction not unlike one I've found myself using before, and which I eventually realized I have no problem with whatsoever.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 18:12 (8 years ago) Permalink

I do - there is no need at all for a neutral pronoun there.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 18:18 (8 years ago) Permalink

There is also no need for a gendered pronoun there.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 18:23 (8 years ago) Permalink

haha, I was at a copyeditors convention two weeks ago (in Hollywood!), and the notion of a singular "their" would have sent the place into howling outrage. It was kind of hilarious to be in a hotel full of people who were actually interested in discussing the proper placement of "only" and the sad neglect of the past perfect.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 18:25 (8 years ago) Permalink

I was a professional editor for years, and I have no problem with the singular 'their'. I'm sure it's going to stay around.

Chris, I would say that the use of 'their' implies a lack of knowledge of the sex of the person(s) being discussed, which is untrue, so I do think it is bad.

Days after I took my current job, I was offered another writing clear English summaries of new scientific patents. I should have mentioned that earlier - it almost makes me a professional at this stuff!

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 18:42 (8 years ago) Permalink

This stand-up specializes in farm animal humor, I guess.

gypsy get ready to laugh becuse that's the kind of thread this is!

xpost

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 18:44 (8 years ago) Permalink

I was a professional editor for years, and I have no problem with the singular 'their'.

I admit that English doesn't offer a good solution to the genderless singular third-person pronoun ("one" is pretentious and affected in English in a way that "on" isn't in French). But of the not-good solutions, I don't think "their" is the best. I usually try to write around it, or go with some kind of his/her construction.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 19:06 (8 years ago) Permalink

Chris, I would say that the use of 'their' implies a lack of knowledge of the sex of the person(s) being discussed, which is untrue, so I do think it is bad.

Whereas I think it implies that the person in question is not specific. Using "their" underscores that we are not talking about some man in partiuclar. ("Bob Jones jerks off their own penis" would be weird.)

I mean, either "their" or "his" is fine there, I'd argue. But I don't think that "their" is at all "wrong", and it's something that I, as a native speaker, have produced on numerous occasions.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 19:14 (8 years ago) Permalink

I retract my objection. My dictionary says, "often used in connection with a preceding singular pronoun". I still think it's awkward, but so is every other available construction.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 19:43 (8 years ago) Permalink

(and this is a lot like the copyeditors conference)

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 19:44 (8 years ago) Permalink

a copyeditors convention

please tell me it was a copyeditors' convention! i know there's an argument here about adjectival phrasing, but really: it's a facile one usually propounded by people on the losing side in "sense v typography" arguments.

still, heheheh, a convention of subs. jesus christ, what a depressing thought. i love my job dearly, but ... the idea of that makes me want to hang myself from the nearest misrelated participle.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 21:37 (8 years ago) Permalink

[typographical note to self: the bold tag doesn't make much difference on single apostrophes. as you should have been able to guess. tut.]

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 21:39 (8 years ago) Permalink

Nouns can be used attributively as adjectives, so the apostrophe can be omitted. I think that is reasonable, without invoking typography.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 21:40 (8 years ago) Permalink

After all, the convention didn't belong to the copyeditors.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 21:45 (8 years ago) Permalink

This was a topic of discussion! It was roundly resolved that arguments could be made either way -- and, that being the case, the advantage went to dropping the apostrophe in the interest of saving space. (fwiw, the national desk copy chief of The Washington Post -- author of Lapsing Into a Comma and The Elephants of Style -- said he didn't think the possessive made sense)

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 23:41 (8 years ago) Permalink

(the convention was fun, actually...but it helped that it was just about 6 blocks from Amoeba Music)

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 23:43 (8 years ago) Permalink

x-post: that baldy dude? i like his style and his website, but i disagree with what he says about an awful lot of things. such as this.

i'll come back with a more rounded argument in favour of the possessive when i have more time (ie when i'm not on deadline!) i had the same fight with one of my colleagues yesterday, and i ain't budging :)

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Wednesday, 4 May 2005 09:02 (8 years ago) Permalink

for the moment, though, i'll leave you with this thought. in britain in the 1980s there was a late-afternoon TV strand called "childrens ITV", with no apostrophe. as a precocious teenager, i argued with somebody about this. "it's adjectival, fuck off," they said.

except ... "childrens" isn't a word. if it was attributive usage, surely it'd be "children ITV". but woah, who'd say that?

i think the argument i'm getting at here is that when someone says "childrens ITV" or "copyeditors conference" they're actually thinking in the possessive. try it with other irregular plurals and you'll see what i mean.

right. i have a magazine to get to the printers. but hang on: there's only one printer. so: printer's; ie the establishment belonging to the printer. how many people actually think that through?

jesus christ, look at the time.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Wednesday, 4 May 2005 09:14 (8 years ago) Permalink

i agree with grimly on this one.

and then i started to ponder about Casuistry's point about whether the convention belonged to the copywriters.. well it's certainly there FOR the copywriters, would that be enough?

Afterall say in a restaurant you'd have gentlemen's and ladies' toilets right? They're all really the restaurant's toilet for the gentlemen and ladies.

and now I'm all confused when people say things like "Alright gents???" When "Gent" can really be an abbreviation for both gentleman and gentlemen. Were they actually asking "Alright gent's" to find out whether the men's toilets are okay??

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 4 May 2005 10:04 (8 years ago) Permalink

Wouldn't that be "Alright gents'?"?

― beanz (beanz), Wednesday, 4 May 2005 10:18 (8 years ago) Permalink

it'd be "all right", not "alright" :)

i love the smell of pedantry in the morning.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Wednesday, 4 May 2005 10:39 (8 years ago) Permalink

right. i have a magazine to get to the printers. but hang on: there's only one printer. so: printer's; ie the establishment belonging to the printer. how many people actually think that through?

Unless it's a very small business, there's probably more than one printer that works there. So, I'd say "i have a magazine to get to the printers'."

(I mean, if I was the editor of a magazine, I would)

― caitlin (caitlin), Wednesday, 4 May 2005 10:43 (8 years ago) Permalink

ah, but - according to our house style - businesses are singular. so the printer (business made up of many different people) is plating up our magazine as i type.

which means i've sent the mag to the printer ... or the printer's.

or, more simply: "i've sent the mag, despite the best efforts of our advertising server, and now i'd really like some fucking lunch."

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Wednesday, 4 May 2005 11:27 (8 years ago) Permalink

best grammar nerd site!!!

i'm glad this thread was revived because i'm reading eats, shoots and leaves right now! i only wish i had time to read the whole thread instead of going to work :-(

― tehresa (tehresa), Wednesday, 4 May 2005 12:33 (8 years ago) Permalink

oh god, no, not ES&L.

ZERO-TOLERANCE IS A COMPOUND ADJECTIVE! IT'S FUCKING HYPHENATED!

as, er, i often point out to my subs.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Wednesday, 4 May 2005 12:50 (8 years ago) Permalink

hahaha amazing!

― tehresa (tehresa), Wednesday, 4 May 2005 13:03 (8 years ago) Permalink

I think "childrens" came up in the same conversation but wasn't sufficiently persuasive on its own to establish a rule. I mean, "children ITV" and "women issues" sound wrong because they're freakish non-s-bearing plurals. It's a narrow call, but I think the words in these case are acting more like adjectives than possessives. It can go either way, and I don't have strong feelings except that ditching the apostrophe is easier.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 4 May 2005 14:31 (8 years ago) Permalink

(you're right about zero-tolerance, tho -- the poor neglected hyphen)

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 4 May 2005 14:32 (8 years ago) Permalink

I don't have strong feelings except that ditching the apostrophe is easier

and, umm, wrong. i mean, words such as "childrens" or "womens" might be "acting more like adjectives" but the fact remains that they don't actually exist as lexical items. children's ITV, women's issues. i'd argue that the key - as with so many grammatical issues - is the way it's said.

anyway. have any UK pedants seen the standfirst on page two of today's guardian G2 section? four literals in five decks. there but for the grace of god ...

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Wednesday, 4 May 2005 14:48 (8 years ago) Permalink

(you're right about zero-tolerance, tho -- the poor neglected hyphen)

I'm gonna use this thread to complain about people that OVERUSE it, though. The example that always raises my hackles is using a hyphen before an adjective but after an adverb ending in "-ly." Like "your regularly-scheduled program." No. DELETE. I've noticed certain people on ILX -- not naming names -- do that a lot.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 4 May 2005 15:01 (8 years ago) Permalink

the fact remains that they don't actually exist as lexical items

But that's a different objection, innit? You could use an apostrophe with those words on that basis and still leave it off elsewhere. The whole language doesn't have to be hostage to a handful of weird plurals.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 4 May 2005 15:15 (8 years ago) Permalink

jaymc, it makes me weep tears of pleasure to realise i'm not the only one upholding that particular rule. you have restored my faith in human nature. slightly.

gypsy mothra ... no, you're still not convincing me at all :)

mind you, what kind of pedant am i when i can't even be bothered to use the shift key?

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Wednesday, 4 May 2005 15:25 (8 years ago) Permalink

Wouldn't that seem ridiculous though? "We were discussing women's issues outside the butchers shop today, just as the crew for children's BBC appeared, in girls outfits"

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 4 May 2005 15:33 (8 years ago) Permalink

Well, I think it's a soft spot of the written language bound to madden those who crave hard rules. I admit that as copyeditors go, I'm more of a pragmatist. I think you have to allow for the fluidity of the tongue and recognize that any set of rules is going to have its inconsistencies. From a clarity standpoint, there are times when having the apostrophe is going to create difficulties (in conjunction with quote marks or other punctuation) -- and since it provides no advantage in conveying meaning ("copyeditors convention" and "copyeditors' convention" are equally clear) and its grammatical necessity is, like it or not, open for debate, I will go without until I end up working for someone who insists that it go in. Like you!

(also, my use there of "since" in the sense of "because" was another topic -- some style guides disallow it, others say it's fine)

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 4 May 2005 15:39 (8 years ago) Permalink

and on that admirably pragmatic note i think we should let the matter drop.

what's next? anyone fancy a good-humoured fight about semicolons?

no, thought not.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Wednesday, 4 May 2005 15:44 (8 years ago) Permalink

How about em-dashes?

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 4 May 2005 16:25 (8 years ago) Permalink

don't start me on em-dashes.

– — ... hey, courier doesn't display a difference. i assume times does ...

[posts to check]

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Wednesday, 4 May 2005 20:30 (8 years ago) Permalink

good, it does. goddamn courier. so, em-dashes. only time i use them is to ... woah, hang on, this is so fucking sad. sorry. [hangs head in shame, slinks off.]

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Wednesday, 4 May 2005 20:31 (8 years ago) Permalink

f—ing sad, surely.

― stet (stet), Wednesday, 4 May 2005 23:44 (8 years ago) Permalink

PS, pedent boy. Courier is a monospaced font.

― stet (stet), Wednesday, 4 May 2005 23:45 (8 years ago) Permalink

Actually, Courier (at least on the Mac) does show a difference between hyphen and dash, although not between en and em dashes (since, duh, an en and an em are the same width in Courier).

― Casuistry (Chris P), Thursday, 5 May 2005 00:00 (8 years ago) Permalink

And obv "the printers" is "the pants" or "the scissors" -- I forget the term for such "singular plurals", though.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Thursday, 5 May 2005 00:04 (8 years ago) Permalink

And obv "the printers" is [like] "the pants" or "the scissors" -- I forget the term for such "singular plurals", though.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Thursday, 5 May 2005 00:04 (8 years ago) Permalink

xxxpost: "stet", your plums are toast later today. and yes, the monospace thing did occur to me about two minutes after i'd posted [blushes furiously]. look, it was a long evening and i'd been at a child's birthday party. vital brain cells had died. and i was grappling with yousendit-related horror too. [runs out of excuses.]

casuistry: that's a good point, although i'd like to investigate further. if you do remember the specific term, could you post it here?

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Thursday, 5 May 2005 08:26 (8 years ago) Permalink

9 months pass...

Help: the Beatles, or The Beatles?

― c(''c) (Leee), Monday, 6 February 2006 21:43 (7 years ago) Permalink

u/c T cuz "The" was generally on the albums, yeah?

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 6 February 2006 21:55 (7 years ago) Permalink

I argue about this one all the time. I tend to use lowercase in almost all cases.

Also, I think it's Help! ;-)

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 6 February 2006 21:57 (7 years ago) Permalink

i used to go with u/c but i think l/c looks better.

― having fun with stockholm cindy on stage (Jody Beth Rosen), Monday, 6 February 2006 21:59 (7 years ago) Permalink

I should clarify: "in almost all cases" = when we're talking abound a band.

I apply Morbius's rule when it comes to, for instance, periodicals, in which the title is enclosed in italics, and you have the difference between The New York Times and Chicago Tribune based on what's actually on the masthead.

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 6 February 2006 22:00 (7 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I'm willing to admit that my preference may be aesthetic more than anything.

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 6 February 2006 22:01 (7 years ago) Permalink

it's just a style decision, really. just be consistent. the nyt style is to always lowercase except in the case of publications and periodicals, which get the u/c because, well, we're special.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Monday, 6 February 2006 22:08 (7 years ago) Permalink

That is definitely a house style issue.

The reasoning behind using the cap tends to be that something like "The Beatles" is a proper title, in much the same way that The Stranger is the title of a book.

The reasoning behind not using the cap tends to be that it makes your text smoother, allowing you to elide the difference between your definite article and the thing itself's. Just as you would write "a recent Newsweek article," you're able to write "a recent Believer article," even though you'd otherwise notate that publication as The Believer. Nobody wants to write "did you read the The Believer article about Virgil." And it's even more important when you want to use a different type of article: neither does anyone want to say "I really like this The Beatles song called 'Julia.'"

There are all kinds of slippages here on all kinds of related issues. Sometimes it's unclear how much the entity itself considers the article to be a part of its name. If the letterhead for an organization reads "The Socialist Brotherhood," you don't know if they're capitalizing "The" as part of the title or just because it's the first word of the heading -- the text below may well say "due to lack of funds, the Socialist Brotherhood is closing its office." There's also a text called Oxford English Dictionary -- no "the" -- but we wouldn't refer to it like normal books; we say "check in the Oxford English Dictionary," even though we wouldn't say "have you read the Gravity's Rainbow." (The formulation we want is obviously "check in THE ... DICTIONARY.") Sometimes the subjects specify -- Ohio State University let everyone know a while back that they're not Ohio Statue University, but rather "The Ohio State University," capital "The," no matter where in the sentence you're using it.

I prefer being really flexible about eliding it, especially in spots where it's going to come up a lot, like when talking about bands.

― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 6 February 2006 22:13 (7 years ago) Permalink

NB there's a reason, I think, that including the article is more important for publications. If you write "did you read the Corrections," that doesn't quite make sense -- there are no actual corrections to be read, only a book titled The Corrections. If you write "did you see the Beatles," it's a bit different -- the four of them, by dint of the title, are actually billing themselves as Beatles. Same with the Socialist Brotherhood, kind of. This is kind of blurry and doesn't make absolute logical sense, but yeah -- you can kind of borrow or adapt their article ("I am curious about this Socialist Brotherhood you speak of").

And there are some publications where this is still flexy, like the kind of magazine things I was talking about ("I saw this great Nation article about..."), or with classic floating-the texts, like Homer's (the Iliad? The Iliad?).

― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 6 February 2006 22:17 (7 years ago) Permalink

For some reason that strikes me as almost the quintessential nabisco post.

xpost of course

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 6 February 2006 22:17 (7 years ago) Permalink

i noticed that about THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY too. kinda pretentious.

― having fun with stockholm cindy on stage (Jody Beth Rosen), Monday, 6 February 2006 22:27 (7 years ago) Permalink

I live in fear of the split infinitive.

― Lara (Lara), Monday, 6 February 2006 22:41 (7 years ago) Permalink

The Beatles = title of LP (if they have an LP called this): cap it if it's a house-style alternative to italics or being put in quotes.
the Beatles = name of band (haha arguable exception: the The) -- we don't italicise the names of rock bands or put them in quotes so I don't see why we should let them colonise the surrounding parts of speech which don't belong to them. I once got into a fight doing a catalogue for a gallery -- long since gone bust -- which not only insisted that they spelled themselves w.a cap 'T' for the but that you had to put TWO SPACES between the 'the' and the bit of their name that actually was theirs. I call this cheek -- and I told them that the page-layout software would strip out the spcaes automatically, which was a total lie HURRAH.

widely ignored convention in the UK is that you don't cap the 'the' for newspapers EXCEPT The Times

in Ken's counter-example it shd be "butcher's shop" (or just "butcher's" or indeed "butcher"), unless it is a single shop in which a number of butchers trade independently, in which case "butchers' shop" (as per grimly) or "butchers shop" (as per martin) are equally good. I prefer the second bcz i wish to strip the lil bleeder aht of everyfing i hate it so

It's true that -- when stand-alone -- "A man jerks off their own penis" emphasises the sense of a generalised rule more than ""A man jerks off his own penis" or even "The man jerks off his own penis" but frankly it's never going to BE stand-alone, and context will (well, should) do the work of revealing which is meant. ALSO: It is a rule easily falsified.

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 6 February 2006 22:42 (7 years ago) Permalink

the ile page-layout software stripped out that 'the' automatically

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 6 February 2006 22:43 (7 years ago) Permalink

if it's cap T they are claimin TOSU is a title so we shd refer to them as "the The Ohio State University" whenever they come up in a sentence...

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 6 February 2006 22:47 (7 years ago) Permalink

actually you never say "outside the butcher" unless possibly when referrin to eg a porkchop not consumed

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 6 February 2006 22:48 (7 years ago) Permalink

Mark, the Beatles do indeed have an LP called that, but going by the cover typography it should be notated as The BEATLES!

Also it's worse than that, Mark, the school is actually asking that you refer to them -- mid-sentence -- as The Ohio State University. With the cap. (The one thing you can say to their credit is that they're a business, and businesses have been known to do much nit-pickier things in the creation of brand image and the protection of trademarks. There are still all kinds of weird things where a business, say, capitalizing one letter in a product name would actually violate someone else's service-marked product name, or whatever.)

I am trying to think of an exception/example where a non-quote non-ital title really does manage to successfully claim its article. There's surely something.

I recently ran something where I wanted to describe a band as being in tune with the demographic of (ahem) the publication titled The Wire, but the editor changed my usage -- "Wire-friendly" -- to the more proper "The Wire-friendly." (I'm not sure if, per CMOS, you'd use an n-dash in that latter forumation.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 6 February 2006 22:50 (7 years ago) Permalink

Also, ha, shocking: looking upthread, it appears that Jaymc had been complaining about my adverbs for like 9 good months before I noticed.

― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 6 February 2006 22:56 (7 years ago) Permalink

He's a patient one, that Jaymc.

― Laurel (Laurel), Monday, 6 February 2006 22:57 (7 years ago) Permalink

Hahaha.

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 6 February 2006 22:58 (7 years ago) Permalink

The Wire is a bit of a special case as for a long period it was really actually just called Wire -- the 'the' was officially dropped (I think bcz the then-designer got fed up with it messing up his nice pages) then put back on again!!

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 6 February 2006 22:58 (7 years ago) Permalink

a reason for saying "The Wire-friendly" is so as not to confuse it with the hyphenate adjective for being accessible to the band Wire...

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 6 February 2006 23:00 (7 years ago) Permalink

Sight and Sound used to insist on spelling a film exactly the way it appeared in the title sequence: hence Se7en, —Only Angels Have Wings etc, except this did NOT apply eg to KING KONG. The rule began to soften a bit after Fargo, which doesn't actually have a strict title sequence, just a series of datelines (tho the dep ed at the time did exaperatedly argue that we should call it -- alone in the the world -- Fargo: 8.12am, Wed 12 Dec (or whatever the first one is); and then after the ed actually called Terry Gilliam to ask if it wz 12 Monkeys (as per film i think) or Twelve Monkeys (as per poster and ad material), and Gilliam said "I don't know! It doesn't matter!"

I kinda miss Se7en: other mag started doing it for a while, even when we'd stopped. S&S still omits the colon implied by the line break, which I hate eg Robin Hood Prince of Thieves

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 6 February 2006 23:09 (7 years ago) Permalink

"this did NOT apply eg to KING KONG": i mean we didn't go with all caps even if the title sequence did

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 6 February 2006 23:10 (7 years ago) Permalink

For some reason that Terry Gilliam tale made me laugh and laugh.

― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 00:21 (7 years ago) Permalink

(and made me want a job at Sight & Sound)

― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 00:24 (7 years ago) Permalink

Help: the Beatles, or The Beatles?

I thought this said, "the Beatles or The Beetles?" and laughed. 'Hoo boy, nobody's made that joke since 1963...oh wait.'

― Abbott (Abbott), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 02:23 (7 years ago) Permalink

― pixel farmer (Rock Hardy), Tuesday, 7 February 2006 03:23 (7 years ago) Permalink

1 month passes...

Haha, I just noticed that CHUCK EDDY is quoted in a recent (Oct/Nov) issue of Copy Editor! He's a source for the usage of the new word "reggaeton" -- although it credits his quote ("Sometimes I think I'm the only person around who likes the idea of reggaeton better than the actual music") as "Village Voice."

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:00 (7 years ago) Permalink

There's a magazine for copy editors?

― The Milkmaid (82375538-A) (The Milkmaid), Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:07 (7 years ago) Permalink

I have their n-dash centerfold hanging above my bed.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:09 (7 years ago) Permalink

It's a newsletter. It gets passed around the office with one of those sheets on top with everyone's name on it, and you cross yours out before handing it to the dude in the cubicle next to yours.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:11 (7 years ago) Permalink

That sounds really old-school. Old school?

― The Milkmaid (82375538-A) (The Milkmaid), Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:12 (7 years ago) Permalink

Does your office have a typing pool?

― The Milkmaid (82375538-A) (The Milkmaid), Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:13 (7 years ago) Permalink

I guess it is old school. It is an old-school practice.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:14 (7 years ago) Permalink

otm

― mookieproof (mookieproof), Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:14 (7 years ago) Permalink

Hey, we circ PW in that fashion!

― Laurel (Laurel), Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:15 (7 years ago) Permalink

No wait, Webster's has it hyphenated, regardless of how or where it appears in the sentence.

Although this is weird: I was convinced that "old-school" was hip-hop slang that somehow wormed its way into mainstream usage within the last ten years or so! Webster's marks its first usage as 1803!

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:17 (7 years ago) Permalink

Hip-hoppers be revivin' antiquated phrases.

― The Milkmaid (82375538-A) (The Milkmaid), Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:18 (7 years ago) Permalink

Important question: why would Chuck suspect he was the only one in that position w/r/t reggaeton? As far as critics go, my suspicion is that everyone feels that way.

Important statement: I've never worked anywhere that didn't route something or other in cross-it-off fashion.

More important question: where would one acquire classics of copyeditor porn, such as Sorority House Style, Cap that Ass, Stet Me Hard, Big Black Bullet Lists, and Little Non-Hyphenated Adverb/Adjective Modifiers with Big Hard Hyphens?

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:18 (7 years ago) Permalink

Actually I think I meant Stet and Messy.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:19 (7 years ago) Permalink

some vp dude just asked me what was proper, "in route" or "in-route," and seemed offended when i said "en route"

― mookieproof (mookieproof), Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:27 (7 years ago) Permalink

mookie that made me laugh!

― quincie, Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:31 (7 years ago) Permalink

I am taking an editing certification exam in, like, ten days. Thus I must go home tonight and read the painfully written Copyright chapter of Chicago. I wanna kill the guy who wrote that chapter--does anyone have a better suggestion for a quick-and-dirty way to brush up on copyright and permissions and whatnot?

― quincie, Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:33 (7 years ago) Permalink

Shell out for the info-cube and have it downloaded directly into yr brain. Saves LOADS of time!

― Laurel (Laurel), Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:51 (7 years ago) Permalink

Once our managing editor and her admin asked me to settle a spelling question: "baserk" or "bazerk"?

To my credit, I did not go berserk.

― Stephen X (Stephen X), Thursday, 9 March 2006 22:08 (7 years ago) Permalink

My experience in the jewelry industry came in handy today regarding "carat" versus "karat." It's too bad that making the correction did not involve using a caret.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 9 March 2006 22:36 (7 years ago) Permalink

Guess what I had for lunch?

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 9 March 2006 22:37 (7 years ago) Permalink

I'm not guessing. Is there an actual difference betw. "carat" and "karat"?

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 9 March 2006 22:38 (7 years ago) Permalink

Haha. Nice save! (XXP)

― Laurel (Laurel), Thursday, 9 March 2006 22:42 (7 years ago) Permalink

I was going to post this as a reply to Nabisco on the "words you've never heared" thread, but it belongs here:

>Elaine: People go to South America.
>Jerry: Yeah, and they come back with things taped to their large intestine.

I suppose Jerry gets a free pass, since Elaine used the plural subject "people," not him, but note that damned numerical disagreement that keeps bugging me lately!

-- nabisco (--...), March 9th, 2006 4:40 PM. (nabisco) (later) (link)

Srsly. I keep fixing that now that you've alerted me to it.

I also keep running into a similar agreement issue that's less egregious but still bothers me:

"Lemurs have a tail that allows them to swing through branches."

I don't like the implication that many lemurs have only one tail among them, but the alternative ("lemurs have tails") makes it less clear as to how many tails each lemur has. I change this sometimes and leave it as is when the pluralization sounds clunky, as it often does. And about a third of the time that I change it, it comes back to me stetted, anyway.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 9 March 2006 22:54 (7 years ago) Permalink

Arf, that's a strange one. Actually I think part of the problem there is that we no longer use the kind of Platonic structure that used to go with that sort of statement: "The lemur has a tail that allows it to swing through branches."

That structure is actually really weird, politically speaking -- it's very rationalist and essentialist! To the point where it sounds really musty and Victorian plus smacks of the kinds of essentialism that now creeps us out ("The female of the species is XXX" / "The Negro is XXX" / etc.) But then we start talking about something where essentialism is exactly what we want -- lemurs have tails! -- and the right construction has been somewhat diminished.

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 10 March 2006 00:00 (7 years ago) Permalink

Actually, half the time the articles I'm editing do use that old-fashioned structure! Which of course makes it a lot easier. But I'm guessing that's more common given the nature of my work than it would be for other people.

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 10 March 2006 00:14 (7 years ago) Permalink

Guess what I had for lunch?

― phil d. (Phil D.), Friday, 10 March 2006 00:28 (7 years ago) Permalink

big grains of it.

― AaronK (AaronK), Friday, 10 March 2006 03:40 (7 years ago) Permalink

I love that "The lemur has..." construction and use it all the time. I guess I should watch my back. But essentialism is the basis for all the nice non-proper nouns that allow us to talk about classes of entities. I'm loosely reminded of the joke:

An astronomer, a physicist and a mathematician were holidaying in Scotland. Glancing from a train window, they observed a black sheep in the middle of a field. "How interesting," observed the astronomer, "all Scottish sheep are black!"

To which the physicist responded, "No, no! Some Scottish sheep are black!"

The mathematician gazed heavenward in supplication, and then intoned, "In Scotland there exists at least one field, containing at least one sheep, at least one side of which is black."

― Paul Eater (eater), Friday, 10 March 2006 04:47 (7 years ago) Permalink

"Lemurs have a tail that allows them to swing through branches."

i'd suggest: "a/the lemur's [adjective] tail allows it to swing through branches". the adjective is important here: what's so great about this tail? i mean, badgers have tails but they can't swing through branches.

at least, i don't think they can.

i've never read the first post in this thread before. it makes me want to rip out people's eyes and eat them. there really is no fucking hope for (english-speaking) humankind.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Friday, 10 March 2006 13:52 (7 years ago) Permalink

Prehensile.
Do you mean eat the eyes or the people?

― beanz (beanz), Friday, 10 March 2006 14:00 (7 years ago) Permalink

both. the eyes would make a tasty starter.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Friday, 10 March 2006 14:03 (7 years ago) Permalink

in black and white, that looks much more sinister than i thought. i've offended myself :o

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Friday, 10 March 2006 14:03 (7 years ago) Permalink

I get annoyed by rogue apostrophes, too

if it genuinely arouses markelbyesque levels of intense, pointless rage, though, maybe you should re-examine things, a little

― RJG (RJG), Friday, 10 March 2006 14:15 (7 years ago) Permalink

Rogue commas, that's what really gets on my... :snore:

― beanz (beanz), Friday, 10 March 2006 14:17 (7 years ago) Permalink

"terror suspect's still held at US camp, four year's later"

BASTARDSSSSSS

― RJG (RJG), Friday, 10 March 2006 14:18 (7 years ago) Permalink

Singular verbs with plural subjects, that's what really gets on my... :snore:

With apostrophes, it's cos it makes you expect a different progression

― beanz (beanz), Friday, 10 March 2006 14:19 (7 years ago) Permalink

maybe you should re-examine things, a little

RJG, i'm a subeditor! futile rage against tiny grammatical transgressions is my raison d'etre. without it, i am lost.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Friday, 10 March 2006 14:47 (7 years ago) Permalink

I have a question. As an Irisher (and therefore, spellastically at least, closer to the Britishers), I seem to remember we always spelled colorful as colorful. Now I am being accused of creeping Americanism because I do not spell it colourful. I do not think that I ever spelled it this way.

Oh spelling masters of ILE, can you settle this dispute?

― accentmonkey (accentmonkey), Friday, 10 March 2006 18:02 (7 years ago) Permalink

Colourful is English, colorful American.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Friday, 10 March 2006 20:16 (7 years ago) Permalink

and what is irish?

― pssst - badass revolutionary art! (plsmith), Friday, 10 March 2006 20:19 (7 years ago) Permalink

i've never read the first post in this thread before. it makes me want to rip out people's eyes and eat them. there really is no fucking hope for (english-speaking) humankind.

-- grimly fiendish (simonmai...), March 10th, 2006 7:52 AM. (later)

See one Language Log post about "word rage."

― The Milkmaid (82375538-A) (The Milkmaid), Friday, 10 March 2006 20:36 (7 years ago) Permalink

callerfool

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 10 March 2006 21:10 (7 years ago) Permalink

Perhaps we should cut out manager's tongues. Then we wouldn't have to put up with their hideous mutilation of the language?

Bad moment to misplace an apostrophe.

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 10 March 2006 21:14 (7 years ago) Permalink

"Building and maintaining a vital membership [is/are] critical to X's success."

is feels better but i can't explain why

― mookieproof (mookieproof), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 20:20 (7 years ago) Permalink

er, it basically depends on whether you mean "building [ie first] and then maintaining [as an entirely separate action]", or "building and maintaining [ie as one continued action]". given that you'd almost always mean the latter, especially in this context, "is" is correct.

basically: how closely linked are the two concepts?

"shopping and fucking are important to me."

"drinking and fighting is important to me."

also, the phrase "a vital membership" is common to both participles/gerunds/whatever they are, which suggests that "building and maintaining" is a single ... christ, what? gerundive noun phrase, i guess. apologies if my terminology's wrong: it's a long time since i've dealt with this sort of stuff academically, as opposed to just shouting and rewriting.

(this is a pragmatic approach, rather than a structuralist one, but i think it works. next!)

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 23:34 (7 years ago) Permalink

also: what exactly is a "vital membership"?

out of context, i'd suggest: "building and maintaining membership is vital to X's success." you could also use "the" or "our" membership. perhaps.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 23:36 (7 years ago) Permalink

"vital membership" possibly lingo for "members who keep giving money" rather than "people who sign up once and are never heard from again"

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 23:42 (7 years ago) Permalink

thanks.

i'd have rewritten the whole sentence, but i lack the authority. don't ask about "vital membership"--you'll just be told about "solutions"

xp tracer, as ever, otm

― mookieproof (mookieproof), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 23:42 (7 years ago) Permalink

1 month passes...

disaffected with? disaffected by? disaffected from?

― Gravel Puzzleworth (Gregory Henry), Monday, 24 April 2006 17:58 (7 years ago) Permalink

I think it's just an adjective?

― Jordan (Jordan), Monday, 24 April 2006 18:03 (7 years ago) Permalink

context?

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Monday, 24 April 2006 18:18 (7 years ago) Permalink

"the brightest children and those who felt most disaffected, for various reasons, with/from/by their own school environment."

― Gravel Puzzleworth (Gregory Henry), Monday, 24 April 2006 18:24 (7 years ago) Permalink

I feel like it almost has to be "about" or "with regard to" or etc.

― Laurel (Laurel), Monday, 24 April 2006 18:26 (7 years ago) Permalink

"as a result of"

― ailsa (ailsa), Monday, 24 April 2006 18:27 (7 years ago) Permalink

"disaffected with" is perfectly fine and normal usage. You can use "by" but it has a different meaning, putting the focus not on the disaffection with a particular thing but stating that it is caused by that thing. Don't use "from".

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Monday, 24 April 2006 18:31 (7 years ago) Permalink

Or use "distanced from."

― Paul in Santa Cruz (Paul in Santa Cruz), Monday, 24 April 2006 18:49 (7 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, "as a result of" = "by", but that's not necessarily what you mean. Need MORE context, I think. I can't actually tell whether or not "disaffected" is the word you are really looking for.

― ailsa (ailsa), Monday, 24 April 2006 19:07 (7 years ago) Permalink

2 weeks pass...

Plural of "smiley," which is becoming increasingly common as a noun?

In other words: smileys vs. smilies.

For no particular reason, I prefer the former.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 11 May 2006 20:00 (7 years ago) Permalink

i agree.

― rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Thursday, 11 May 2006 20:04 (7 years ago) Permalink

:) :) :)

― Jordan (Jordan), Thursday, 11 May 2006 20:05 (7 years ago) Permalink

whats an example of an -ey word that would be capitalized with -ies, dudes?

― SQUARECOATS (plsmith), Thursday, 11 May 2006 20:12 (7 years ago) Permalink

MONKIES

― dave's good arm (facsimile) (dave225.3), Thursday, 11 May 2006 20:15 (7 years ago) Permalink

money --> monies

― ailsa (ailsa), Thursday, 11 May 2006 20:16 (7 years ago) Permalink

QED BROS

― SQUARECOATS (plsmith), Thursday, 11 May 2006 20:16 (7 years ago) Permalink

xpost ehhhh i guess so

― SQUARECOATS (plsmith), Thursday, 11 May 2006 20:17 (7 years ago) Permalink

Good point, Pete. I've just seen the latter formulation so many times by now!

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 11 May 2006 20:17 (7 years ago) Permalink

maybe you were misreading "similies"?

― SQUARECOATS (plsmith), Thursday, 11 May 2006 20:19 (7 years ago) Permalink

ZING

― SQUARECOATS (plsmith), Thursday, 11 May 2006 20:19 (7 years ago) Permalink

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 11 May 2006 20:20 (7 years ago) Permalink

MORE CAPITALIZATION PLZ

― Dan (WOOT) Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 11 May 2006 20:21 (7 years ago) Permalink

I've been interviewing about a technical writing internship. The employers haven't decided yet, but one of them sent me a small job to check out my editing skills. It's an 18-page technical document and he sez I shouldn't take more than two hours. What should I charge? I still don't go by an hourly rate for the other gig, which is a flat 230 USD per issue.

― crossposting(''c) (Leee), Thursday, 11 May 2006 20:22 (7 years ago) Permalink

2 months pass...

can you "mitigate the possibility"? I mean, is it possible to mitigate something that hasn't happened yet?

― teeny (teeny), Monday, 7 August 2006 20:35 (6 years ago) Permalink

Yes.

― Jesus Dan (Dan Perry), Monday, 7 August 2006 20:47 (6 years ago) Permalink

(Basically, you are manipulating circumstances to make the worst-case scenario less worse.)

― Jesus Dan (Dan Perry), Monday, 7 August 2006 20:55 (6 years ago) Permalink

Least worst thread ever!

― M. V. (M.V.), Tuesday, 8 August 2006 05:37 (6 years ago) Permalink

"mitigate" means "lessen the effects of," no? it just adds some action to the verb "anticipate." or maybe i'm wrong...

― Leave Brintey Alone (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 8 August 2006 05:43 (6 years ago) Permalink

Doesn't 'anticipate' mean to take action about a potential event, not just to acknowledge its potential? With in-built ambiguity, I suppose, because acknowledgement is itself an action...

With 'mitigate' – is the it possibility which is to be mitigated, or the possible event? The possibility is discrete from the event if you see what I mean.

NB I fully expect to be shown to be wrong.

― beanz (beanz), Tuesday, 8 August 2006 08:24 (6 years ago) Permalink

Somehow "mitigate the possibility" doesn't sound right to me -- you would mitigate the actual event/circumstance. It just seems to me there'd be a better phrase.

― i'll mitya halfway (mitya), Tuesday, 8 August 2006 08:34 (6 years ago) Permalink

You could also mitigate against the possibility of the event happening, which is what I presume the usage here to be.

― Jesus Dan (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 8 August 2006 09:11 (6 years ago) Permalink

I suppose it depends on whether "possibility" can properly mean "scenario in which" as well as just "chances".

― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 8 August 2006 09:12 (6 years ago) Permalink

to make the possibility less severe? seems funny

crosspost

― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 8 August 2006 09:14 (6 years ago) Permalink

I have just been to the pub.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Wednesday, 9 August 2006 12:36 (6 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I don't know about this phrase. A quick read-through leaves you unclear on the precise meaning -- whether it means controlling the event itself or the likelihood that the event will happen (and whether it should matter to the reader either way).

Technically, it seems to mean the latter, but once you start thinking about the words on that technical of a level, you start wondering why the word "possibility" is used. "Possibility" is kind of strict -- things are possible or not -- as opposed to words like "likelihood" or "chances," which imply more of a spectrum of odds. So now, in addition to the original ambiguity, you can start thinking about whether the phrase is supposed to mean the former of those things (trying to make a possible event impossible) or the latter (trying to reduce the chances of the event). It depends on the type of event, I guess.

On the plus side, if you want your readers to start having complex thoughts about what words really mean, then yes, this phrase is a great one.

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 9 August 2006 21:03 (6 years ago) Permalink

Please help me, O Wise ILX Grammarians.

An ESL client for whom I'm doing some editing wrote:
"Jim hands the last sheet of paper to gloomy Jeff."
I changed this to:
"Jim hands the last sheet of paper to a gloomy Jeff."
Now aforementioned client wants to know why I put the "a" in before "gloomy". He's quite right to ask this, as he's trying to learn, but for the life of me I can't explain why I did it -- it just sounded more idiomatically correct to me. Is it GRAMMATICALLY correct and can anyone give me a sound rule to trot out to him (because I've looked in all the bleedin' resources I can think of -- online, Chicago, Copyeditors' Handbook -- but am not quite sure what to actually look for here) or is it wrong and I've lost my mind? Perhaps I should just admit defeat and tell him to recast as "to Jeff, who looks gloomy"... TIA for helping out and saving me reputation...

― surfer_stone_rosa (surfer_stone_rosa), Saturday, 12 August 2006 18:45 (6 years ago) Permalink

I think the original sentence, "Jim hands the last sheet of paper to gloomy Jeff," is fine. Your addition is grammatically correct too, but doesn't really add anything.

― Danny Aioli (Rock Hardy), Saturday, 12 August 2006 18:56 (6 years ago) Permalink

"mitigate the possibility" isn't at all ambiguous!

Nabisco, if you can give me a good explanation of the practical semantic difference between "trying to make a possible event impossible" and "trying to reduce the chances of the event", I will stop thinking that you get totally bonged out when you think about language.

I can't find a rule on the "a gloomy Jeff" construction but you could make an argument that "Gloomy Jeff" sounds like a proper name whereas "a gloomy Jeff" describes the current gloomy incarnation of this particular person named Jeff. That is totally me talking out of my ass, though.

― Jesus Dan (Dan Perry), Saturday, 12 August 2006 19:04 (6 years ago) Permalink

Thank you, Jesus Dan-ny Aioli -- I think you're both right. No, Dan, no ass-talking there -- that's pretty much what I was trying to say; just wanted to be able to add "Look, it says so in XYZ Big Important Book!" Ah, well. I'll put both scenarios to le client and let him pick.

― surfer_stone_rosa (surfer_stone_rosa), Sunday, 13 August 2006 10:33 (6 years ago) Permalink

I should think that "forestall the possibility" would have been closer to conveying the sense of "trying to make a possible event impossible" and "trying to reduce the chances of the event".

― Aimless (Aimless), Wednesday, 16 August 2006 03:09 (6 years ago) Permalink

the word you're looking for is militate

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 16 August 2006 03:25 (6 years ago) Permalink

Dan, I meant it was ambiguous because the reader might have to think for a second about whether it means (a) keeping an event from happening or (b) making the consequences less bad if and when the event does happen. So as for this:

the practical semantic difference between "trying to make a possible event impossible" and "trying to reduce the chances of the event"

... that's more just a random thought on top. Because yeah, I think there's a slight difference between how we talk about things being "possible" and the way we talk about them being "likely."

For instance, if a nuclear technician says "the possibility of a meltdown is unacceptable," then the solution might be to shut down the reactor entirely (because a meltdown is either possible or not).

Whereas if he says "the likelihood of a meltdown is unacceptable," then the solution is just to take steps to reduce the chances of a meltdown.

So I just mean there's a difference between possibility and probability -- one's more absolute, the other's more scaled -- and the connotations of "possibility" versus "likelihood" match up with that.

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 16 August 2006 04:43 (6 years ago) Permalink

"23% of 13&endash;15-year-olds"

that's how it is; i don't like the way it looks. what would you do?

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Friday, 25 August 2006 17:03 (6 years ago) Permalink

har hmm

"23% of 13–15-year-olds"

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Friday, 25 August 2006 17:04 (6 years ago) Permalink

13- to 15-year-olds

― bernard snow (sixteen sergeants), Friday, 25 August 2006 17:08 (6 years ago) Permalink

23% of the 13-to-15 year-old age group

― Scourage (Haberdager), Friday, 25 August 2006 17:09 (6 years ago) Permalink

― bernard snow (sixteen sergeants), Friday, 25 August 2006 17:13 (6 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I'd go with Bernard Snow's suggestion.

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 25 August 2006 17:19 (6 years ago) Permalink

y'all can't see me but rest assured that I just spiked my mouse onto the floor in celebration

― bernard snow (sixteen sergeants), Friday, 25 August 2006 17:20 (6 years ago) Permalink

He played the better game on the day, I guess.

― Scourage (Haberdager), Friday, 25 August 2006 17:22 (6 years ago) Permalink

now i'm curious. is there anything we should know about 23% of 13- to 15-year-olds?

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Friday, 25 August 2006 17:34 (6 years ago) Permalink

23% of 13- to 15-year-olds know how to spell "23% of 13- to 15-year-olds"

― StanM (StanM), Friday, 25 August 2006 17:35 (6 years ago) Permalink

"are emos"

― Scourage (Haberdager), Friday, 25 August 2006 17:35 (6 years ago) Permalink

I am still getting used to "emo" as a noun.

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 25 August 2006 17:45 (6 years ago) Permalink

love you bernard snow

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Friday, 25 August 2006 18:02 (6 years ago) Permalink

how come all the grammar threads?

― jhoshea (scoopsnoodle), Friday, 25 August 2006 18:05 (6 years ago) Permalink

the next part of the sentence is "have tried tobacco in lower- and middle-income countries" ... dangling hyphens ahoy

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Friday, 25 August 2006 18:05 (6 years ago) Permalink

xpost: Their extremely interesting for some've us, Mr. Totalwizard.

― Scourage (Haberdager), Friday, 25 August 2006 18:07 (6 years ago) Permalink

how come all the grammar threads have tried tobacco in lower- and middle-income countries?

― jhoshea (scoopsnoodle), Friday, 25 August 2006 18:07 (6 years ago) Permalink

how come all the grammar threads?

September is just around the corner; grammar is in the air!

― Jesus Dan (Dan Perry), Friday, 25 August 2006 18:07 (6 years ago) Permalink

have tried tobacco in lower- and middle-income countries

So the rich ones took buses into poorer neighborhoods just so they could try tobacco?

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 25 August 2006 18:19 (6 years ago) Permalink

(Also is that really "countries," and not "counties?")

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 25 August 2006 18:20 (6 years ago) Permalink

nabs i swapped that around for exactly that reason!! sentence now runs "23% of 13- to 15-year-olds in low- and middle-income countries have tried tobacco"

and yes it is countries.. the phrase appears so often that i wonder if it would be ok to say "(LMICs)" after the first ref and then just use that

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Friday, 25 August 2006 18:24 (6 years ago) Permalink

I shook my head this week at "blood-urea-nitrogen levels." No wonder I can't remember any of these 'rules.'

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 25 August 2006 18:28 (6 years ago) Permalink

2 weeks pass...

"big-upped" or "bigged up"?

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 20:49 (6 years ago) Permalink

What?? Bigged up. Totally. Mothers-in-law, etc.

― Laurel (Laurel), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 20:51 (6 years ago) Permalink

The latter makes more sense grammatically, and Google prefers it by about 10 times as many hits. But the former sounds more colloquial to me, and since the expression is basically slang, it seems like that should be taken into consideration.

But what do I know: apparently, the second Google hit for "big upped" is something I wrote on ILM two years ago!

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 20:53 (6 years ago) Permalink

Ha -- I'm going to go out on a limb and say they're distinct usages:

Big-upped = "Big up to my man Ray-Ray"
Bigged-up = "I just want to big up my girl Trina back home"

... in which "big up," the earlier usage, is a noun (something given to someone, like a shout-out), whereas the later usage is a transitive verb.

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:02 (6 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, that's right, I went there.

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:04 (6 years ago) Permalink

I am in awe of you. For Realz.

― Young Fresh Danny D (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:05 (6 years ago) Permalink

But I would match the modern gerund (which is "bigging up," not "big-upping") and go with "bigged up," which is mostly how people do it now. ("Big-upped" could be marked archaic/90s and reserved for such uses.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:06 (6 years ago) Permalink

Oh no you di'int. (XP)

― Laurel (Laurel), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:07 (6 years ago) Permalink

l-r: ILE, ILM, nabisco

― Young Fresh Danny D (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:08 (6 years ago) Permalink

(xxp) Huh, well, I buy that "big up" can function as a noun or a verb, but if you're putting it in the past tense, then it seems like it's only referring to the usage as verb. How does "big-upped" correspond to a noun usage?

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:08 (6 years ago) Permalink

"Big up to my man Ray-Ray"

I'd also propose that you hear "big ups" (plural) just as often as the singular, when it's used in this way.

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:10 (6 years ago) Permalink

Hm. For a slightly different approach to the same distinction, to have "big-upped" someone requires that you actually used the words "big up [to]" in the original situation, whereas "bigged up" could be any kind of inflated praise or strong recommendation.

Oh bother, you've basically all said it already.

― Laurel (Laurel), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:11 (6 years ago) Permalink

Okay I'm actually mostly joking here, but I think there's been a shift in the words. At first people would say, you know, "big up to so and so," in which "big up" sounded interchangeable with "much respect" or similar. But then as soon as people started talking about this habit, it had to become a verb, and so the "big" part became the verb, maybe -- in part because it makes intuitive sense as an equivalent to talking a person up.

xpost -- I meant "big-upped" refered to a noun in the way that e.g. "toilet-papered" can be a verb that's been made out of a noun. Also, yes, spot on with "big ups!" Which are kinda offered TO people, right?

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:12 (6 years ago) Permalink

Wait, no, that actually makes sense, Laurel.

So: "I big-upped Nabisco" = "I said, 'Big up to Nabisco.'"
Whereas: "I bigged-up Nabisco" = "I was talking about how great Nabisco is."

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:13 (6 years ago) Permalink

No hyphen in the second one!

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:17 (6 years ago) Permalink

So, Nabisco, would these usages transpose to the British variant, shout-out?

― suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:19 (6 years ago) Permalink

No hyphen in the second one!

You're hardly one to talk, but you're right in this case.

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:20 (6 years ago) Permalink

I don't think "shout-out" is uniquely British...?

― Young Fresh Danny D (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:21 (6 years ago) Permalink

No. Neither does Webster's, which usually has a little chiefly Brit. caveat:

shout-out n (1990) : a brief expression of greeting or praise given esp. on a broadcast or audio recording

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:23 (6 years ago) Permalink

Of course he's right, I didn't use a hyphen for a reason. ; )

― Laurel (Laurel), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:25 (6 years ago) Permalink

I didn't use a hyphen in my initial post, either! The second time was a typo, I swear!

I think my problem with "bigged up" is that it's difficult to accept "big" as a verb with multiple tenses ("bigs," "bigged," etc.). "Up," on the other hand, already functions in this way in expressions like "upped the ante."

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:27 (6 years ago) Permalink

"Embiggens"

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:35 (6 years ago) Permalink

This discussion has been very embiggening.

― Aimless (Aimless), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 23:12 (6 years ago) Permalink

Moving on...

How do you shot something like, "Joey Jojo Junior Shabadoo, the Székesfehérvár, Hungary, based lovemachine, etc."? Do I need to shots a hyphen before "based" even though I have to specify what country Székesfehérvár resides in? Don't tell me I have to nix the comma after Hungary!

― c('°c) (Leee), Wednesday, 13 September 2006 15:46 (6 years ago) Permalink

the asnwer to 90% of such things is rewrite. Joey shabadoo, the lovemachine from Sz?keshfeh?rv?r, Hungary,

― stet (stet), Wednesday, 13 September 2006 15:48 (6 years ago) Permalink

or based in, natch

― stet (stet), Wednesday, 13 September 2006 15:48 (6 years ago) Permalink

Thanks stet. I knew to rewrite intuitively, but I saw another magazine (Spin, I think) recently do something like "the Manchester, England-based musician" and bugged out a little.

Next up: how do I kill the co-managing editor who's been ruining my reviews because he used to be the copyeditor and thinks he has a coherent grasp of grammar/style? Without, of course, arousing suspicion.

― c('°c) (Leee), Wednesday, 13 September 2006 15:53 (6 years ago) Permalink

Does he have a peanut allergy?

― Young Fresh Danny D (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 13 September 2006 15:55 (6 years ago) Permalink

The answer to 90% of such things is resign. Editors who think they can do X are a total pain in the tit. Staying in your office, keeping management off our backs and letting the staff alone is the job, so do it.

― stet (stet), Wednesday, 13 September 2006 15:56 (6 years ago) Permalink

Are you thinking of anyone in particular when you write such things?

― Mï¿½dchen (Madchen), Wednesday, 13 September 2006 20:12 (6 years ago) Permalink

[orly.jpg]

x-post

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Wednesday, 13 September 2006 20:31 (6 years ago) Permalink

Haha can your printer stack marks? Then you'd have options like "The Jackson 5, a Gary, Indiana|-,|based band..."

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 13 September 2006 20:38 (6 years ago) Permalink

Alternately, per our bigging up discussion: "The Jackson 5, a Gary-based Indiana band," or even "The Jackson 5, a Gary-based, Indiana, band" -- !

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 13 September 2006 20:41 (6 years ago) Permalink

That last one is an abomination, nab.

― Aimless (Aimless), Wednesday, 13 September 2006 21:50 (6 years ago) Permalink

I'd like to think they're all abominations!

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 13 September 2006 21:58 (6 years ago) Permalink

Although I suppose "A Gary-based Indiana band" is technically sound, along the model of "a water-based personal lubricant."

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 13 September 2006 21:59 (6 years ago) Permalink

I class most of these as irritations. However, your creativity outdid itself with: "The Jackson 5, a Gary-based, Indiana, band", and reached a lower standard.

― Aimless (Aimless), Wednesday, 13 September 2006 22:03 (6 years ago) Permalink

Were they actually based in Gary, or did they just originate there?

― Mï¿½dchen (Madchen), Thursday, 14 September 2006 14:40 (6 years ago) Permalink

That's your question on that one? Umm ... they originated in Gary and left quickly, but obviously at some early point you might have described them as Gary-based. My example is from 1965, maybe.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 14 September 2006 16:01 (6 years ago) Permalink

i have a couple of quick questions that can only be answered with a chicago manual of style but i don't have one right here with me, ugh, and people do not seem to be home/answering phones. if anyone can confirm, i would totally appreciate it :) pity me and my only having APA and MLA guides on hand (internet seems to be of no help for my questions.)

quotation marks: 1) double quotation marks all the time, right, except if one is quoting something and there are quote marks within that quote (these become single quotation marks), 2) include all punctuation inside the quotation marks or only non-period/comma punctuation? and if there is a source in parentheses, put period after that, correct? "Blah blah blah 'blah' blah!" (Thingy 1992).
and also (from the paper i'm actually editing): - These superheroes, with names like “Black Lightning” and “Black Panther”, indicate the status - that comma there, should in go inside the quotation marks or is it correct as is, according to Chicago style.

― rrrobyn, the situation (rrrobyn), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 00:40 (6 years ago) Permalink

Comma should go inside quotation:

with names like "Black Lightning" and "Black Panther," indicate the status

I'm not sure about the source in parentheses, since I don't really know Chicago Manual of Style at all -- every course I've ever taken has used MLA. I'm assuming that the exclamation is what's throwing you off, though, right? Because "ordinarily you'd just do this" (Dude, 2005).

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 01:40 (6 years ago) Permalink

yeah, that's what i figured, but he's got commas outside throughout and , now that i've talked to him, he seems to think this is correct. so, blah, i'm going to stick with the consistency argument on that one. and, yep, he's got a chicago guide, but damn if those things ever answer all our questions.

i have to say, i dig APA but i'm going MLA for my own stuff, unless i go do something in psych or maybe soc, of course...

thanks :)

― rrrobyn, the situation (rrrobyn), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 01:49 (6 years ago) Permalink

the punctuation outside the quotes plus the insistence on single quotation marks instead of double is probably going to drive me crazy by the time i'm done, gotta say

― rrrobyn, the situation (rrrobyn), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 01:54 (6 years ago) Permalink

I seem to recall Britishers using single quotes quite often for ordinary quotation usage.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 15:51 (6 years ago) Permalink

Is the "author", British? British style puts punctuation outside of the quotation "marks", strangely. I really "don't", like it.

― c('°c) (Leee), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 15:56 (6 years ago) Permalink

Surely this has been done to death a million times.

From ahem wikipedia manual of style, yes ok I know, but they speak the truth here:

When punctuating quoted passages, include the punctuation mark inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation mark is part of the quotation ("logical" quotations). When using "scare quotes", the comma or period always goes outside.

― ledge (ledge), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 16:02 (6 years ago) Permalink

I would put the punctuation outside the quotation marks unless the puncuation is part of the quote or whatever which is the content of the quotation marks.

But I am (1) not a sub/copy editor and (2) a Britisher. So don't listen to me. Why *would* you put the punctuation inside the quotation marks, unless they are part of the quotation to be marked?

(xpost - yay, I speak sense!)

― ailsa (ailsa), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 16:08 (6 years ago) Permalink

i think i lean towards whatever looks cleaner, and punctuation outside quotation marks looks less clean to me. but hey! each style guide is different. and i have not gone crazy over it after all.

― rrrobyn, the situation (rrrobyn), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 16:13 (6 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, this is def. a US/UK divide. Americans put exclamation points and question marks outside the quotes if they are not part of the quote, but we put commas and periods inside the quotes. It's not very logical, but it does look a lot cleaner to my eyes -- prob. just because I'm used to it. Don't know what Canadians do.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 16:20 (6 years ago) Permalink

Don't know what Canadians do.

cornhole each other, mostly.

― otto midnight (otto midnight), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 16:20 (6 years ago) Permalink

US = inside the quotes
UK = outside the quotes
CHICAGO = in the US

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 16:22 (6 years ago) Permalink

Well, yes, but what about the source is parentheses? Do you need an extra period after the parenthetical, even though you've already used an end punctuation within the quote before the parenthetical?

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 16:25 (6 years ago) Permalink

"Yes!" (Dooder, 2008).

"You do" (WTF, 2009).

― c('°c) (Leee), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 16:29 (6 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I don't have my CMoS on me, but I think that's exactly right -- only for question marks and exclamations. (Which aren't actually full on sentence-ending punctuation, really; quite common to use them in the interior of sentences, though I guess it looks a bit "literary" now.)

Unlike the serial comma thing (which, Robyn, just make sure your quote-comma style matches your serial-comma style!), the punctuation-outside rule is one point where I'm willing to admit that the UK style -- while not typographically pleasant -- is probably more logical in terms of meaning. I'm often copyediting and want to suggest a replacement phrase, and I'll write something US-style, like, I dunno...

use "bonus," to avoid repetition

...and then be slightly afraid whoever takes up the comment might interpret the comma as part of my suggested change. (Bad example, as I would just omit the comma there, but you know what I mean.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 16:34 (6 years ago) Permalink

Actually, wait, the most common everday examples of why exclamation and question marks aren't sentence enders:

"That's incredible!" he said.
"Are you coming with me?" she asked.

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 16:35 (6 years ago) Permalink

Paraphrased from a style book:

When a complete sentence is in quotes, the full stop should be inside the inverted commas: He said: “The cheese will be very tasty.”

If only part of a quotation is used, the punctuation is outside the inverted commas. He said the cheese would be “very tasty”.

When a sentence ends with a quote inside another quote, split the two sets of inverted commas with the punctuation mark. He said: “The mice claimed the cheese would be ‘very tasty’.”

― stet (stet), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 16:37 (6 years ago) Permalink

What's most disturbing is when you need a comma after quoted material that has native punctuation.

According to CMOS:
My favorite The Beatles' albums are Help! Sgt. Pepper's, and Revolver.

One last citation punctuation: if you're setting the quotation in a block (i.e. when you're quoting 3+ lines), the citation doesn't have punctuation at the end. Though I'm thinking of MLA, don't know about CMOS.

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Work, 2999

― c('°c) (Leee), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 16:42 (6 years ago) Permalink

When a complete sentence is in quotes, the full stop should be inside the inverted commas: He said: “The cheese will be very tasty.”

If only part of a quotation is used, the punctuation is outside the inverted commas. He said the cheese would be “very tasty”.

This is actually just UK style pretending to be complicated. The top one goes inside quotes because the mark is native to the quote itself. The bottom one doesn't, because it's not.

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 16:46 (6 years ago) Permalink

Additional question, by the way: lots of the British editions of books I've read over the past few years have had double quotes around dialogue and such. Is UK publishing converting to that style?

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 16:47 (6 years ago) Permalink

That's what I said! Stet, can I have your job please? I didn't even have to refer to a book!

xpost

― ailsa (ailsa), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 16:48 (6 years ago) Permalink

This is actually just UK style pretending to be complicated. The top one goes inside quotes because the mark is native to the quote itself. The bottom one doesn't, because it's not.

Yes, but your earlier table said "UK=outside the quotes" which is wrong.

― stet (stet), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 16:53 (6 years ago) Permalink

Ailsa: hoo, you don't want it, believe me

― stet (stet), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 16:53 (6 years ago) Permalink

As for your Beatles albums example, Lee, I've usually found that be a matter of house style wherever I've worked -- i.e., whether the punctuation immediately following an italicized word is italicized or not.

One thing that does bother me, though: a foreign word that's not in Webster's is supposed to be italicized, but if you're speaking of it in the plural, the "s" has to be in roman, which just looks messy to me. For instance:

"I ordered a Thai iced coffee and two pad kee maos."

It makes sense to do it this way, since pad kee maos is presumably not the way that the Thai language pluralizes this dish -- in other words, the "s" is functioning as an English plural, even if the rest of the word is in Thai. But still, eek.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 16:54 (6 years ago) Permalink

My The Beatles example isn't really about italics/punctuation/commas, just a punctuation/comma thing. The actualy example that I've read was:

Her favorite songs are “Hello Dolly!” “Chicago” and “Come with Me.”

Actually I'm not sure if that's AP or CMOS anymore.

― c('°c) (Leee), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 17:06 (6 years ago) Permalink

Oh, I totally skimmed over that. See, if it's italicized, I would totally do: Help!, Sgt. Pepper's, and Revolver.

As for the "Hello Dolly!" example, yeah, that's tricky.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 17:10 (6 years ago) Permalink

Yes, but your earlier table said "UK=outside the quotes" which is wrong.

No, stet, it's just the simple way of putting it. The reason UK style does this --

He said: “The cheese will be very tasty.”

-- isn't because of some kind of "the mark goes inside the quotes" style, it's because the full stop is actually functionally part of the quote. (The main thing style is dictating there is that you don't put a whole extra period on the outside, as well.)

So, yeah, UK goes outside. The above isn't some big exception to that, it's just an instance where the quote happens to come with its own punctuation.

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 17:59 (6 years ago) Permalink

But you can see how the punctuation is actually inside the quotes, yes? So if someone who didn't know was to follow your style, they'd sa "oh, Uk style is outside" and move the full stop, because that rule would override where the functionality was.

What's more, we do things like
"i really like cheese," barry said

― stet (stet), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 18:35 (6 years ago) Permalink

Oh right, those face-first dialogue quotes are the great burst of horrible logical inconsistency in British style! That certainly makes me feel better about America.

(Stet this is a minor and meaningless point but I think the arcane simplification I'm working with is that you'd no more move the period outside the quotes than you would move the quote outside the quotes, because the period is part of what you're quoting to begin with. We're verging on total obscurity here, though, so it's not really important to hash out.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 18:40 (6 years ago) Permalink

Yep, I'm just trying to get across that our style is also all over the shop, and not easily summed up in a word.

― stet (stet), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 18:42 (6 years ago) Permalink

A client asks me if there is a period after "no." for "number" but no period after "nos" for "numbers" -- what is correct in UK usage?

― Maria :D (Maria D.), Wednesday, 27 September 2006 14:22 (6 years ago) Permalink

Anyone?

― Maria :D (Maria D.), Wednesday, 27 September 2006 17:43 (6 years ago) Permalink

I don't precisely know British usage, but I'm inclined to think that it's "nos." Why would an abbreviation lose its period when it's plural?

― c('°c) (Leee), Wednesday, 27 September 2006 17:54 (6 years ago) Permalink

Because for an abbreviation which ends with the same letter with which the actual word ends, there is no period/full stop. E.g. Mr, Dr etc.

"i really like cheese," barry said

The comma goes there because it's a substitute for the full stop which would be there if barry said were not. I reckon.

― beanz (beanz), Wednesday, 27 September 2006 18:11 (6 years ago) Permalink

Suggest to British: M'r, D'r

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 28 September 2006 16:03 (6 years ago) Permalink

€0,79

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Thursday, 28 September 2006 16:07 (6 years ago) Permalink

Also beanz the abbreviation "no." stands for "numero" -- it ends with the same letter as the full word -- so I'm not sure your system is consistent here!

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 28 September 2006 16:09 (6 years ago) Permalink

On another subject...this was last night:

lol @ Kruk: "If he pitches like he did tonight in the playoffs, he'll be in-valuable!"
Ravech: "You mean as in not valuable."
Kruk: "Yeah!"

-- The Bearnaise-Stain Bears (crump...), September 27th, 2006 9:48 PM. (Rock Hardy) (later)

It's easy to laugh at Kruk here, but I felt a little bad for the professional meathead who doesn't know there are prefixes that mean one thing or the opposite, depending. "In-" as "very" (invaluable) vs. "In-" as "not at all" (indefensible). Oh well, I think I'll just lol @ him anyway.

― The Bearnaise-Stain Bears (Rock Hardy), Thursday, 28 September 2006 16:14 (6 years ago) Permalink

The prefix for "invaluable" doesn't mean "very," though. It's more metaphorical -- it means something is useful to the point where you can't put a value on it, kind of like "priceless."

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 28 September 2006 17:12 (6 years ago) Permalink

Lucky Day: Reading telegram: "Three Amigos, Hollywood, California. You are very great. 100,000 pesos. Come to Santa Poco put on show, stop. The In-famous El Guapo."

Dusty Bottoms: What does that mean, in-famous?

Ned Nederlander: Oh, Dusty. In-famous is when you're MORE than famous. This man El Guapo, he's not just famous, he's IN-famous.

Lucky Day: 100,000 pesos to perform with this El Guapo, who's probably the biggest actor to come out of Mexico!

Dusty Bottoms: Wow, in-famous? In-famous?

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 28 September 2006 17:17 (6 years ago) Permalink

I'm sorry I (quietly) doubted you, nabisco.

Main Entry: in-
1 : in : within : into : toward : on
2 : 1en-

Main Entry: en-
1 : put into or onto : cover with : go into or onto -- in verbs formed from nouns

― c('°c) (Leee), Thursday, 28 September 2006 17:33 (6 years ago) Permalink

2 weeks pass...

Punctuated names, redux: how would Neu! fit into a list of bands?

Neu! Britney Spears, Smoosh and Edith Piaf.

Or:

Neu!, Britney Spears, Smoosh and Edith Piaf.

Moral of the story: be like GY!BE and move the exclamation mark into the middle of the name.

― c('°c) (Leee), Friday, 13 October 2006 03:15 (6 years ago) Permalink

Use the comma unless you're referring to a band called "Neu! Britney Spears."

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Friday, 13 October 2006 03:25 (6 years ago) Permalink

definitely include comma - it could be an actual issue of clarity in this case, in which case i always err on the side of too much punctuation

― Maf54 (plsmith), Friday, 13 October 2006 03:25 (6 years ago) Permalink

of course you need a comma.

also to avoid confusion with nu britney spears.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Friday, 13 October 2006 03:34 (6 years ago) Permalink

Best proof of the comma's necessity is probably provided by Panic! At the Disco.

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 13 October 2006 03:58 (6 years ago) Permalink

i like how the comma after the exclamation mark seems slightly distainful of enthusiasm - yes, yes, you're excited, we know, but we've got to move on here

(also, at first i thought neu! britney might be kind of awesome but then i realized it really would not)

― rrrobyn, the situation (rrrobyn), Friday, 13 October 2006 14:47 (6 years ago) Permalink

I still think it might be.

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 13 October 2006 15:10 (6 years ago) Permalink

Btw, neither of those lists are correct, Lee, because you're missing the serial comma, you bitch.

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 13 October 2006 15:12 (6 years ago) Permalink

OMG exactly jmc

― Maf54 (plsmith), Friday, 13 October 2006 15:17 (6 years ago) Permalink

My magazine eschews the serial comma (over my objections), you Oxford whore.

― c('°c) (Leee), Friday, 13 October 2006 15:47 (6 years ago) Permalink

Sorry, "Oxfordian."

― c('°c) (Leee), Friday, 13 October 2006 15:48 (6 years ago) Permalink

HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN ABOUT GOD AND AYN RAND?

― ledge (ledge), Friday, 13 October 2006 15:49 (6 years ago) Permalink

Hello,

This is my first foray onto this thread, so be kind.

I keep getting sentences like this at work:

Although much of the NOC's plans are devoted to oil, ...

And the count/non-count usage of much/many is troubling me. Obviously it's grammatically wrong, because the NOC's plans are plural, so we shouldn't use much. However,it would be misleading to use many, because they don't have a bunch of different plans, some of which are devoted to oil. Something like

Although much of the content of the NOC's plans is devoted to oil, ...

would be correct, it sounds terrible. Any ideas? Or just let it slide?

ps Pity me having to sub reports about the Libyan oil industry. Sigh.

― Jamie T Smith (Jamie T Smith), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 11:48 (6 years ago) Permalink

What is that comma doing after Hello? You can't start a sentence with And. There's a missing but etc. etc.

I must edit my own posts on this thread of all threads!

― Jamie T Smith (Jamie T Smith), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 11:50 (6 years ago) Permalink

I think "much of the NOC's plans" is prefectly defensible. The NOC has a few plans, and large bits of said plans are devoted to oil, hence much not many.

Or avoid the issue by using "a lot"

― Revivalist (Revivalist), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 12:03 (6 years ago) Permalink

Hmmmm. Not convinced yet, although that's the no-work answer.

Lets substitute 'cakes'. (These are stupid artificial examples. Can't think of anything better)

Much of the cake was eaten. YES. Many of the cakes were eaten. YES.

Much of the cakes were eaten? NO. (And a lot can stand in for either, but the meaning changes depending on whether it's a plural or not)

You see my problem?

― Jamie T Smith (Jamie T Smith), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 12:08 (6 years ago) Permalink

Oh and going back a few posts.

You don't use a full stop after most abbreviations (in our house style anyway) because people aren't cretins. I know Mr is an abbreviation. No. gets one because you don't have to be a cretin to get it confused with no, the opposite of yes. Nos doesn't get one because nos is obviously the abbreviation for numbers and not something else.

Sense trumps consistency.

― Jamie T Smith (Jamie T Smith), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 12:12 (6 years ago) Permalink

You see my problem?

Not really...

Berlin and Hamburg were bombed during the war. Much of these two cities was destroyed.

That's acceptable isn't it? In which case "much of NOC's plans" is also acceptable (and semantically different from "many of NOC's plans")

― Revivalist (Revivalist), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 12:21 (6 years ago) Permalink

Much better example than mine! Thanks.

That is OK. But you've used a singular verb. In my case that would mean changing it to

Although much of the NOC's plans is devoted to oil, ...

which is horrible. I lack the wit to explain why your example works, though. Anyone else?

― Jamie T Smith (Jamie T Smith), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 12:25 (6 years ago) Permalink

Change plans to planning, then...

― Revivalist (Revivalist), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 12:26 (6 years ago) Permalink

I agree that "much" shouldn't be plural, but there are other instances where the singular looks so strange so we acceptably use plural:

A number of people were gathered

― Revivalist (Revivalist), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 12:31 (6 years ago) Permalink

BINGO!

Thanks.

(I am interested in the underlying grammar of this, though, if anyone else is still awake.)

― Jamie T Smith (Jamie T Smith), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 12:32 (6 years ago) Permalink

Yeah.

I suppose 'a number' is acting as a collective noun there, though.

I think much/many is different.

― Jamie T Smith (Jamie T Smith), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 12:35 (6 years ago) Permalink

I'm going to disagree w/ Revivalist.

Much of these two cities was destroyed.

There's an implied noun after much, IMO, e.g. "Much architecture of these two cities etc." or something similar, because the cities themselves weren't destroyed, but something in them was.

How about "most" instead of "much" in your NOC example, which I read as being a relative majority issue?

― c('°c) (Leee), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 15:49 (6 years ago) Permalink

Yup, "planning." Much of their planning.

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 17:48 (6 years ago) Permalink

You can all laugh at my ignorance here, but does "..course for third and fourth year undergraduates" need some hyphenation?

― toby (tsg20), Wednesday, 25 October 2006 06:39 (6 years ago) Permalink

ja. "third- and fourth-year undergraduates."

meanwhile, here's the copyediting story of the week.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 25 October 2006 06:54 (6 years ago) Permalink

'Vehicles left at owners' risk' or 'Vehicles left at owner's risk'?

― Winterland (winterland), Friday, 27 October 2006 12:23 (6 years ago) Permalink

Former - multiple vehicles have multiple owners.

― ledge (ledge), Friday, 27 October 2006 12:31 (6 years ago) Permalink

"premier issue" of a magazine? always thought "premier" exclusively meant "primary," but I see secondary def is "first in time." Still looks weird without final e.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 27 October 2006 13:32 (6 years ago) Permalink

It looked weird to me too, but we must be thinking in French :-) UK, US and Canadian dictionaries all show "premier" as the adjective.

― surfer_stone_rosa (surfer_stone_rosa), Friday, 27 October 2006 15:12 (6 years ago) Permalink

2 months pass...

does the frequent use and abuse of "curator" or the verb form annoy anyone else as much as it annoys me? i recently received yet another email from someone promoting and event and claiming that they were "curating" it. um, no. you're not curating anything. you're showing a movie a few times a month at a bar. GAH!

― lauren (laurenp), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 20:06 (6 years ago) Permalink

Hahaha, I totally appropriated that word for an art party I went to, because $ILXor's brother had organized/hung/lit the show and I kept having to explain to people why I should get in (after doormen stopped admitting) or why I was there even though I didn't know "Carlo"/so-and-so/such-and-such. I have no idea whether it was technically correct but I got in! And drank lots of wine.

― Laurel (Laurel), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 20:10 (6 years ago) Permalink

it seems reasonable to call someone who organized, hung, and did lighting design for a show the curator. i'm talking about really silly stuff like "music curated by so and so" for a show or suchlike.

― lauren (laurenp), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 20:14 (6 years ago) Permalink

One thing in its defense = I can't think of a different single word to use for "person in charge of selecting and programming the various pieces of art you will see at this event." It definitely seems excessive for screenings of one film a week, but as soon as there are multiple pieces / performances at one event, it's hard to come up with a snappy way of describing the person who chose them.

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 20:56 (6 years ago) Permalink

I like the term "curator" for things of this nature.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 20:56 (6 years ago) Permalink

(That said, I have been similarly annoyed by it ever since the time I looked at this woman's flyer in a dark bar and said "ahh, and you're the 'creator'" and she said "umm, curator" like I was illiterate and not just blind, and then several weeks later someone showed me some hilarious Chicago "art" porn starring her.) (Apparently "art" porn involves stuff that looks like bad student films in which no one gets naked or has sex but there are elaborate costumes and lots of non-sequitur "poetic" voice-over with the word "daddy" prominently featured.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 21:00 (6 years ago) Permalink

i guess i would prefer "organized by" or something similar to describe someone's role in putting an event together. to me, "curator" implies professionalism, experience, and education.

― lauren (laurenp), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 21:11 (6 years ago) Permalink

Curatorist! I mean, you're totally right -- people use the word because it has that professional air. But wouldn't it be kinda snobby of us to claim that the act of curating, as done by an educated professional, is so different from the act of an amateur that it requires distinct words? I mean, we could just use the word generically for the act, on any level, like we do with any number of professional terms.

(Ha, although I think we all get snobby on this topic when it comes to whatever we personally do: I am that way people describing themselves as "writers.")

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 21:22 (6 years ago) Permalink

i suppose it's the professional connotation of the word that leads to my annoyance at it's current usage. i mean, i wouldn't say that i had "doctored" someone's cut by putting a band-aid on it.

― lauren (laurenp), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 21:32 (6 years ago) Permalink

Messrs Schröder’s horse or Messrs Schröders' horse?

― Maria :D (Maria D.), Friday, 12 January 2007 03:57 (6 years ago) Permalink

I do think "curator" can be annoying wrt music events - we already have the words "booker" and "organizer" for that, and frankly, booking in most cases is not like curating. It's "We've got hot up-and-coming band x, now let's throw on a sort-of-hot soon-to-be-up-and-coming band with a moderate draw and a nobody band that always brings all their friends."

It makes more sense for a longer event with many bands, especially something like All Tomorrow's Parties where it's a specific artist's vision of what's teh hotness in music at the moment.

― A-ron Hubbard (Hurting), Friday, 12 January 2007 04:14 (6 years ago) Permalink

In ordindary plural you'd say "the Schroders' horse," so I'm guessing "Messrs Schroders' horse" would be correct.

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 12 January 2007 04:55 (6 years ago) Permalink

"ordindary" = milk products in a numerical sequence

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 12 January 2007 04:57 (6 years ago) Permalink

It makes more sense for a longer event with many bands, especially something like All Tomorrow's Parties where it's a specific artist's vision of what's teh hotness in music at the moment.

Why? If you book a night of five bands, surely you then book a weekend of them, too?

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Friday, 12 January 2007 10:44 (6 years ago) Permalink

Nabisco, I think you're coming at it the wrong way. It's Messrs Schroeder, not Messrs Schroeders.

So: Messrs Schroeder's horse.

― Mädchen (Madchen), Friday, 12 January 2007 11:03 (6 years ago) Permalink

"Messrs Schroeder's horse" reminds me of the menu option at Boston's late lamented Wursthaus, on Harvard Square, for "chili con carne mit beans."

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Friday, 12 January 2007 11:07 (6 years ago) Permalink

Messrs' Schroeder horse!?

― Alba (Alba), Friday, 12 January 2007 11:31 (6 years ago) Permalink

Nabisco, I think you're coming at it the wrong way. It's Messrs Schroeder, not Messrs Schroeders.

So: Messrs Schroeder's horse.

eh? but there's more than one schroeder, and you'd say "the schroeders' horse" ... nah, i'm with nabisco.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Friday, 12 January 2007 16:57 (6 years ago) Permalink

are the schroeders going for a quiet weekend's riding with the pertuises? i do hope so.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Friday, 12 January 2007 16:58 (6 years ago) Permalink

Why? If you book a night of five bands, surely you then book a weekend of them, too?

Well, maybe if you're choosing artists on more than just "a bunch of bands that will please a certain demographic and bring people to the festival." Even then, "curated" is a bit pretentious.

― A-ron Hubbard (Hurting), Friday, 12 January 2007 17:03 (6 years ago) Permalink

You mean like choosing bands based on what color shirts they're wearing, or something?

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Friday, 12 January 2007 17:21 (6 years ago) Permalink

But you would say Messrs Schroeder are going to town. I'm with Messrs Schroeder's. Sort of like attorneys general. It would be the attorneys' general horse, right?

― Maria :D (Maria D.), Saturday, 13 January 2007 00:33 (6 years ago) Permalink

the messrs schroeder is singular noun of plural content, like crowd

the crowd's horse
the messrs schroeder's horse

it's the presence of the "the" which rescues it from impossible eccentricity -- it pushes it over into extreme formality

but if formality is the order of the day, you shd probably opt for "the horse of the messrs schoeder" -- which handily pussies out of the prob

― mark s (mark s), Saturday, 13 January 2007 02:30 (6 years ago) Permalink

Ah, right, totally. Like "Mr. and Mrs. Smith's horse."

― nabisco (nabisco), Saturday, 13 January 2007 04:07 (6 years ago) Permalink

Ok, you convinced me. Formality is called for. It's in a letter from a lawyer demanding payment for a horse. A very expensive horse.

― Maria :D (Maria D.), Saturday, 13 January 2007 05:11 (6 years ago) Permalink

3 weeks pass...

Grrr, annoying minutiae:

"sixfold" vs. "six-fold" (et al)

Is there a rule on these? One right, one wrong, acceptable alternatives, different uses? Months ago my boss indicated what he felt was correct - I think one was an adjective and one an adverb - and as it seemed perfectly clear and self-evident at the time, no one wrote it down. And of course I can't find it discussed authoritatively on the internet.

― i'll mitya halfway (mitya), Wednesday, 7 February 2007 12:25 (6 years ago) Permalink

not really. there are a few hard-and-fast rules (eg adverbs ending in -ly aren't hyphenated - "socially acceptable behaviour" etc - but almost all other prenominal compound modifiers would be, eg "quick-thinking ILXors".) but apart from that, it's a perennial battleground.

best thing to do is get yourself a good dictionary - i always recommend the oxford dictionary for writers and editors - and make that your style bible: ie try to ensure everyone you're working with sticks to it. but that's easier said than done, as i know only too well :(

i can e-mail you a copy of my legendary 1996 undergraduate dissertation on punctuation if you want, but you'll need a) pagemaker 5 and b) a really, really high tedium threshold.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Wednesday, 7 February 2007 13:12 (6 years ago) Permalink

(and anyway, ISTR i didn't really deal with hyphenation. or, indeed, anything much.)

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Wednesday, 7 February 2007 13:13 (6 years ago) Permalink

Since there are no coherent general standards on hyphenation, every place I've worked has deferred to a specific dictionary on stuff like this. (Which was a real surprise when I was grocery cashier.) In the US, I'm guessing most would tend toward "sixfold," but who knows about elsewhere.

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 7 February 2007 13:27 (6 years ago) Permalink

do what any real sub would do. say "sixfold strikes me as wrong. It seems like a lot. Can't be right. I'll make it say "four times".

― stet (stet), Wednesday, 7 February 2007 13:36 (6 years ago) Permalink

lol. i often take that out, although to be honest, after i while even i start to rebel against flattening people's texts completely. people keep throwing the same mistakes at you over and over, and you start to forget what's actually a mistake.

xpost
no dissertations, thanks :)

― i'll mitya halfway (mitya), Wednesday, 7 February 2007 13:41 (6 years ago) Permalink

Doesn't the Graun style guide say that hyphens gradually disappear as the hyphenless form becomes more acceptable so, if in doubt, don't hyphenate? I don't think I'd hyphen tenfold, for example, but if it was anythingelsefold I'd try to find a more attractive way of putting it.

― Mädchen (Madchen), Wednesday, 7 February 2007 14:22 (6 years ago) Permalink

Ah, here's what I was after:

Our style is to use one word wherever possible, including some instances where a word might be hyphenated by other publications. Hyphens tend to clutter up text (particularly when the computer breaks already hyphenated words at the end of lines).
Inventions, ideas and new concepts often begin life as two words, then become hyphenated, before finally becoming accepted as one word. Why wait? "Wire-less" and "down-stairs" were once hyphenated. In pursuit of this it is preferable to go further than Collins does in many cases: eg trenchcoat is two words in Collins but one under our style; words such as handspring, madhouse and talkshow should all be one word, not two words, and not hyphenated.
Do use hyphens where not using one would be ambiguous, eg to distinguish "black-cab drivers come under attack" from "black cab-drivers come under attack".
Do not use after adverbs ending in -ly, eg politically naive, wholly owned, but hyphens are needed with short and common adverbs, eg ill-prepared report, hard-bitten hack, much-needed grammar lesson, well-established principle of style (note though that in the construction "the principle of style is well established" there is no need to hyphenate).
Finally, do use hyphens to form compound adjectives, eg two-tonne vessel, three-year deal, 19th-century artist.

― Mädchen (Madchen), Wednesday, 7 February 2007 14:24 (6 years ago) Permalink

I'm guessing the adverb/adjective thing breaks down like this:

sixfold = adverb e.g. "Their numbers increased sixfold."
six-fold = adjective e.g. "This is a six-fold napkin." (I don't know what a "six-fold napkin" is, I just made something up.)

___fold = one word, whereas "six-fold" is just two words crammed together that you use as an adjective to describe something that has six folds in it.

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Thursday, 8 February 2007 01:15 (6 years ago) Permalink

nice try. don't think the world's grammarians will be rewriting their style books just yet :)

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Thursday, 8 February 2007 09:08 (6 years ago) Permalink

Actually, a quick look at the dictionary shows that "sixfold" is a word. No need for hyphenation at all.

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Thursday, 8 February 2007 09:15 (6 years ago) Permalink

"the dictionary". which one? chambers? oxford? you'll find discrepancies.

i don't just make this shit up, you know :(

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Thursday, 8 February 2007 17:18 (6 years ago) Permalink

It's in Webster's 11th, which is my bible at this job.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 8 February 2007 17:23 (6 years ago) Permalink

depressing to read this thread. i always think i know english grammar pretty well. :-(

― Nathalie (stevie nixed), Thursday, 8 February 2007 17:26 (6 years ago) Permalink

Once any dictionary says something can be one word and not hyphenated, I take that as carte blanche to switch.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 8 February 2007 17:27 (6 years ago) Permalink

I can't be bothered with cartes.

― Mädchen (Madchen), Thursday, 8 February 2007 17:35 (6 years ago) Permalink

They're quite fun when you put them before the horsee.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 8 February 2007 17:49 (6 years ago) Permalink

ts: ground ball vs groundball vs ground-ball

― Elsa Svitborg (tracerhand), Thursday, 8 February 2007 18:39 (6 years ago) Permalink

i don't just make this shit up, you know :(

cof cof cof

― stet (stet), Thursday, 8 February 2007 18:44 (6 years ago) Permalink

fu cof

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Thursday, 8 February 2007 21:29 (6 years ago) Permalink

In light of our conversation about "bigged up" vs. "big-upped," here's a headline from ILX sponsor Paper Thin Walls:

Staying white and nerdy: Pop parodist Weird Al bigs Youtube up for his Grammy nominated album Straight Outta Lynwood.

Maybe for the same reason I prefer "big-upped" to "bigged up" (i.e., I'm thinking of "big up" as a singular unit), this strikes me as all kinds of wrong. Surely it should be "Weird Al big-ups YouTube"? But I also get the logic behind this -- they're simply treating "big up" like other multi-word verbs like "take up" (there's nothing off about "Weird Al takes YouTube up on its offer to do a weekly video"). Still, though.

(Also, "Weird Al" should be in quotes, but that's his own personal style.)

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 9 February 2007 16:41 (6 years ago) Permalink

Grammy-nominated as well ;-)

― CharlieNo4 (Charlie), Friday, 9 February 2007 16:48 (6 years ago) Permalink

My pet peeve: the use of "mic" instead of "mike" for microphone. What the fuck? Bicycle has no K, but you don't ride your "bic." Bic is a PEN, pronounced "bick," and "mic," whenever I see it, is pronounced "mick" in my head. SO STUPID.
As copy-editor of a small music-related publication, I buck the tide. And I'm not alone. Small islands of rightness exist in the prevailing sea of wrong.

― Beth Parker (Beth Parker), Friday, 9 February 2007 17:01 (6 years ago) Permalink

I hate "mike" for microphone, but I don't think argue against it with counterexamples -- it's just an aesthetic choice, like how "Internet" still looks weird when I see it lowercase, even though I use "website" (lowercase, one word) all the time.

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 9 February 2007 17:06 (6 years ago) Permalink

Jaymc, I DEFENDED YOU ON THE LOST THREAD!!!! I CANNOT BELIEVE I AM HEARING THIS FROM YOU!!!!

― Beth Parker (Beth Parker), Friday, 9 February 2007 17:07 (6 years ago) Permalink

MIC IS ICK.

― Beth Parker (Beth Parker), Friday, 9 February 2007 17:08 (6 years ago) Permalink

I'M PSYCHED FOR MIKE.

― Beth Parker (Beth Parker), Friday, 9 February 2007 17:09 (6 years ago) Permalink

read: "I don't think I can argue against it..."

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 9 February 2007 17:10 (6 years ago) Permalink

Okay okay. I forgive. Just let me carry on a bit more.
"Mic" has no "e" to indicate a long "i," for one. It CAN'T, because that would make it MICE. You can't make a microphone out of a mouse just by taking away its "e!"

― Beth Parker (Beth Parker), Friday, 9 February 2007 17:12 (6 years ago) Permalink

I believe, though my husband disagrees, that "mic" is a recent development. I could SWEAR that I grew up reading "mike."

― Beth Parker (Beth Parker), Friday, 9 February 2007 17:13 (6 years ago) Permalink

Tone-Loc
Jean-Luc Godard

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 9 February 2007 17:14 (6 years ago) Permalink

You're right about "mike" predating "mic," though: the former is dated to 1924 and the latter to 1961, according to Webster's.

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 9 February 2007 17:17 (6 years ago) Permalink

Ha! Thank you.
Rappers have a tradition of misspellings that would be ludicrous if pronounced phonetically. Flavor-Flav? That's always bugged me. FLAVE, dude!
And the French? They spell everything wrong.

― Beth Parker (Beth Parker), Friday, 9 February 2007 17:19 (6 years ago) Permalink

Other musicians are unable to spell their names right—not just rappers.
Suzzy Roche? Rhymes with "scuzzy?"
Neneh Cherry? That sounds like a schoolyard taunt.
For Fuck's sake, people.

― Beth Parker (Beth Parker), Friday, 9 February 2007 17:21 (6 years ago) Permalink

And atheletes! Picabo Street!
She RUINED an entire Winter Olympic for me.

― Beth Parker (Beth Parker), Friday, 9 February 2007 17:22 (6 years ago) Permalink

I'm so upset at the memory that I can't spell athlete.

― Beth Parker (Beth Parker), Friday, 9 February 2007 17:23 (6 years ago) Permalink

Oh god, everyone has fled the thread because they don't want to slip and fall on all the mouth-froth.

― Beth Parker (Beth Parker), Friday, 9 February 2007 17:27 (6 years ago) Permalink

lol our prose just ain't as purple as yours

― i'll mitya halfway (mitya), Friday, 9 February 2007 17:42 (6 years ago) Permalink

The only one that gets me is "micing," like in "We found Hannett in the other room, micing up the kick drum" -- in that case I actually do imagine the person with a bucket full of little mice, setting them on drum heads and stuffing them in amplifiers.

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 9 February 2007 17:56 (6 years ago) Permalink

Oh Lordy, that reminds me of "chicest."

― Beth Parker (Beth Parker), Friday, 9 February 2007 17:57 (6 years ago) Permalink

the use of "mic" instead of "mike" for microphone.

It's not "mic" it's "mic." -- a contraction used on the labels on mixing desks etc. And I'll proclaim that real-style on the em aye cee

― stet (stet), Friday, 9 February 2007 19:39 (6 years ago) Permalink

mic.ing

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 9 February 2007 20:09 (6 years ago) Permalink

Anthony Microphonecio

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 9 February 2007 20:10 (6 years ago) Permalink

3 weeks pass...

"My and John's landlord has asked us to forward the following advert" sounds wrong.

"Our Landlord (John and I) has asked us to forward the following advert" is rubbish.

"The landlord of John and I has asked us to forward the following advert" sound grammatical but pretentious.

What to do?

― caek, Monday, 5 March 2007 16:53 (6 years ago) Permalink

I think the first and last are correct but the first sounds best.

― Ms Misery, Monday, 5 March 2007 16:56 (6 years ago) Permalink

John and I have been asked by our landlord to forward ...

― .stet., Monday, 5 March 2007 17:17 (6 years ago) Permalink

'Mine and John's landlord' sounds good to me.

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Monday, 5 March 2007 17:19 (6 years ago) Permalink

Take away "and John's" though and "Mine Landlord" sounds completely ridiculous.

― Ms Misery, Monday, 5 March 2007 17:30 (6 years ago) Permalink

So don't take it away!

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Monday, 5 March 2007 17:33 (6 years ago) Permalink

It would be "the landlord of John and me" (not that that's the option I'd go for). I'd go with stet's suggestion

― Maria :D, Monday, 5 March 2007 17:37 (6 years ago) Permalink

or "of John and mine"

― Maria :D, Monday, 5 March 2007 17:37 (6 years ago) Permalink

John's and my landlord? Oh, crap. Just use his name. Who cares if people know that he/she's your landlord. Or John's.

― Beth Parker, Monday, 5 March 2007 17:41 (6 years ago) Permalink

Our landlord has asked John and me to forward the following advert...

― Maria :D, Monday, 5 March 2007 17:44 (6 years ago) Permalink

One obvious avoidance trick is "Our landlord has asked John and I to...."

Seriously, though, forget this "mine" stuff: unless you live in the 18th century, you don't say "mine NOUN!" My noun + John's noun = My noun, and John's, too = My and John's noun; it sounds counterintuitive and off-paradigm, but I can't see that there's anything wrong with it apart from aesthetics.

― nabisco, Monday, 5 March 2007 17:45 (6 years ago) Permalink

Oops sorry I put "I" instead of "me" -- Maria is correct on that one, obv

― nabisco, Monday, 5 March 2007 17:46 (6 years ago) Permalink

There's a problem with starting the sentence with "Our", though, because there's a second or two of not knowing who's being talked about. Which is why stet's is the way to go. (Even after you get to "John and me" it's at least theoretically possible that the landlord is not John's landlord.)

― Tracer Hand, Monday, 5 March 2007 17:50 (6 years ago) Permalink

"My and John's" or "John's and my" are both fine I think - the latter being what I'd use.

― CharlieNo4, Monday, 5 March 2007 17:55 (6 years ago) Permalink

All in favor of
John and I have been asked by our landlord to forward ...
say me.

― Maria :D, Monday, 5 March 2007 17:56 (6 years ago) Permalink

Maria

― nabisco, Monday, 5 March 2007 18:02 (6 years ago) Permalink

argh, passive tense

― Ms Misery, Monday, 5 March 2007 18:13 (6 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I never like "my and someone else's" constructions. It's correct but aesthetically unappealing, so I usually try to rewrite.

― jaymc, Monday, 5 March 2007 18:16 (6 years ago) Permalink

I live in rented accommodation. So does John. We pay rent to our landlord. He has asked us to forward this advert.

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Monday, 5 March 2007 18:23 (6 years ago) Permalink

Oh brother. What a pickle! "John and I have been asked by our landlord to forward..." was my winner in the end.

― caek, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 13:43 (6 years ago) Permalink

still love the threadstarter's question

― RJG, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 14:15 (6 years ago) Permalink

It would be better for all of us if John and you were just evicted.

― Beth Parker, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 16:42 (6 years ago) Permalink

'John and my landlord has ...' is fine. You'd say 'John and Peter's landlord has ...' rather than 'John's and Peter's landlord has ...' wouldn't you?

― Madchen, Friday, 9 March 2007 17:36 (6 years ago) Permalink

it could go either way. are john and peter(or speaker) a couple/roommate? if it's a common possesion then only the last name is possesive (John and Peter's house is on fire.) If something belongs separately to each then each name must be possessive (John's and Peter's houses caught fire.) So I guess if you're using names than the first example applies.

However the original question is using a possisive prounoun. My and John's landlord. . . You can't say "I landlord said. . ." so it must be "my" .

― Ms Misery, Friday, 9 March 2007 17:41 (6 years ago) Permalink

You can say "Island Lord said," though.

― nabisco, Friday, 9 March 2007 17:44 (6 years ago) Permalink

That's important to remember.

― nabisco, Friday, 9 March 2007 17:44 (6 years ago) Permalink

― jaymc, Friday, 9 March 2007 17:51 (6 years ago) Permalink

i know it's water under the bridge now, but why not just, "my landlord has asked john and i..."? (assuming that people who were receiving it know who john is, which seems implied by any of the scenarios.) it's not incorrect to say "my landlord" even if there are multiple people in the apartment.

― tipsy mothra, Friday, 9 March 2007 19:37 (6 years ago) Permalink

Information loss -- that one no longer specifies that it's John's landlord, too, making it the WMA to the rich informational overtones of the original vinyl.

― nabisco, Friday, 9 March 2007 21:10 (6 years ago) Permalink

Open Mike

― Beth Parker, Monday, 12 March 2007 20:21 (6 years ago) Permalink

From yesterday's NY Times magazine. Dumbfucks.

― Beth Parker, Monday, 12 March 2007 20:25 (6 years ago) Permalink

Chic-er, dudes.

― Beth Parker, Monday, 12 March 2007 20:26 (6 years ago) Permalink

I would bet anything the following conversation took place:

- "We should put an umlaut over the E, actually."
- "YOU'RE FIRED, THIS IS NOT THE FUCKING NEW YORKER."

― nabisco, Monday, 12 March 2007 20:30 (6 years ago) Permalink

Oh my GOD, those New Yorker umlauts! Don't you hate them? They stop your forward reading-progress like a Nazi roadblock.

― Beth Parker, Monday, 12 March 2007 20:36 (6 years ago) Permalink

Haha I think they should just use bad Salinger-style italics to do the same work, e.g.

... both companies pledged to cooperate in the cleanup of the polluted canal...

― nabisco, Monday, 12 March 2007 21:03 (6 years ago) Permalink

2 weeks pass...

How do you use the word "parleying"? Someone's written "parleying their next move". I would've thought it was an intransitive verb. Should it be "parleying about their next move"? Or "on"? Something else?

― Eyeball Kicks, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 10:54 (6 years ago) Permalink

i wouldn't use it like that at all:

verb ( -leys, -leyed) [ intrans. ] hold a conference with the opposing side to discuss terms : they disagreed over whether to parley with the enemy.

do they mean ... i dunno, "considering"? :)

― grimly fiendish, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 10:59 (6 years ago) Permalink

Oh, the "their" refers to a group of people who represent opposing sides. I think the word makes sense in the context; I just wondered if it should have a preposition, and which one, between it and "their next move".

― Eyeball Kicks, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 11:10 (6 years ago) Permalink

they might mean "parlay", but it still wouldn't be used like that

tr.v. par·layed, par·lay·ing, par·lays
1. To bet (an original wager and its winnings) on a subsequent event.
2. To maneuver (an asset) to great advantage: parlayed some small investments into a large fortune.

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 11:12 (6 years ago) Permalink

"parley before making their next move"?

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 11:21 (6 years ago) Permalink

I think the original can work with a preposition. "Parleying on " gets 222 google hits; "parleying about" 289. Given the uselessness of google searches for settling this kind of thing, that's a pretty low statistical sample.

I'm gonna go with "about" and get finished and then think about more important things.

― Eyeball Kicks, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 11:27 (6 years ago) Permalink

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 11:34 (6 years ago) Permalink

Have always thought that it just meant to talk to/with/about à la the french, parlez. So I think that you can use any of them, in context.

― peteR, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 11:37 (6 years ago) Permalink

(...or parler, or whatever tense you'd like).

― peteR, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 11:39 (6 years ago) Permalink

"in the west of Scotland" or "in the West of Scotland"? The Graun style guide has failed me. Help please ilx!

― Madchen, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 11:48 (6 years ago) Permalink

I can see an argument for both.

― Madchen, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 11:49 (6 years ago) Permalink

west of Scotland. "the West of Scotland" isn't a specific geographical entity.

eg west Ohio vs West Virginia.

― grimly fiendish, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 11:55 (6 years ago) Permalink

or north Africa/South Africa.

― grimly fiendish, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 11:55 (6 years ago) Permalink

in the US, it's "the South," or "the West Coast"; but it's also "the south part of the city" or "the west coast of the island" - it depends on if people refer to "the West" or "the West of Scotland" as an entity (or "brand"???) or not, i think, i.e. you would probably capitalise "Highlands" and "Lowlands"

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 11:59 (6 years ago) Permalink

xpost

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 12:00 (6 years ago) Permalink

hoo, highlands and lowlands has got me thinking ... i'd cap the former but not the latter, which is AS ILLOGICAL AS HELL but works for me :)

― grimly fiendish, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 12:04 (6 years ago) Permalink

Ok, maybe this isn't the right thread for this, but from what point, historically, would you regard any reference in a British article to a billion to mean 10^9? Or are there still circumstances in 2007 where you would assume it was 10^12? (This is important from a translation point of view - milliard/billion, etc).

― Michael Jones, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 12:11 (6 years ago) Permalink

See, there are all kinds of West of Scotland groups, societies, strategic/business partnerships so I wonder if it does now count as a geographic entity. Heck, when Paisley Uni and Bell College merge there'll even be a University of the West of Scotland (University of the Highlands and Islands already exists).

― Madchen, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 12:12 (6 years ago) Permalink

Actually, no it doesn't, not properly - hasn't got a charter yet I think.

― Madchen, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 12:13 (6 years ago) Permalink

The capitalisation of things like "West of Scotland" is a pain in the arse. I think in this case I'd use "west of Scotland" when referring to a geographical area (i.e. discussing weather or something) and possibly caps when referring to a sort of cultural entity (it's often "West of Scotland" when referring to religion etc). The best bet with this kind of thing, though, it to avoid making a decision by just relying on consistency in the piece itself (most important) and with previous usage in the publication in question (if there has been inconsistent usage then who really cares if you add to that?).

― Eyeball Kicks, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 12:29 (6 years ago) Permalink

I have bigger worries, having just noticed the claim in our magazine that King James "wrote the enduring King James Bible and even designed the Union Jack flag".

― Madchen, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 12:35 (6 years ago) Permalink

Searching the websites of the Guardian and the Scotsman, it looks like both almost always use "west of Scotland" in all contexts.

― Eyeball Kicks, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 12:36 (6 years ago) Permalink

xpost haha

― Eyeball Kicks, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 12:37 (6 years ago) Permalink

There are some abstract geographic regions that I've always seen capitalized, like "the South" or "the West" in the U.S., but there are others, like "E/eastern Europe," or "S/southeast Asia," that are pretty much a matter of style: sometimes capitalized, sometimes not. I've never heard of "the west of Scotland" discussed as a distinct entity unified by culture or politics (which is what often leads one to capitalize), so my inclination would be to lowercase it, but I also don't live in the UK, so it's possible that people do use it in such a way.

― jaymc, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 14:58 (6 years ago) Permalink

I have a feeling people in the west of Scotland regard it as an geographic entity, but those in the east of Scotland don't :)

― Madchen, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 15:30 (6 years ago) Permalink

How about this?

I need to make this a possessive: "user(s)"

I need to maintain its bracketed S. The best I've come up with is to arrange the sentence so that I say something like "belonging to the user(s)." Any real way to do this?

― Will M., Wednesday, 28 March 2007 17:35 (6 years ago) Permalink

Clearly, it should be "user(')(s)(')."

― jaymc, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 17:47 (6 years ago) Permalink

J, wouldn't that be user(s)'(s)?

― nabisco, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 17:49 (6 years ago) Permalink

Or wait, same diff, except you can take the parens off your S, cause it'll be there either way.

― nabisco, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 17:50 (6 years ago) Permalink

Indeed.

― jaymc, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 17:52 (6 years ago) Permalink

wait why would the third S be there if the second one were there?

― 69, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 18:22 (6 years ago) Permalink

OH OH jaymc's S nvrmnd

― 69, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 18:23 (6 years ago) Permalink

re: a billion - some time in the 1980s?

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 18:46 (6 years ago) Permalink

semantics question:

what's the difference between a lodger and a tenant?

― CharlieNo4, Thursday, 29 March 2007 14:19 (6 years ago) Permalink

lodger gets a room; tenant gets the whole property (or subdivision)

― stet, Thursday, 29 March 2007 14:29 (6 years ago) Permalink

"lodger" implies you have a room in a house run by a doddering matron who always keeps a cut-glass bottle 1/3 full of brandy in the downstairs sitting room, as well as a breakfast table around which sit an entymologist, a bounder with a mysterious past, a fallen woman, and a retired colonel

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 29 March 2007 14:38 (6 years ago) Permalink

You're legally required to provide a lodger with breakfast (though most people don't bother).

― Madchen, Thursday, 29 March 2007 15:15 (6 years ago) Permalink

re: fewer/less

I was taught the rule about countable nouns and non-countable nouns being qualified by the words 'fewer ' and 'less' respectively when I worked alongside grammar fiends of the grimly type. Since then I have noticed when people don't follow the 'rule'. For instance, the other day I noticed John Humphers on the radio - after some politician had said something about 'less criminals in prison' - deliberately repeating the phrase back to the politician, but corrected. 'Blah blah ...fewer criminals in prison, ' he said, all smug.

Thing is: once you start picking up on this rule, you notice its breakage everywhere. 'Less people...less cakes...less flowers.....less books....less computers....less biscuits....' ...and I'm thinking NO! fewer fewer fewer! (But more biscuits, please, if you don't mind.)

I should really stop caring about this rule, no? It is torture to care.

― Zoe Espera, Friday, 30 March 2007 10:01 (6 years ago) Permalink

Yes, it's a rubbish invented distinction that never serves to clarify, but only as a show of plumage for grammar nerds. Flout it! Do not care what they think of you!

M&S has "five items or fewer" queues and it always seems a bit like they're trying too hard.

― Alba, Friday, 30 March 2007 10:16 (6 years ago) Permalink

Okay, I will drop it and also stop correcting the wife every time he gets it 'wrong'. After all, this business was turning me into John Humphers.

― Zoe Espera, Friday, 30 March 2007 10:23 (6 years ago) Permalink

using 'less' and 'fewer' the wrong ways just sounds stupid

no matter how much I hate john humphrys

― RJG, Friday, 30 March 2007 10:30 (6 years ago) Permalink

I have a Word question. I'm trying to write fractions into copy and while it's happily converting 1/2 and 1/4 into nice one-character thingies, it's refusing to afford me the same privilege for 1/3. Anyone?

Also, How do I do a "degrees" sign? As in 50(degrees)c?

Grrr.

― CharlieNo4, Friday, 30 March 2007 10:45 (6 years ago) Permalink

for the second question, isn't there some kind of "Insert --> Symbol..." command?

― Tracer Hand, Friday, 30 March 2007 10:51 (6 years ago) Permalink

Here's one to paste: ° or type alt+0174. There is a unicode character for 1/3 - try typing 2153 and then hitting alt-x - sounds bizarre but should work in Word. Don't know how to get it to auto-insert.

― ledge, Friday, 30 March 2007 10:58 (6 years ago) Permalink

start - run - (type the following word there) charmap

that's the character map where you can find all kinds of obscure stuff to paste into other programs.

― StanM, Friday, 30 March 2007 11:02 (6 years ago) Permalink

Long-winded way to make any fraction in Word (on Windows):

Type the numerator, hold down Alt and type 0164 on the number keypad. Let go of Alt. Type the denominator, apply the superscript style to the numerator, select the weird "currency" symbol between the numbers and change its font to Symbol (it turns into a virgule - a more slanty slash), and finally, mess about the with the point sizes of the numerator and denominator until you are happy.

If you're having trouble working out the Alt - keypad stuff, or you're not on Windows, go to somewhere like here and paste the currency symbol from there.

― Alba, Friday, 30 March 2007 11:15 (6 years ago) Permalink

brilliant! it all worked. i love ilx sometimes. thanks folks.

― CharlieNo4, Friday, 30 March 2007 11:19 (6 years ago) Permalink

Whenever I want to use unconventional characters or symbols, I always just do a Google search (e.g., for "degree symvol" or "acute accent E") and then copy and paste accordingly.

― jaymc, Friday, 30 March 2007 22:03 (6 years ago) Permalink

a rubbish invented distinction

We will not get very far with naturally occurring / divine distinctions! I always get less / fewer the wrong way round (which in the US just means saying "less" all the time and forgetting about fewer entirely), but it makes perfect sense to me any time I think of the meaning of "less." It carries the "less of a mass" connotation, to me, even if I'm misusing it.

Ha, I think there might be a corresponding social / psychological shift, actually, where we increasingly think of certain countable items (especially classes of people, like "criminals") as a mass anyway! We live in a mental universe of uncountable categorical masses -- I blame YouTube!

― nabisco, Friday, 30 March 2007 22:12 (6 years ago) Permalink

E.g., nobody would ever misuse it the other way -- "we need fewer crime!"

― nabisco, Friday, 30 March 2007 22:14 (6 years ago) Permalink

"there is plenty to see"

vs

"there are plenty of films to see"

why do both of these look right? one of them's wrong, no? argh!

― CharlieNo4, Thursday, 5 April 2007 09:56 (6 years ago) Permalink

what's the context?

― the next grozart, Thursday, 5 April 2007 10:01 (6 years ago) Permalink

yes they're both correct.

"There are plenty to see" sounds wrong unless you say "As for films, there are plenty to see".

― the next grozart, Thursday, 5 April 2007 10:02 (6 years ago) Permalink

Is it...

King James' Bible

or

King James's Bible

?

I'd go for the latter myself as "James" is a proper noun and not a plural, but many people argue that it is the rule wherever.

― the next grozart, Thursday, 5 April 2007 10:07 (6 years ago) Permalink

It's pronounced James not Jameses (and it's The K J B ain't it?)

― ledge, Thursday, 5 April 2007 10:12 (6 years ago) Permalink

It's The King James Bible. It doesn't belong to him, it's named after him.

― CharlieNo4, Thursday, 5 April 2007 10:14 (6 years ago) Permalink

and my context:

"There's plenty to see this Easter weekend"

"There are plenty of films to see this Easter weekend"

A writer submitted "There's plenty of films to see..." and it wrong-footed me!

― CharlieNo4, Thursday, 5 April 2007 10:15 (6 years ago) Permalink

"there's all kinds of things i'd like to talk about" - this sounds fine to me although i know it's wrong; i could make the argument that "all kinds of things i'd like to talk about" (or "plenty of films to see") constitute(s?) One Big Thing - a mushed-together agglomeration that is conceptually singular - "plenty of films to see" is something that's happening this easter weekend - the films themselves are something to know about, but the fact that there are so many films to see is also something to know about, and in fact that is the main point of the sentence

i COULD make that argument but i mean, that would faintly ridiculous?

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 5 April 2007 10:24 (6 years ago) Permalink

Pretend that (for this example) the King James Bible belongs to King James. Like Prince Charles(')(s) ears. What is correct?

― the next grozart, Friday, 6 April 2007 02:51 (6 years ago) Permalink

There's a long history of debate on this point. I'd go for Prince Charles's ears, following the simple rule that singular words ending in s take an apostrophe s, and plurals just take an apostrophe. I think that's the Chicago Manual style, as well as that of the publication I work for.

Some people say it depends on how you pronounce it. Some have other, complex rules.

― Alba, Friday, 6 April 2007 07:46 (6 years ago) Permalink

is king james a plural?

no.

there's your answer.

simple, efficient and correct. next!

― grimly fiendish, Friday, 6 April 2007 09:09 (6 years ago) Permalink

"The 14 animals will have two months to decide if any of the salt varieties are suitable for road use."

are suitable? is suitable? isn't "any" technically singular, being shorthand for "any one"? argh.

― CharlieNo4, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 11:26 (6 years ago) Permalink

"varieties" makes it "are", I'd say

― RJG, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 11:30 (6 years ago) Permalink

if any of the salt is suitable

if any of the salts are suitable

― RJG, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 11:33 (6 years ago) Permalink

b-b-but "none of us is insured for this car" is correct isn't it? so that makes no sense...

― CharlieNo4, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 11:35 (6 years ago) Permalink

I thought it was "is" but I might be wrong.

― Alba, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 11:36 (6 years ago) Permalink

none of us are insured

what an oversight

― RJG, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 11:37 (6 years ago) Permalink

but "none" is a contraction of "not one", therefore "is" is correct!

No? Why not? *shoots self*

― CharlieNo4, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 11:39 (6 years ago) Permalink

except none is singular

crosspost

― RJG, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 11:39 (6 years ago) Permalink

guess it depends whether you predict only one or more than one of your salt varieties may be suitable!

― RJG, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 11:42 (6 years ago) Permalink

i guess they could all be ok...oh bollocks.

― CharlieNo4, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 11:44 (6 years ago) Permalink

'none of us is' is correct

― braveclub, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 11:53 (6 years ago) Permalink

Cuz "none" is "not one," right?
I don't know about the road salt thing. It would seem that the "is" or "are" would be referring to (modifying?) the "any" and not the "varieties," thus making "is" correct, but it sticks in my craw. Perhaps moving away from this hyper-correctness in conjugating the "to be" verb is an area where the language is evolving.
Also fading into extinction, most probably, is the word "whom," use of which I can never figure out on the fly, that is, when speaking.

― Beth Parker, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 12:21 (6 years ago) Permalink

I saw Amazing Grace last night and Wilberforce saying "to who" about three times in the space of a minute really grated! Also, he kept saying "bored of" instead of "bored with". Slack git.

― Alba, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 12:39 (6 years ago) Permalink

AP style says that proper names ending in "s" just get an apostrophe to show possession, and that's it - I like it cause it's more efficient innit

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 14:02 (6 years ago) Permalink

I'd have gone with Prince Charles' ears on instinct.

― Madchen, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 18:10 (6 years ago) Permalink

"All," "any," "most," "none," and "some" can be either singular or plural, depending on what they're referring to.

"All of the milk is gone" vs. "All of the candy bars are gone."

"None of the crowd was left" vs. "None of the fans were left."

― jaymc, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 18:14 (6 years ago) Permalink

not one of the fans was left

vs

none of the fans were left

― CharlieNo4, Thursday, 12 April 2007 09:18 (6 years ago) Permalink

Madchen you tart!

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 12 April 2007 10:15 (6 years ago) Permalink

i wish 'imaginary' could mean 'pertaining to imagery'.

― That one guy that quit, Friday, 13 April 2007 12:36 (6 years ago) Permalink

make it so!

― CharlieNo4, Friday, 13 April 2007 12:36 (6 years ago) Permalink

I suspect there's nothing wrong with "This information is believed accurate," but why does it bother me without "to be"?

― Dr Morbius, Friday, 13 April 2007 13:58 (6 years ago) Permalink

I think dropping the "to be" is a Scottishism. They're fond of saying things like "These shirts need washed" instead of "...to be washed" or "...washing".

― ledge, Friday, 13 April 2007 14:04 (6 years ago) Permalink

well, some MD from Wilkes-Barre likes to do it too.

― Dr Morbius, Friday, 13 April 2007 14:08 (6 years ago) Permalink

I think the original phrase is "all information believed accurate at time of printing", ie, headline style abbreviation with articles and auxiliary verbs removed. I'm not sure "believed accurate" really is grammatical outside that convention.

― underpants of the gods, Friday, 13 April 2007 14:12 (6 years ago) Permalink

I mean, I can't think offhand think of any other instance where you can have believed + adjective. "The woman is believed to be blonde" - you couldn't say "The woman is believed blonde".

― underpants of the gods, Friday, 13 April 2007 14:15 (6 years ago) Permalink

thanks, that's what I was feeling.

― Dr Morbius, Friday, 13 April 2007 14:18 (6 years ago) Permalink

You hear "believed missing" or "presumed dead" a lot too.

― NickB, Friday, 13 April 2007 14:19 (6 years ago) Permalink

Hmmm, that's true...

― underpants of the gods, Friday, 13 April 2007 14:21 (6 years ago) Permalink

Both most common at police press conferences though, so I blame the goddamn fuzz.

― NickB, Friday, 13 April 2007 14:26 (6 years ago) Permalink

"shitties are presumed whipped"

― Tracer Hand, Friday, 13 April 2007 14:31 (6 years ago) Permalink

"Found guilty" or "found dead" are also the same thing aren't they?

― NickB, Friday, 13 April 2007 14:33 (6 years ago) Permalink

meh, I'll query it at most. Fortunately it's in a loose line that can use extra words.

― Dr Morbius, Friday, 13 April 2007 14:38 (6 years ago) Permalink

"illnesses for which more than one treatment method exist"

I understand the conecpt of "two or more," but still ugly.

― Dr Morbius, Monday, 16 April 2007 17:19 (6 years ago) Permalink

It looks ugly because of the numerical weirdness, surely -- plural illnesses usually have more than one treatment, because there are more than one of them. Technically that clause could be referring to two medicines that both treat a whole group of related illnesses, rather than various illnesses each with multiple treatments.

Also, "exists."

― nabisco, Monday, 16 April 2007 17:23 (6 years ago) Permalink

'Found dead' is an interesting one - it implies the person was dead when you found them. 'Found to be dead' implies you weren't sure and had to investigate before coming to your conclusion.

― Madchen, Monday, 16 April 2007 18:51 (6 years ago) Permalink

I am so sick of seeing and hearing the words 'select FROM ONE of the following'. Wrong wrong wrong.

― braveclub, Thursday, 19 April 2007 11:16 (6 years ago) Permalink

anyone have a concise explanation of when to use "poor," and when to use "bad"?

― 69, Friday, 20 April 2007 15:40 (6 years ago) Permalink

NABISCO

― 69, Friday, 20 April 2007 16:44 (6 years ago) Permalink

I'm not sure I understand the issue -- could you give an example of where you can't decide which is right? I don't know of any grand grammatical distinction between "poor" and "bad": they're adjectives with similar connotations, but mostly you just use poor when you mean poor (suggesting a lack, deficiency, poverty, or inadequacy) and bad when you mean bad (suggesting something just flat-out negative).

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 16:59 (6 years ago) Permalink

it sounds clunkier to say (about a baseball player, for instance) "he played badly" than "he played poorly."

like OH why does it seem to me to be IMPORTANT that the dude in last crusade say "he choose... poorly," instead of "...badly"?

― 69, Friday, 20 April 2007 18:40 (6 years ago) Permalink

Some of the books I'm reading for this hellish essay I'm doing cap up the words Dada and Futurism but then don't cap up the word Modernism. Should I cap up modernism? I checked over my lecturers emails to see what she did. She did both Modernism and modernism. Maybe she was typing quickly or something.

― Zoe Espera, Monday, 23 April 2007 11:15 (6 years ago) Permalink

i don't think you should.

others would disagree, and have good cause to do so.

you should check with yr tutors as to what they expect.

― grimly fiendish, Monday, 23 April 2007 11:27 (6 years ago) Permalink

ie this is style, not grammar. next!

― grimly fiendish, Monday, 23 April 2007 11:29 (6 years ago) Permalink

I think that deliberating over modernism vs Modernism is a way of delaying writing your hellish essay. I suggest you at least pick a more productive avoidance tactic, like doing the washing up.

― Alba, Monday, 23 April 2007 11:30 (6 years ago) Permalink

I can't do the washing up. I am in Egham. The washing is in Hounslow.

I'm going for Modernism.

But that leaves me wondering what to do about modernity.

I'm going to get some chocolate.

― Zoe Espera, Monday, 23 April 2007 11:38 (6 years ago) Permalink

okay, picky pedants. hanging hyphens. how do we feel about them?

eg "a range of two-, three- and four-bedroom properties" or "two, three and four-bedroom properties"?

the former is certainly more precise (and, i'd argue, gramatically correct); the latter, however, is still clear and is more aesthetically appealing.

comments welcome.

xpost: surely modernism (see why i don't post using caps?) is a movement and modernity isn't? so you can cap one and not the other without too much grief.

― grimly fiendish, Monday, 23 April 2007 11:38 (6 years ago) Permalink

a more pedantic detail there is not. i use them with pride :)

― mitya, Monday, 23 April 2007 11:42 (6 years ago) Permalink

yes, grimly, I agree it should be Modernism and modernity. I will now have to (pretend to be) pondering something else as I go for chocolate.

two-, three-, and four-bedroom properties looks AWFUL! So awful it's worth not being quite so precise in order to PROTECT THE PAGE from the awful -, -, -, -, -, and - making the place look untidy.

― Zoe Espera, Monday, 23 April 2007 11:43 (6 years ago) Permalink

Gah. I mean I will now have to be (pretending to be) pondering something else.

― Zoe Espera, Monday, 23 April 2007 11:45 (6 years ago) Permalink

I agree with Ms Espera, though I don't think my mistress does. The sentence reads more clearly. It's not as if the reader is sitting there thinking: "Huh? Are they talking about twos and threes and four-bedroom houses?" - one's eye can naturally groups the "one", "two" and "three".

Related problem: what if your style is not hyphenate the prefixes "pre" and "post" but you have a phrase like "His budgets, both pre and postwar..." Can prefixes just become words on their own?

― Alba, Monday, 23 April 2007 11:54 (6 years ago) Permalink

Typos and spazzed-out missing words on this thread - oops.

― Alba, Monday, 23 April 2007 11:56 (6 years ago) Permalink

Surely it would be even odder if your style was to hyphenate the prefixes. To me, 'pre- and postwar' looks odder than 'pre and postwar'. Dunno, the hyphens just slow the flow of the reading, man.

― Zoe Espera, Monday, 23 April 2007 12:13 (6 years ago) Permalink

(Also, I'm going loads of work.)

― Zoe Espera, Monday, 23 April 2007 12:14 (6 years ago) Permalink

doing

blimey

― Zoe Espera, Monday, 23 April 2007 12:16 (6 years ago) Permalink

I'm doing to Morrisons.

― Alba, Monday, 23 April 2007 12:19 (6 years ago) Permalink

You do go that.

― Zoe Espera, Monday, 23 April 2007 12:29 (6 years ago) Permalink

pronunciation pedants: "mah-DERN-ity" or "moe-DARE-nity" ?

― Tracer Hand, Monday, 23 April 2007 12:54 (6 years ago) Permalink

I think either pronunciation is acceptable.

― Nathan, Monday, 23 April 2007 12:56 (6 years ago) Permalink

"mah-DERN-ity" or "moe-DARE-nity"

Why do I hear Loyd Grossman speaking when I read this?

― Madchen, Monday, 23 April 2007 13:37 (6 years ago) Permalink

Whichever's right, I think Grossman would say both.

― Zoe Espera, Monday, 23 April 2007 13:38 (6 years ago) Permalink

okay, picky pedants. hanging hyphens. how do we feel about them?

great! because they are right.

― CharlieNo4, Monday, 23 April 2007 13:42 (6 years ago) Permalink

I would hang the hyphens

― RJG, Monday, 23 April 2007 13:43 (6 years ago) Permalink

I would have hangs with all these hyphens

"pre and postwar" reads awful

― bernard snowy, Monday, 23 April 2007 13:48 (6 years ago) Permalink

Note: it's perfectly okay to use a hanging hyphen like that on a non-hyphenated word like "prewar"; it doesn't necessarily suggest hyphenation of the word, any more than (say) hyphenating a line break does.

Concessions to "looking better" on the bedroom one are reasonable enough, I guess. But I'd probably use them anyway, just because I get that lame pedant's thrill out of making sure everything goes together right. The words meant, after all, are "two-bedroom," "three-bedroom," and "four-bedroom."

― nabisco, Monday, 23 April 2007 15:00 (6 years ago) Permalink

So, if your publications house style is for "prewar" and "postwar", would you have "pre- and postwar" or "pre- and post-war" in that instance?

― Alba, Monday, 23 April 2007 15:03 (6 years ago) Permalink

I would have "pre- and postwar."

― jaymc, Monday, 23 April 2007 17:27 (6 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, like Jaymc says -- the hyphen isn't saying "this is a hyphenated word," it's saying "the rest of this word appears elsewhere." (Just like hyphenated line breaks!) It's like the typographical equivalent of the little jagged-line icon.

― nabisco, Monday, 23 April 2007 17:31 (6 years ago) Permalink

Since Michael has more than one sister, it should be "Michael's sister Janet showed her boob", but if he had only one, then it should be "Michael's sister, Janet, showed her boob", right? I don't think many people follow this rule, but it makes sense to me. Only problem is, it's not always worthwhile finding out if someone has more than one sister or whatever just for the sake of getting the commas right.

― Alba, Monday, 23 April 2007 17:37 (6 years ago) Permalink

Grrr you mean BRITISH people don't follow that rule. It bugs all hell out of me, since it's about the simplest of all the restrictive vs non-restrictive issues in the world, and yet I'm still constantly reading about "the English band, New Order" or something.

― nabisco, Monday, 23 April 2007 17:57 (6 years ago) Permalink

Only problem is, it's not always worthwhile finding out if someone has more than one sister or whatever just for the sake of getting the commas right.

Ha, I end up having to do this at work all the time.

― jaymc, Monday, 23 April 2007 18:00 (6 years ago) Permalink

P.S. there are contexts where you might use either of those Jackson examples, depending on how you've set up the field of people you're talking about. But for the most part I'm amazed by people's missing the nuances of these, because everyone's 100% clear on them when speaking. E.g., if there were two hammers sitting next to one another, you'd say "the hammer on the left is mine," and if there were a hammer and a watermelon sitting next to one another, and you were talking to someone who'd never seen a hammer before, you'd say "the hammer PAUSE on the left PAUSE is mine."

― nabisco, Monday, 23 April 2007 18:01 (6 years ago) Permalink

And they would say "why are you yelling 'PAUSE' at me?"
And you would say "COMMAS."

― nabisco, Monday, 23 April 2007 18:02 (6 years ago) Permalink

Jaymc - wll, OK, deadlines mean there's often not time to do so, let's put it that way...

― Alba, Monday, 23 April 2007 18:04 (6 years ago) Permalink

But modernist, being an adjective, would be lower case, right?

I didn't know about the hammer/watermelon thing. But it makes total sense. Wow, some of my sentences are going to change.

― Zoe Espera, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 08:30 (6 years ago) Permalink

is the use of "an" instead of "a", before words like "hotel" and "horrific", anachronistic? i prefer it but many will point and laugh.

― CharlieNo4, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 10:23 (6 years ago) Permalink

Do you make decisions or take them? I personally hate the phrase 'to take a decision' although I did read an interesting article years ago about how it was an odd turn of phrase (at the time) and was used to 'track' who had really written certain political speeches etc.

― Not the real Village People, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 10:29 (6 years ago) Permalink

decisions are made. action is taken.

― CharlieNo4, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 10:36 (6 years ago) Permalink

But modernist, being an adjective, would be lower case, right?

not if you're talking about someone who was part of your capitalised modernist movement. i mean: "german" is an adjective too, and you'd cap that :)

it's like the problem we have at work with "nationalist" (one sympathetic to scottish nationalism) and "Nationalist" (one affiliated to the SNP).

charlie: i think it's not just anachronistic but plain wrong. however, i'm interested to see if anyone's got a convincing argument in favour. (i don't actually have a good grammatical one against; i'm sure there is one, but i don't have time to find it).

xpost: that sounds sensible, too.

― grimly fiendish, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 10:44 (6 years ago) Permalink

Might just write the essay in grimly ilx post style. No capital letters at all.

Ta, grimlers.

― Zoe Espera, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 10:56 (6 years ago) Permalink

Hmmm. Askoxford.com is inconclusive:

The form an for the indefinite article is used before a spoken vowel sound, regardless of how the written word is spelt. If you say 'an otel' when speaking (which is now often regarded as distinctly old-fashioned), then it may be appropriate for you to write 'an hotel'; but most people say 'hotel' with a sounded 'h', and should write 'a hotel'.

By contrast, words such as 'honour', 'heir' or 'hour' in which the 'h' sound is dropped are written with 'an'.

― CharlieNo4, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 11:03 (6 years ago) Permalink

I think the BBC decided that it's "An Hotel", weirdly.

― the next grozart, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 11:12 (6 years ago) Permalink

There was another recent thread all about ans and as (what is the best way to write that, by the way, "an"s and "a"s?) and aspirated hs, Charlie. Can't rememeber what it was called.

I think "an historical" etc is widely deprecated, yes, though it seems to be one of those hypercorrective things that people do to try to sound right. I can't believe you really want to write "an hotel". Why?

― Alba, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 11:39 (6 years ago) Permalink

in the same way an American might write "an herb" i suppose; or indeed in the same way i'd write "an honour".

― CharlieNo4, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 11:43 (6 years ago) Permalink

another one:

for goodness's sake

for goodness sake

for goodness' sake

argh. i'm leaning towards the first one.

― CharlieNo4, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:00 (6 years ago) Permalink

goodness's sake? nobody says that!

― the next grozart, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:02 (6 years ago) Permalink

they don't but it's the only correct one of the bunch. GAZUMPED BY GRAMMAR.

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:14 (6 years ago) Permalink

I don't see what's wrong with "for goodness' sake".

― ledge, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:20 (6 years ago) Permalink

I see we touched on this above where "if it's a plural, add an 's'" seemed to be the rule. Nonsense! If no extra 's' is pronounced, don't add one!

― ledge, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:24 (6 years ago) Permalink

I see we touched on this above where "if it's a plural, add an 's'" seemed to be the rule.

nono, if it's a plural, DON'T add another s - just the apostrophe will do. But goodness is single and this needs another s (i think), odd as it may look.

― CharlieNo4, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:27 (6 years ago) Permalink

Yes, meant "if it's singular...", d'oh. But why add another s? It's pronounced goodness not goodnesses.

Results 1 - 10 of about 551 for "goodness's sake" - no measure of accuracy I know but 551 is not very many.

― ledge, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:29 (6 years ago) Permalink

"If the singular possessive is difficult or awkward to pronounce with an added s sound, do not add an extra s; these exceptions are supported by University of Delaware, The Guardian, Emory University’s writing center, and The American Heritage Book of English Usage. Such sources permit possessive singulars like these: Socrates’ later suggestion; James’s house, or James’ house, depending on which pronunciation is intended."

― ledge, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:31 (6 years ago) Permalink

I recognize none of those institutions. *sniff*

― Ms Misery, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:32 (6 years ago) Permalink

since the phrase has passed so far into idiom i think choice #2 would actually work fine

ledge, AP style calls for ANY proper name ending with s to just get an apostrophe - so i think those examples are not in fact very illuminating

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:33 (6 years ago) Permalink

that's kind of cool that Emory is considered an authority on these things!

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:33 (6 years ago) Permalink

Considered an authority by - well I'll give you one guess as to where my uncited quotation was from.

― ledge, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:38 (6 years ago) Permalink

I just use "for fuck's sake". Problem solved.

― Ms Misery, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:38 (6 years ago) Permalink

Or "for the sake of goodness". Which flows really well.

― Zoe Espera, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:52 (6 years ago) Permalink

The sake of goodness:

― ledge, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:55 (6 years ago) Permalink

i can't believe that took so long...

― CharlieNo4, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 15:45 (6 years ago) Permalink

what's the plural of Doberman (ie the type of dog)?

― CharlieNo4, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 11:47 (6 years ago) Permalink

Dobermany.

― Alba, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 11:59 (6 years ago) Permalink

*applause*

― CharlieNo4, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 12:00 (6 years ago) Permalink

chortleX0r

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 12:24 (6 years ago) Permalink

Style / usage / logic question:

If someone were to write, in a business context, something along the lines of "paper costs are expected to increase by 7%" ... would you consider that, by itself, a meaningful statistic? It feels kind of useless to me without some kind of time framework attached -- is there any kind of given in the business world that a statement like this defaults to meaning "for the next year?"

― nabisco, Monday, 7 May 2007 16:48 (6 years ago) Permalink

no it could mean for the next quarter, or it could be year-over-year, or month-over-month...really needs definition.

― tipsy mothra, Monday, 7 May 2007 16:54 (6 years ago) Permalink

Not...that I'm aware of, altho I don't specialize in paper buying. And I don't know about the wider world of business...

― Laurel, Monday, 7 May 2007 16:54 (6 years ago) Permalink

The paper was just a random example. I called this out on something last week, but they're declining to fix it -- I can't imagine what kind of thought process lies behind that, unless it's just "oh, whatever, who cares."

― nabisco, Monday, 7 May 2007 17:18 (6 years ago) Permalink

Or more likely "I don't know, and I'm sure as hell not tracking down the source of the statistic and figuring out the frame."

― nabisco, Monday, 7 May 2007 17:19 (6 years ago) Permalink

People don't care about statistics making sense. The other day I had something like "The survey found companies' paper costs had increased by an average of up to 7%" and I asked them whether it was an average or up to and they said "I don't know - that's what the press release said."

― Alba, Monday, 7 May 2007 17:24 (6 years ago) Permalink

Charlie, I would assume the plural is "Doberman Pinschers" or just "Dobermans." In the same sense that you wouldn't call several footrests "Ottomen." Doberman Pinschers is the 'most' correct, though.

― Will M., Monday, 7 May 2007 17:33 (6 years ago) Permalink

Here's a sample sentence (which I've obviously made up but which mirrors in its construction one I'm supposed to copy-edit):

"Under the guidance of Tom Ewing, ILM was founded in 2000 and ILE came on the scene in 2001."

So I've always been taught that complete subject-verb-object thoughts should be set off with commas when conjoined to other such complete thoughts. And so my instinct is to add a comma after 2000. But in this case, it seems like both events (the one in 2000 and the one in 2001) are relating back to the opening clause "under the guidance of Tom Ewing." In which case the comma might make it sound like ILM was founded under Tom's guidance, and then, later, separately, ILE came on the scene (having nothing to do with Tom).

I know that it's considered OK to omit the comma for conjoined sentences when they're super-short, like as in "He punched me and I collapsed" -- and one could make a case that the phrases here are short enough to do this, too -- but obviously sometimes they're longer, and I'm looking for a general rule, since I see this crop up quite a bit.

― jaymc, Thursday, 10 May 2007 17:16 (6 years ago) Permalink

n which case the comma might make it sound like ILM was founded under Tom's guidance, and then, later, separately, ILE came on the scene (having nothing to do with Tom)

exactly. gramatically, that's your answer.

― grimly fiendish, Thursday, 10 May 2007 18:59 (6 years ago) Permalink

You could always rewrite the sentence slightly rather than focus on just "comma or no comma," couldn't you? That's what I tend to do when following a rule might obscure the intended meaning.

― mitya, Friday, 11 May 2007 06:20 (6 years ago) Permalink

International style question! I know Brits say/write "different to," rather than "different from," but I can't imagine that they also say "X differs to Y in that blah blah etc." Is the UK just inconsistent on this point, saying "different to" but also "differs from?"

― nabisco, Friday, 11 May 2007 21:23 (6 years ago) Permalink

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&q=%22differs+to%22&btnG=Google+Search

^^ may provide some clues, but I dunno really

― Curt1s Stephens, Friday, 11 May 2007 21:30 (6 years ago) Permalink

Ha, weird. Follow-up question: at what point did the UK start using "to" as the preposition here? I don't recall ever seeing it in any older British lit. And it kinda relies on a modern break from the etymology of words like "different" and "differ." ("To carry away from," or similar, like physical separation; and Latin, too, so yr Fowlers and such were surely not advocating "to.")

― nabisco, Friday, 11 May 2007 21:47 (6 years ago) Permalink

I know Brits say/write "different to," rather than "different from"

hmm: it's not that simple. we use both. i can't actually qualify that difference right now but i've got a couple of books at work that might help. i'm back in on sunday so i'll check then.

let me think ... macs are different from PCs in that ... see, i'm trying not to think about this and just write what comes naturally, and i immediately go for "from". hmmm.

but I can't imagine that they also say "X differs to Y in that blah blah etc." Is the UK just inconsistent on this point, saying "different to" but also "differs from?"

it's inconsistent on the first point! but yeh, i've never heard anyone say "X differs to Y". which isn't to say that people don't :)

this is going to bug me, in a good way. i don't think it's a regional thing ... leave it with me.

― grimly fiendish, Friday, 11 May 2007 22:50 (6 years ago) Permalink

oh for FUCK'S SAKE. bbFUCKINGcode.

― grimly fiendish, Friday, 11 May 2007 22:50 (6 years ago) Permalink

Despite use, "different to" is incorrect, the same way "similar from" would be.

― Oblivious Lad, Saturday, 12 May 2007 00:31 (6 years ago) Permalink

Further to that, "different than" is often used incorrectly here in North America, but is correct under specific circumstances (ie, "My sister and I are both different from our mother, but I am more different than my sister is.").

― Oblivious Lad, Saturday, 12 May 2007 00:36 (6 years ago) Permalink

"different to" is correct

― braveclub, Saturday, 12 May 2007 01:42 (6 years ago) Permalink

That's not a "different than": it's a shortened form of "...but I am more different from my mother than my sister is", which is itself a shortened form of "...but I am more different from my mother than my sister is different from my mother." In this kind of context there is no word that couldn't be followed by "than".

― Eyeball Kicks, Saturday, 12 May 2007 01:44 (6 years ago) Permalink

Further to that,

aieeeeeeee you borke my brane

― Curt1s Stephens, Saturday, 12 May 2007 03:06 (6 years ago) Permalink

Yeah see I think of "different to" as just wrong, and the etymology mostly backs that up, but it seems to be in regular use in Brit speech, if not really high-level Brit writing (newspapers and stuff, though!), so I ain't gonna tell y'all not to standardize howsoever you please, k thnx bai.

― nabisco, Saturday, 12 May 2007 03:08 (6 years ago) Permalink

Other musicians are unable to spell their names right?not just rappers.
Suzzy Roche? Rhymes with "scuzzy?"

I realize this is ages old, but yes, it actually does rhyme with "scuzzy"

― Matos W.K., Saturday, 12 May 2007 06:17 (6 years ago) Permalink

and just to nitpick further: it should've been Rhymes with "scuzzy"?

― Matos W.K., Saturday, 12 May 2007 06:18 (6 years ago) Permalink

two major major pet peeves:

1) people who spell the "definite" "definate." in a sense the misspelling works because it looks like a cross between "definite" and "defecate," which seems just about right to me. nevertheless, anyone who thinks there's an "a" in "definite" is a fool.

2) people who use the word "purposefully" when they actually mean "purposely," "on purpose," or perhaps simplest and most useful of all, "deliberately." "purposefully" DOES NOT MEAN TO DO SOMETHING ON PURPOSE. it means determined or resolute. LEARN IT, KNOW IT, STOP FUCKING DOING IT ALREADY.

― Matos W.K., Saturday, 12 May 2007 06:30 (6 years ago) Permalink

TESTIFY

― Tracer Hand, Sunday, 13 May 2007 02:18 (6 years ago) Permalink

Deafenate.

― Beth Parker, Sunday, 13 May 2007 02:49 (6 years ago) Permalink

"deep-seeded"

― Tracer Hand, Monday, 14 May 2007 09:27 (6 years ago) Permalink

"to all intensive purposes"

― underpants of the gods, Monday, 14 May 2007 10:06 (6 years ago) Permalink

Hello again

Line-end breaks. Talk me through them. US style = by syllable, British style = by etymology? Is that right?

I know all the stuff about not using misleading ones and splitting double consonants and compounds are quite obvious, but the basics elude me, somehow.

What about merchandise? Is it Ok to do it merch-andise?

― Jamie T Smith, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 16:28 (6 years ago) Permalink

I know all the stuff about not using misleading ones and splitting double consonants, and compounds are quite obvious, but the basics elude me, somehow.

I missed a comma!

― Jamie T Smith, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 16:28 (6 years ago) Permalink

Which would you use?:

She had been day- (and night-) dreaming.
She had been day-(and night-)dreaming.
She had been day (and night) dreaming.

I'm inclined to go with the third one.

― Eyeball Kicks, Thursday, 17 May 2007 09:27 (6 years ago) Permalink

may as well be the second one

― RJG, Thursday, 17 May 2007 11:22 (6 years ago) Permalink

Everyone dreams at night, every night. Why say it?

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 17 May 2007 11:37 (6 years ago) Permalink

Also: the sentence makes the two sound equivalent, but daydreams are totally different than night dreams.

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 17 May 2007 11:49 (6 years ago) Permalink

different from!

― ledge, Thursday, 17 May 2007 11:50 (6 years ago) Permalink

i.e. "She had been dreaming during the day and at night." - The question arises: Does she sleep 24 hours a day?

xpost yeah you're right! how about "they are different things to night dreams"? that's what i wrote first!

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 17 May 2007 11:51 (6 years ago) Permalink

"Different to" is always wrong IMHO. Ah, I haven't written IMHO for years! Golden days of web-slang they were! YMMV.

― ledge, Thursday, 17 May 2007 12:03 (6 years ago) Permalink

Ignore the stupidity of the sentence! I just want a vote on the correct spacing/use of hyphens! Anyway, the full sentence actually reads (no joke): "She had been day- (and night-) dreaming about Hank, her handsome flying doctor."

I'm gonna send this off in the next half hour, so unless anyone has a better idea, I'll do what RJG says.

― Eyeball Kicks, Thursday, 17 May 2007 12:12 (6 years ago) Permalink

Dodgy commas in that last line... sorry RJG.

― Eyeball Kicks, Thursday, 17 May 2007 12:13 (6 years ago) Permalink

"She had been dreaming day and night about Hank, her handsome flying doctor."

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 17 May 2007 12:26 (6 years ago) Permalink

Tracer's got it. IMHO.

― Madchen, Thursday, 17 May 2007 15:37 (6 years ago) Permalink

Re line breaks, I have no idea how the British do it. In the US, it's generally by syllable. You're right that double consonants are generally split, e.g. "bas-ket" or "lis-ten" or "hap-pen" (but not always, e.g. "chick-en" -- probably because "c" is not a strong enough letter to end a syllable). I also think that prefixes and suffixes tend to be neatly broken from their root words, e.g. "peeling" is always broken "peel-ing" rather than "pee-ling." It also seems to be inadvisable to have a syllable end with a short vowel sound, e.g., "rad-ish" rather than "ra-dish" -- although if that short vowel sound is a schwa, it's probably better the other way ("di-rect" rather than "dir-ect"). If I'm unsure, though, I just look in the dictionary, just as I did to double-check everything I just said.

― jaymc, Thursday, 17 May 2007 15:54 (6 years ago) Permalink

[i]Tracer's got it. IMHO.[/]

Yep. That's the one I used.

― Eyeball Kicks, Thursday, 17 May 2007 16:38 (6 years ago) Permalink

Haha, obviously I shouldn't be doing this kind of work today.

― Eyeball Kicks, Thursday, 17 May 2007 16:39 (6 years ago) Permalink

My mother taught me that it's 'different from'. But is it 'compared with' or 'compared to'?

Also, going back to the stupid statistics thing, am I being dumb for not understanding what people mean when they say "It increased by 120%"? If something's increasing, you take the existing 100% for granted, right? So in this case the increased figure would be 220% of the first one?

― Not the real Village People, Thursday, 17 May 2007 20:25 (6 years ago) Permalink

Better than, different from.

Yeah, I think people get confused about the percentage thing because when you actually DO the calculation you multiply X by 1.20 to get the 20% increase...but grammatically it's only 20% more, not 120% more.

― Laurel, Thursday, 17 May 2007 20:27 (6 years ago) Permalink

But is it 'compared with' or 'compared to'?

"Compared with" when it's comparing different things within the same class, e.g., "Toyota sales are up 30% in 2006, compared with last year's data" or "Compared with most message boards, ILX is fucking awesome." Whereas "compared to" is used for metaphors, such as "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?"

― jaymc, Thursday, 17 May 2007 20:38 (6 years ago) Permalink

fuck. i genuinely forgot all about different to/from. and now i'm not in work again till monday. someone bump the thread then and remind me, and i'll check to see what i can find :)

Line-end breaks. Talk me through them. US style = by syllable, British style = by etymology? Is that right?

nooooo! what jaymc says is equally applicable to the UK (although anyone who broke chick-en over a line would feel the pointy end of my pointy boot). i'm not going to go into more detail because i can't be fucking arsed, but basically: the syllable is king.

that said: if you can keep your stem on one line, eg bugger-ing as opposed to bug-gering, it's a lot easier to parse at a glance.

It increased by 120% etc

this is actually a really interesting point that makes me wonder if a lot of people actually don't have a clue what they really mean when they use this construction. i'm gonna take a back seat and watch this one pan out.

She had been day- (and night-) dreaming about Hank, her handsome flying doctor

i know this one's done and dusted, but FUCK ME. how does someone even start to write something as bad as that? another shout for the tracer OTMery.

― grimly fiendish, Thursday, 17 May 2007 21:59 (6 years ago) Permalink

I found this when I was googling "take a decision" (spit):
http://www.bbctraining.com/styleguideArticle.asp?articleID=20

It reminded me of some idiot who did a feature in 'Student Direct' (Manc student paper) calling a bunch of people "Pre-Madonnas".

― Not the real Village People, Thursday, 17 May 2007 22:16 (6 years ago) Permalink

If something increases by 100% it doubles. Right?

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 17 May 2007 22:35 (6 years ago) Permalink

that's exactly what i've always thought. so i'd have thought that 10 increasing by 120% would be 22 (ie itself plus 20%). but my calculator disagrees, as does the google calculator.

caveat: i got a U at A/S-level maths. i hate this shit.

― grimly fiendish, Thursday, 17 May 2007 22:39 (6 years ago) Permalink

grimly, increasing BY 120% is different FROM n*120%. I think.
Anyway this is something I've noticed a lot recently, although I've not seen anything as bad as "The survey found companies' paper costs had increased by an average of up to 7%" (upthread)

― Not the real Village People, Thursday, 17 May 2007 22:43 (6 years ago) Permalink

is there a thread on the actual business end of copywriting and the industry? i'd like to get into it, maybe even freelance but i don't really know where to get started.

― the next grozart, Thursday, 17 May 2007 22:51 (6 years ago) Permalink

If you have 100 apples and you increase the apples by 120, you have 220 apples.

But 120 apples is 120% of 100 apples.

Right?

― Madchen, Friday, 18 May 2007 11:33 (6 years ago) Permalink

Ronan's thread about good books for subs might help, Grozart, but I can't find it.

― Madchen, Friday, 18 May 2007 11:36 (6 years ago) Permalink

(xpost)Those are two different issues. If you have 100 apples, and 90% of them are green, then that means 0.9*100=90 of them are green. This isn't an increase, it's making a statement about what you've got. If you said "120% of my apples are green" this would imply 1.2*100=120 of them are green, but obviously this is nonsense.

If you increase your apples by 90% you have 1.9*100=190 apples (i.e. your 100 original apples plus 90 new ones). Similarly if you increase your apples by 120% you have 2.2*100=220 apples.

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Friday, 18 May 2007 11:40 (6 years ago) Permalink

Yes it's the word "increase" that is causing the problems.

― Tracer Hand, Friday, 18 May 2007 11:41 (6 years ago) Permalink

yes, exactly. and although in the cold light of day i can see the difference between my two calculations (i was tired, and i'm also shit at sums) i am sure that an awful lot of people fuck this up in print. another one to watch out for.

― grimly fiendish, Friday, 18 May 2007 12:18 (6 years ago) Permalink

Sorry, maybe I wasn't being clear. What I meant was that an n% increase is not the same as increasing something by n%. So we agree (I think).

― Madchen, Friday, 18 May 2007 12:28 (6 years ago) Permalink

Wait it's not?? ...Augh. If you increase your profits by 100%, you've doubled them. If your profits see a 100% increase, then.. what?

― Tracer Hand, Friday, 18 May 2007 12:35 (6 years ago) Permalink

They are the same!

― ledge, Friday, 18 May 2007 12:43 (6 years ago) Permalink

Yes! But 2 is not 100% of 1. It's 200% of 1. Yes?

― Tracer Hand, Friday, 18 May 2007 12:44 (6 years ago) Permalink

Yes. 200% of 1 is 2. 1 increased by 100% is 2. 1 saw a 100% increase to 2. The last two mean the same thing, just with different phrasing.

― ledge, Friday, 18 May 2007 12:47 (6 years ago) Permalink

To add to the confusion,

percentage rises
probably our most common lapse into "mythematics": an increase from 3% to 5% is a 2 percentage point increase or a 2-point increase, not a 2% increase; any sentence saying "such and such rose or fell by x%" should be considered and checked carefully
http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/page/0,,184842,00.html

― Madchen, Friday, 18 May 2007 12:50 (6 years ago) Permalink

Hmm I guess technically they're right. "Interest rates rose by 2%" would mean a rise from 3% to 3.06%. I think most people would figure out what they meant though. Not that that's an excuse for sloppiness.

― ledge, Friday, 18 May 2007 12:55 (6 years ago) Permalink

If they wrote "Interest rates rose by 66%" you would hear the sound of fair trade coffee being splurted out all over the land.

― ledge, Friday, 18 May 2007 13:05 (6 years ago) Permalink

xpost: yes, i know all about this one. i had a fight with an arsehole who called herself a personal finance editor once about that very thing.

still think there's room for SPECTACULAR confusion about +100% increases.

― grimly fiendish, Friday, 18 May 2007 13:07 (6 years ago) Permalink

If they wrote "Interest rates rose by 66%" you would hear the sound of fair trade coffee being splurted out all over the land.

haha grimly you totally have to try that one time!

― CharlieNo4, Friday, 18 May 2007 13:19 (6 years ago) Permalink

I may not be able to do line-end breaks, but percentage increases are my bread and butter (as I sub for a bit of the economist).

We're really strict about whether we're talking about percentage point increases or percentage increases, and quite rightly so.

The media in general are very sloppy about this, and it has real-world effects. Didn't loads of people come off the pill because it increased the risk of getting cancer by 300% or something? But the difference was actually between a 0.01% chance and a 0.03% chance - I'm making up the figures but you get the point.

With rises of more than 100%, the detail is usually not so important, so I'd often just say "more than doubled" for a 120% rise.

― Jamie T Smith, Friday, 18 May 2007 14:37 (6 years ago) Permalink

Thinking about it, in my example, they weren't being sloppy, as the % increase was correct. However, it is just misleading to talk about percentage increases in things that can be expressed as percentages anyway, as you lose the sense of scale. There are two bits of information, the increase and the proportion of the whole in the first place, and you then only get one of them.

― Jamie T Smith, Friday, 18 May 2007 14:54 (6 years ago) Permalink

The phantom option Tracer is looking for is something like "profits are now at 200% of last year's levels" -- i.e., we made $2 instead of $1.

― nabisco, Friday, 18 May 2007 16:42 (6 years ago) Permalink

There's a key preposition involved in these, too -- increased by vs. increased to.

My $10 locker fee increased by 200% = $30.
My $10 locker fee increased to 200% (of previous fee) = $20.

― nabisco, Friday, 18 May 2007 16:46 (6 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, that's right. Again, in our house style the preposition is compulsory.

When I first started here I was always getting picked up on leaving out the "by".

― Jamie T Smith, Friday, 18 May 2007 16:57 (6 years ago) Permalink

One of my big annoyances has been popping up more and more often around here -- constructions like:

As a cable subscriber, we'd like to invite you to watch channel 64.

I think I understand the thought processes that lead to them, but they're SO irritating, and sometimes take a bit of work to straighten out in any elegant way.

― nabisco, Friday, 18 May 2007 17:57 (6 years ago) Permalink

Oh, I see those ALL the time. A misplaced something-or-other. Hate 'em.

― Laurel, Friday, 18 May 2007 17:58 (6 years ago) Permalink

xpost (Not that one, though, obviously: "As a cable subscriber, YOU are invited to watch channel 64. WE can't do stuff as a cable subscriber, because there's more than one of us, and we're the cable COMPANY, and anyway this isn't about us.")

― nabisco, Friday, 18 May 2007 18:00 (6 years ago) Permalink

lol at maths panic on this thread.

― Alba, Friday, 18 May 2007 19:26 (6 years ago) Permalink

xpost It's a misplaced (or dangling) modifier.

― jaymc, Friday, 18 May 2007 19:30 (6 years ago) Permalink

Should sentence starting with "Surely" end with a question mark?

― Alba, Saturday, 19 May 2007 11:29 (6 years ago) Permalink

not unless it's a question or you want to use a question mark

― RJG, Saturday, 19 May 2007 11:57 (6 years ago) Permalink

Surely sentences of this type usually act as rhetorical questions?

― Alba, Saturday, 19 May 2007 12:40 (6 years ago) Permalink

Surely they do.

― Curt1s Stephens, Saturday, 19 May 2007 14:38 (6 years ago) Permalink

Surely (ha) that depends on whether you mean "surely" as "certainly" or as "it should certainly be the case that..."?

― ailsa, Saturday, 19 May 2007 15:24 (6 years ago) Permalink

Sorry, that last one should be "it should certainly be the case that...shouldn't it?", shouldn't it?

― ailsa, Saturday, 19 May 2007 15:27 (6 years ago) Permalink

Yes, indeed. The latter is far more common, though. It's just that sometimes the sentence is long and by the time you get to the end, the question mark might surprise the reader.

― Alba, Saturday, 19 May 2007 15:36 (6 years ago) Permalink

Though that could be the case with a real question, too.

― Alba, Saturday, 19 May 2007 15:36 (6 years ago) Permalink

i think i read somewhere that questions can be divided into direct and indirect ones, the direct ones need a question mark and with the indirect ones its voluntary, "surely" is mostly used indirectly i would say and thus does not need a question mark.

as for the problem with "he or she", i use "its", works like a charm. "the tavern-keeper must spellbind its customers".

― Jeb, Saturday, 19 May 2007 16:01 (6 years ago) Permalink

low income countries or low-income countries?

― Cathy, Saturday, 19 May 2007 17:27 (6 years ago) Permalink

depends. are the countries low and ... no, sorry, i can't actually find any occasion when it wouldn't be low-income countries :)

― grimly fiendish, Saturday, 19 May 2007 17:37 (6 years ago) Permalink

yeah, I thought so. I just keep seeing it without the hyphen.

― Cathy, Saturday, 19 May 2007 17:42 (6 years ago) Permalink

yeh, you will. people be punctuation mooks :(

but as long as some of us keep flying the flag, there is hope for a better dawn.

(christ. that beer has gone straight to my head.)

― grimly fiendish, Saturday, 19 May 2007 17:46 (6 years ago) Permalink

What part of speech is "low-income" in that case? It's not a compound adjective, is it, cause that's two adjectives together.

Should there be a question mark at the end of my previous sentence?

― Alba, Saturday, 19 May 2007 17:47 (6 years ago) Permalink

The World Bank has two types of member countries: income and target. Income countries pay in, target countries take out. However, it's harder to get money down from the hilly high countries, so they prefer to use low income countries for their banking pleasures. or something

― stet, Saturday, 19 May 2007 17:55 (6 years ago) Permalink

C-

― Alba, Saturday, 19 May 2007 18:05 (6 years ago) Permalink

yeh but I cans ues a question mark so blah

― ?stet, Saturday, 19 May 2007 18:17 (6 years ago) Permalink

There are some people who would argue that precisely because few people would be confused about the meaning of "low income country" that the hyphen isn't necessary. I tend to err on the side of using it, though.

― jaymc, Saturday, 19 May 2007 19:53 (6 years ago) Permalink

what about least developed countries? I don't think I've ever seen that with a hyphen. what is the actual rule here?

― Cathy, Sunday, 20 May 2007 08:26 (6 years ago) Permalink

the rule is simply to only hyphenate whenever confusion is in the air, science fiction, science-fiction book, science-fiction book-club, peanuts.

― Jeb, Sunday, 20 May 2007 09:47 (6 years ago) Permalink

Perhaps there is a different thread for just ranting, but I'd just like to make known my weeks-long annoyance at the huuuuuuuge plastic sign outside the Hounslow Asda that promises seasonal produce "at it's best".

And also the worst attempt at pun ever, which can be found on the wall of the waiting room at my local doc's surgery. It is an NHS poster for Hounslow Stop Smoking group.

"It's not easy to quit smoking, but with our help it's less of a fag."

I'd like to think that the money they saved by not making the poster good was added to the wage packets of the brilliant and overworked doctors and nurses there. But I suspect not.

― Zoe Espera, Sunday, 20 May 2007 10:02 (6 years ago) Permalink

"drag"? is that really the pun?

― Tracer Hand, Sunday, 20 May 2007 12:53 (6 years ago) Permalink

No. "It's a fag" is slang for "It's a pain". I like the slogan!

― Alba, Sunday, 20 May 2007 13:02 (6 years ago) Permalink

Really? Fag = it's a pain? I have never heard fag used that way in my life. Drag would praps have been better.

― Zoe Espera, Sunday, 20 May 2007 17:33 (6 years ago) Permalink

Lemme think. I have seen 'fagging' used as a term for the hazing that older form students at British public schools inficted upon the lower forms. I have also seen 'fagged out' as a synonym for 'tired'. Either of these useages might, with a bit of tweaking, be generalized into 'it's a fag' to denote that an activity is unpleasant or tiresome.

Still, I have never heard or seen that particular useage, yet.

― Aimless, Sunday, 20 May 2007 17:46 (6 years ago) Permalink

"it's a fag" = "it's a hassle". that's totally normal colloquial english, i thought, along with "i can't be fagged" = "i can't be bothered".

― CharlieNo4, Sunday, 20 May 2007 18:07 (6 years ago) Permalink

Signs at Gatwick signs after security yesterday:

ANYTHING YOU BUY HERE INCLUDING BOTTLES OF WATER ARE ALLOWED ON BOARD.

― Madchen, Monday, 21 May 2007 09:52 (6 years ago) Permalink

Commas would've saved the day

― mitya, Monday, 21 May 2007 14:17 (6 years ago) Permalink

not really!

― Tracer Hand, Monday, 21 May 2007 14:34 (6 years ago) Permalink

if you set off "including bottles of water" with either emdashes or commas and then exclude it when reading the sentence aloud you will quickly see the other prob

― Tracer Hand, Monday, 21 May 2007 14:35 (6 years ago) Permalink

I always wonder if I'm more aware of these things because I studied Mod Langs. A mistake like that in another language was more likely to get your work covered in red pen than one in Eng Lit at my school.

― Madchen, Monday, 21 May 2007 15:21 (6 years ago) Permalink

ANY THINGS would've saved the day, though it's not elegant. But Gatwick isn't really elegant. And I had a three hour delay too!

― Madchen, Monday, 21 May 2007 15:22 (6 years ago) Permalink

three-hour?

― Madchen, Monday, 21 May 2007 15:22 (6 years ago) Permalink

Boots loyalty cards advertised as: "No other loyalty card is more generous" (or words to that effect).

Can you have both 'other' and 'more' in this context?
Can we have a product blacklist where the label makes no sense or says "it's" instead of "its"? I swore at some Boots footcream today because of this.

― Not the real Village People, Tuesday, 29 May 2007 17:13 (6 years ago) Permalink

What Boots would appear to be saying is that there are other cards which are precisely AS generous, but none that are MORE -- i.e., they are in a tie for first place.

― nabisco, Tuesday, 29 May 2007 17:27 (6 years ago) Permalink

Haha possibly they are referring to the individual card they are offering you: "Card #8134-9123's generosity is surpassed by no other card, but we must admit it's equalled by the generosity of all the other individual cards we've issued to other shoppers."

― nabisco, Tuesday, 29 May 2007 17:30 (6 years ago) Permalink

but it's still pretty clumsy when you look at it.

i don't like it. thumbs down.

― darraghmac, Tuesday, 29 May 2007 17:30 (6 years ago) Permalink

Hm, but by saying "No other loyalty card is more generous" are they kind of saying "THIS loyalty card is more generous, but no OTHER card is"... but more generous than what?

It's the 'other' that I don't like.

― Not the real Village People, Tuesday, 29 May 2007 17:33 (6 years ago) Permalink

Huh? The problem isn't with the "more" antecedent --

No other loyalty card is more generous (than our loyalty card).

It's still grammatical -- they've just included a clumsy "other" that makes it mean something other than what they want. They surely mean --

No loyalty card is more generous (than our loyalty card).

Or, if they really want to specify "other" --

No other loyalty card is as generous (as our loyalty card).

But because those parentheticals weren't there, they have overclarified and wound up saying something not quite as bold as they want:

No other loyalty card is more generous (than our loyalty card) (though some might be exactly AS generous as ours).

― nabisco, Tuesday, 29 May 2007 17:43 (6 years ago) Permalink

(OH WAIT okay I follow you -- yeah, the "other" construction makes it read like the equivalent of "no other card is GREEN" or "no other card is RECTANGULAR." As if it's saying "our card is MORE GENEROUS (than nothing in particular), and other cards aren't.")

― nabisco, Tuesday, 29 May 2007 17:45 (6 years ago) Permalink

Usage query: People now seem to use the construction "<ACTOR> vehicle" to mean just "movie featuring <ACTOR>." Isn't the original thrust/connotation of "vehicle" (in this context) that the film is mostly banking on the star's potential popularity -- that the film was constructed to advance the career of the star, more so than the star just winding up cast in it?

― nabisco, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 22:09 (6 years ago) Permalink

totally. but since all movies are like that now - you can't get a movie made without a "name" in the cast, even an indie - the difference between the two has collapsed, and this collapse is reflected in the relative meaninglessness of that phrase these days

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 22:55 (6 years ago) Permalink

I was being bothered by seeing that with Music and Lyrics -- that's not really a "vehicle" for Hugh Grant and Drew Barrymore, seeing as they've been parked in that kind of movie for over a decade now.

― nabisco, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 23:00 (6 years ago) Permalink

mmm parking with drew barrymore for ten years.

― darraghmac, Thursday, 31 May 2007 02:56 (6 years ago) Permalink

Surely that makes it an ideal vehicle for them, as it's the sort of movie they would both be very comfortable being in and, indeed, driving. By which I mean although your original use of vehicle as "it's to propel them forward" is a good metaphor, isn't "it's to house them comfortably and get them from A (start of movie) to B (end of movie) with ease" also a valid vehicle metaphor, Music and Lyrics being a great example because it's pretty much Hugh Grant *IS* Hugh Grant and Drew Barrymore *IS* Drew Barrymore.

― ailsa, Thursday, 31 May 2007 07:02 (6 years ago) Permalink

I'm not sure how a genre movie that many people go to see just because of Hugh and Drew isn't a "vehicle" for them. Perhaps slightly different in intentions - ie., it could just as easily been a vehicle for John Cusack and Cameron Diaz, but once it's made it really does just become "new Hugh and Drew movie."

― mitya, Thursday, 31 May 2007 07:19 (6 years ago) Permalink

maybe if you're most familiar with the construction from logic games, but i think the average consumer is more likely to encounter it in... advertising. add in the implied "than" phrase and ask whether "no card" or "no other card" sounds better.

― gabbneb, Thursday, 31 May 2007 10:00 (6 years ago) Permalink

I think it's the implication of two 'than's. "No other card (than Boots) is more generous (than Boots)."

― Not the real Village People, Thursday, 31 May 2007 12:45 (6 years ago) Permalink

But then your problem would be with the "no card" construction, regardless of whether it has an "other" in it, because if you take 'other' out, there remain two 'than's implicated - "No card (other than Boots) is more generous (than Boots)." So what's your alternative?

― gabbneb, Thursday, 31 May 2007 14:05 (6 years ago) Permalink

oh wait, you're right, aren't you?

― gabbneb, Thursday, 31 May 2007 14:06 (6 years ago) Permalink

― gabbneb, Thursday, 31 May 2007 14:07 (6 years ago) Permalink

I've already got an Advantage card anyway. So I'm the real loser ...

― Not the real Village People, Thursday, 31 May 2007 19:05 (6 years ago) Permalink

Hey, copy editors..

When referring to a group of people as in Class of 2007, do you say "who" or "which"? I think "who" but not sure..

"The class which raised $1000"
or "The class who raised $1000"

― daria-g, Monday, 11 June 2007 23:55 (6 years ago) Permalink

That.

― Alba, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 00:10 (6 years ago) Permalink

Sure? OK. I'm just trying to advocate for removing "which" which is.. awkward! :)

― daria-g, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 00:11 (6 years ago) Permalink

(or "which", if you've already specified which class you're talking about and the "which raised $1000" is just supplying extra information about that class, in which case there should probably be a comma before "which")

I don't think I'd use "who".

― Alba, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 00:15 (6 years ago) Permalink

"which" is probably suitable, I think it sounds crappy though.

― daria-g, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 00:20 (6 years ago) Permalink

ok, here's one that has always annoyed me, but recently i've been having my doubts as to my right-ness:
dvds, cds, mp3s (etc.) vs. dvd's, cd's, mp3's (etc.).

i always thought the former was correct, but this incredibly smart writerly friend of mine always uses the latter. i really want to say something but i'm paranoid i'm wrong, and i don't want him to think i'm an ass. i'm 99.9999% i'm right, though.

[god, i'll be majorly bummed and humiliated if i'm wrong]

― Rubyred, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 00:21 (6 years ago) Permalink

Posting on this thread sometimes is like when you read about posture or breathing, and you find yourself sort of semiconsciously straightening up

daria I think you'd need a comma after "class" in order for either of those to work? It wouldn't be "who" in any case because the class isn't a person.

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 00:26 (6 years ago) Permalink

or what Alba said!

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 00:27 (6 years ago) Permalink

i'd have used your original way rubyred, but then what would I know?

― the next grozart, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 00:45 (6 years ago) Permalink

Daria, the two have different meanings/uses (restrictive vs. non-restrictive), which basically line up, meaning-wise, like this:

- The class, which incidentally just so happened to raise $1000, is awesome.
- The class that raised $1000 is awesome, whereas the class that raised $50 sucks.

A comma and a "which" for an incidental clause -- one that could be set off in dashes or parentheses, or even omitted. No comma and a "that" for something that's part of the subject: "The house that's on the left (as opposed to the house that's on the right)."

Haha you may or may not need a comma in $1,000.

OMG I am totally against using an apostrophe in CDs and DVDs, because the letters are capitalized and there's zero risk of anyone confusing the S with part of the designation there -- and yet the damned ~~Greengrocer's Times~~ New York Times even does CD's for plural!

― nabisco, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 00:50 (6 years ago) Permalink

ok, here's one that has always annoyed me, but recently i've been having my doubts as to my right-ness:
dvds, cds, mp3s (etc.) vs. dvd's, cd's, mp3's (etc.).
i always thought the former was correct, but this incredibly smart writerly friend of mine always uses the latter. i really want to say something but i'm paranoid i'm wrong, and i don't want him to think i'm an ass. i'm 99.9999% i'm right, though.
[god, i'll be majorly bummed and humiliated if i'm wrong]

the former's definitely the standard way of writing it, although some people use caps for some items (i.e. CD, CDs, CD's, CDs'; but dBs rather than ~~DBs~~). maybe it's the same as with numbers; you can write "number 1's" (meaning "number ones") instead of "number 1s", but most style guides advise against that as some people may interpret the apostrophe as meaning "belonging to number one".

x-post

― Jeb, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 00:52 (6 years ago) Permalink

My great apostrophe-to-sort-out-lowercase mind-breaker is do's and don'ts, which works, but is just ... extremely provisional.

Ha, we might actually need some new apostrophe-like mark to denote "this isn't a possessive, it's simply being used to separate the plural S from something it could make confusing." DO~S and DON'TS

― nabisco, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 00:55 (6 years ago) Permalink

dear lord. it's def. "which" but the whole sentence in question is a hideous mess, to be honest i'd rewrite the whole thing were i not already exhausted. (I didn't write it in the first place, I just seem to care too much about these things, when obv the writer didn't care)

― daria-g, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 01:07 (6 years ago) Permalink

YAY! I WAS RIGHT!
[i hope you peeps are right...]
now i can confidentally approach my man-friend with his mistake. it totally bugs me when i see signs at video/music stores saying: "CD's! DVD's! half-price!" wtf?

― Rubyred, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 01:51 (6 years ago) Permalink

14 hours later ...

Daria, the two have different meanings/uses (restrictive vs. non-restrictive), which basically line up, meaning-wise, like this:

- The class, which incidentally just so happened to raise $1000, is awesome.
- The class that raised $1000 is awesome, whereas the class that raised $50 sucks.

This is correct, but you can use which or that without the comma for the second one (although not in some house styles). You can only use that with a defining relative clause, however, so the first one has to be which.

However, I feel that who would be fine here. Conceptually, you would be thinking of the students who made up the class, rather than the class as an entity in itself. (Just as you can use a plural or singular verb with class.) Doesn't change the meaning, though.

― Jamie T Smith, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 15:07 (6 years ago) Permalink

Hey, I've got one.

I always correct "as such" when it is used to mean "as a result" or "therefore", and only let it through when [gets technical] the clause following it shares the same subject as the antecedent of "as such". So, to take some more supremely dull work examples:

Nationwide elections in mid-December are likely to be treated by many voters as a chance to pass judgement on Mr Ahmadinejad's handling of economic as well as political affairs, and as such will serve as a barometer of the popularity of the president, just 16 months into his term.

This is fine.

This requires Bahraini interest rates to closely track those in the US, albeit with a small positive differential (designed in part to safeguard against fluctuations in oil prices). As such, we expect Bahrain to cut rates slightly in 2007.

This is not.

I know I'm formally right, but am I being too conservative? Is this language change in action etc. and should I get with the programme? All our authors seem to do it.

― Jamie T Smith, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 15:19 (6 years ago) Permalink

This is correct, but you can use which or that without the comma for the second one (although not in some house styles).

Really? Maybe this is just sort of been drilled into me over the years, but I can't imagine any instance where "The class which raised $1000 is awesome" would be grammatically correct.

― jaymc, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 15:25 (6 years ago) Permalink

Ha, "this has just." (I'm as bad as the ILXors who write "sort've" for "sort of.")

― jaymc, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 15:26 (6 years ago) Permalink

Where I work now we have to use "that" for defining, "which" for non, and I know what you mean. It looks odd now.

However, I spent years teaching English as a foreign language and all the grammar books give that/which as alternatives for defining relative pronouns.

― Jamie T Smith, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 15:42 (6 years ago) Permalink

Is it ok to talk about "yoof", or has everyone now moved on to "da yoot" or however the fuck you spell it?

― CharlieNo4, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 15:49 (6 years ago) Permalink

I found this interesting (from http://plateaupress.com.au/wfw/thatvwhi.htm)

"The interesting question about this issue is how it happened that "that" became so commonly, erroneously, replaced with "which." Here is a speculation: When you rearrange a sentence to get rid of a dangling preposition in a that-clause, the "that" disappears and its role is taken over by a "which." So for example "The dog that I ran away from was a Pekinese." becomes "The dog from which I ran away was a Pekinese." So people who have been taught to avoid dangling prepositions may have got the idea that "which" is somehow more formal or proper than "that" in general, just as people got the idea that "you and I" is always preferable to "you and me," even as the object of a verb or preposition, because they were drilled so hard to avoid saying things like "You and me have a lot to talk about." "

― Not the real Village People, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 18:40 (6 years ago) Permalink

Hmmm... I think this how did "that" become so commonly, erroneously, replaced with "which" quest is a wild, goose chase. It assumes that at some point in the past, the restrictive/non-restrictive difference between the two words' usage was clear and uncontroversial, which I doubt. I think it's a nice distinction, but a somewhat artificial one that was never going to adhered to except in deliberately careful usage.

As has been pointed out before, we don't have a restrictive version of "who"*, so making a big song and dance about how essential it is to keep "that" and "which" apart seems a bit rich.

*although personally I think something like "the man that I met in street this morning" is fine. Other people seem to think it has to be "who" if it's a person, so I go with the flow.

― Alba, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 19:00 (6 years ago) Permalink

Shouldn't it be "whom" in that example, though? (Unless you wrote it as "the man who met me in THE street this morning"; you wack Brits and yr vanishing definite articles.)

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 19:29 (6 years ago) Permalink

Oh, the missing article was just a typo. Even we wack Brits don't meet people in street! And yeah, whom, not who, but the point remains.

― Alba, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 20:01 (6 years ago) Permalink

Hahahaha that was a typo! It should have been "wacky".

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 20:14 (6 years ago) Permalink

What about meeting people in the town of Street? You could meet people there. Then it's just careless capitalisation rather than the actual dropping of an article.

― ailsa, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 21:55 (6 years ago) Permalink

However, I spent years teaching English as a foreign language and all the grammar books give that/which as alternatives for defining relative pronouns.

Yep. These are the rules we teach:
For defining relative clauses for a thing, if it's the subject of the clause: which or that.
I sat on the chair which looks like a horse / that looks like a horse
For defining relative clauses for a thing, if it's the object of the clause: which or that or nothing.
The chair which I sat on / that I sat on / I sat on looks like a horse
For defining relative clauses for a person, if it's the subject of the clause: who or that.
The man who gave me / that gave me the money was wearing a big hat.
For defining relative clauses for a person, if it's the object of the clause: who or that or nothing.
The man who I met yesterday / that I met yesterday / I met yesterday was wearing a big hat.
For non-defining relative clauses 'which' for things and 'who' for people:
Police say that the car, which had recently been repaired, was bought from a local second hand showroom.
Police say that the man, who had several previous convictions, lived with his mother.

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 22:54 (6 years ago) Permalink

I thought this would be a good a place as any to confirm this..

I was drinking with a buddy the other night and he's got 1st class honours in linguistics (or something like that). We got into this argument "well" vs "good" when someone asks "how are you?".

I said it has to be "well".

He said it has to be "good", but if you are asked "how are you going?" then it must be "well".

I think he's wrong.

Do you think/know he's wrong??

Or am i the idiot here?

― Drooone, Thursday, 14 June 2007 02:01 (6 years ago) Permalink

obv I mentioned about the honours thing coz he totally thought he was superior to me.

― Drooone, Thursday, 14 June 2007 02:03 (6 years ago) Permalink

'Well' can be adverb ("Rooney played well last night") related to the adjective 'good' or an adjective ("He's not very well") meaning 'in good health'.

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Thursday, 14 June 2007 07:45 (6 years ago) Permalink

If you responded with a complete sentence, then you would have to say, "I'm doing well." But if it's just a one-word reply, then I think it's splitting hairs: either will do.

― jaymc, Thursday, 14 June 2007 13:18 (6 years ago) Permalink

ACCEPTABLE RESPONSES:

"How are you doing?": "Well."
"How are you?": "Good."

"How are you?" is really asking for an answer that is in the form of "I am ____," not "I am doing ____."

― Curt1s Stephens, Thursday, 14 June 2007 13:20 (6 years ago) Permalink

No, they're different words: 'well' the adverb and 'well' the adjective. They're both possible answers, but the meaning is different.

"How are you?" "Good" means things are OK in my life. I'm happy with my job / family / things in general. This is more general response.

"How are you?" "Well" means I'm in good health. You'd probably only use this is the person asking the question knew that you'd been ill / in hospital recently.

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Thursday, 14 June 2007 13:45 (6 years ago) Permalink

I don't think Britons, in the past, would ever have said "I'm good", in response to this question. I think it's a modern (American-influenced?) thing. "Good", on its own, in relation to a person, meant morally good. Otherwise it would be good at something. "Well" is a perfectly good adjective, as has been said.

"How are you?" "Good" means things are OK in my life. I'm happy with my job / family / things in general. This is more general response.

"How are you?" "Well" means I'm in good health. You'd probably only use this is the person asking the question knew that you'd been ill / in hospital recently.

I don't really agree with this. There is an element of health-relatedness about it, but I think it has a wider, blander meaning in this context. It's only an exchange of pleasantry anyway. Maybe people's health used to be the main issue, in sicklier, less anxious and goal-obsessed time.

― Alba, Thursday, 14 June 2007 13:58 (6 years ago) Permalink

NB&S I know that, I'm just going with the meaning that everybody uses as their answer (i.e. "my life is okay," in which case you would say "I am good" or "I am doing well.")

― Curt1s Stephens, Thursday, 14 June 2007 14:01 (6 years ago) Permalink

Thinking about it, I don't think I would use either of those words anyway. I'd normally ask "How's it going?" (or "How are you?" to someone I didn't know so well). If I'm asked that question I'd normally say "not bad" or "alright". Technically, should I be saying "not badly"?

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Thursday, 14 June 2007 14:05 (6 years ago) Permalink

The man who I met yesterday / that I met yesterday / I met yesterday was wearing a big hat

That wouldn't be "whom"????

― HI DERE, Thursday, 14 June 2007 14:06 (6 years ago) Permalink

yes, but that would just sound dumb.

xpost

― Curt1s Stephens, Thursday, 14 June 2007 14:07 (6 years ago) Permalink

it would be "whom"

― Curt1s Stephens, Thursday, 14 June 2007 14:07 (6 years ago) Permalink

I, for one, appreciate HI DERE's whom attentiveness.

― Alba, Thursday, 14 June 2007 14:08 (6 years ago) Permalink

If I'm asked that question I'd normally say "not bad" or "alright". Technically, should I be saying "not badly"?

Yes. Unless you meant "it's going bad" in the sense of "it's not turning bad/"it's not going rotten"!

― Alba, Thursday, 14 June 2007 14:10 (6 years ago) Permalink

"My life is going rotten" is what I usually say in response to any question after my wellbeing.

― Alba, Thursday, 14 June 2007 14:12 (6 years ago) Permalink

I usually say "...Copacetic," and then give a gangsta nod.

― HI DERE, Thursday, 14 June 2007 14:13 (6 years ago) Permalink

Unless you meant "it's going bad" should read Unless you meant "it's not going bad", in case there was any confusion.

― Alba, Thursday, 14 June 2007 14:16 (6 years ago) Permalink

That wouldn't be "whom"????

Nope. 'Whom' is really only needed when there's a preposition before the relative pronoun, e.g. the man to whom I gave the smelly sock. 'Who' is perfectly acceptable if you stick the preposition at the end: the man who I gave the smelly sock to. It's a matter of choice, one's formal, the other's informal. Personally I choose to never use the word 'whom' because I don't want to sound like an ageing, posh Oxbridge Don.

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Thursday, 14 June 2007 14:17 (6 years ago) Permalink

Why not??

― Alba, Thursday, 14 June 2007 14:19 (6 years ago) Permalink

Coz I'm red-brick streetkid, innit.

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Thursday, 14 June 2007 14:20 (6 years ago) Permalink

I must say, I've never heard this "acceptable if you stick the preposition at the end" rule before, though I agree it does sound more creaky in that context.

― Alba, Thursday, 14 June 2007 14:21 (6 years ago) Permalink

What about if it's with a transitive verb? Would you also say "The man who I helped" was OK?

― Alba, Thursday, 14 June 2007 14:23 (6 years ago) Permalink

Intranstive, I mean.

― Alba, Thursday, 14 June 2007 14:24 (6 years ago) Permalink

But with an extra i.

― Alba, Thursday, 14 June 2007 14:24 (6 years ago) Permalink

Nope. 'Whom' is really only needed when there's a preposition before the relative pronoun

you are so so so so wrong. "Whom" is used whenever the pronoun is not the subject of the clause. "The man whom I met yesterday" is correct because "whom" is the object of "met."

― Curt1s Stephens, Thursday, 14 June 2007 14:25 (6 years ago) Permalink

direct object, rather

― Curt1s Stephens, Thursday, 14 June 2007 14:26 (6 years ago) Permalink

xposts

This well/well/good thing relates to the US/Canadian "I feel badly about it". People want to use the adverb as it's modifying the verb, but "feel", along with "to be" and a small range of other verbs is a [jargon alert] copular verb and takes an adjective. So Rooney played badly and I feel bad about it.

My personal theory is that saying "well" in reply to the question "how do you feel" or whatever is a regularisation of the same mistake over many years in some century or other.

― Jamie T Smith, Thursday, 14 June 2007 14:28 (6 years ago) Permalink

Nasty, brutish and short (who I used to teach English with about five years ago, actually, and who I have argued with about this before) is correct.

Whom is part of what's left of our case system. It's a dative/accusative so formally it should be used for the object OR after a preposition, BUT [language change in action kids!] for the object it is now becoming increasingly archaic and is a matter of register. I think it makes you sound like an arse, which is not a register I want to use, code-switching or no.

However, you do have to use it if the "who(m)" is directly after the preposition, but as NBS says, you can just stick that at the end (which in itself used to be a grammatical no-no, owing to comparison with Latin or something).

The one place I use it is after "of" in sentences such as "100 people repsonded to the questonnaire, 20% of whom said ..." as you can't move the "of". Even then you can rephrase, though.

― Jamie T Smith, Thursday, 14 June 2007 14:36 (6 years ago) Permalink

repsonded!??

And I know, I sound like an arse anyway. That's why I don't use whom. I need all the help I can get!

― Jamie T Smith, Thursday, 14 June 2007 14:38 (6 years ago) Permalink

"I am badly"!

― Alba, Thursday, 14 June 2007 14:38 (6 years ago) Permalink

Nasty, brutish and short (with whom I used to teach English about five years ago, actually, and with whom I have argued about this before) is correct.

Arse!

― Jamie T Smith, Thursday, 14 June 2007 14:41 (6 years ago) Permalink

"I am baldy"

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Thursday, 14 June 2007 14:42 (6 years ago) Permalink

As long as you two admit that you're basically rewriting the rules. I mean, fuck capital letters: the period breaks up sentences just fine, and I don't want to look like some old-fashioned twit by using them.

― jaymc, Thursday, 14 June 2007 14:53 (6 years ago) Permalink

Nasty, brutish and short (who I used to teach English with about five years ago, actually, and who I have argued with about this before) is correct.

Actually, he's right; his responses, however, may be correct. Indeed, he may also be correct as a human being, but in this context that's neither here nor there.

― CharlieNo4, Thursday, 14 June 2007 14:56 (6 years ago) Permalink

Every time I read this thread I become more descriptivist. Except on apostrophes, use of.

― stet, Thursday, 14 June 2007 15:02 (6 years ago) Permalink

As long as you two admit that you're basically rewriting the rules.

No, this is in grammar books and stuff. Honest!

I suppose it depends on whether you take a prescriptive or descriptive view of grammar (rules to follow or patterns to observe). I did some research on this in a previous job using the Cambridge International Corpus (a collection of billions of bits of language, written and spoken, with some nifty statistical tools), and it just isn't used in object position that much any more, especially in informal contexts.

When does usage become so established that we change the rules, is the question, I suppose.

― Jamie T Smith, Thursday, 14 June 2007 15:03 (6 years ago) Permalink

stet otm, except I'm fussy about some things, and obviously im my job I have to be fussy about everything.

So with my "as such" thing above, I think I'm in the conservative camp. Anyone have a view on that one?

― Jamie T Smith, Thursday, 14 June 2007 15:06 (6 years ago) Permalink

I don't think this is an especially recent development (I've never really known anyone who uses 'whom' in conversation) and I'm certainly not claiming personal responsibility for "rewriting the rules". Anyway language is evolving all the time: the grammar is changing, the vocabulary is changing, the pronunciation is changing. All the 'rules' can do is provide a snapshot of what patterns seem to exist at a given moment in time: as the language moves on the rules how to change. Maybe in the past the use of 'whom' was much wider and the use of 'who' was much narrower. That's not really relevant now: there's no point applying a rule that no longer describes the language that people actually use.

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Thursday, 14 June 2007 15:07 (6 years ago) Permalink

I get pissed off at being forced to change almost every "like" to "such as" at work, but that's a separate issue.

x-post

― Alba, Thursday, 14 June 2007 15:08 (6 years ago) Permalink

Grrr. 'how' = 'have' (xpost to self)

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Thursday, 14 June 2007 15:08 (6 years ago) Permalink

But 'like' is wrong, heh. At least you can mix it up with 'such X as'
xpst

― stet, Thursday, 14 June 2007 15:13 (6 years ago) Permalink

I think it makes you sound like an arse, which is not a register I want to use, code-switching or no.

You're right that few people use "whom" in spoken English, and that using it might seem rather poncey, but I don't think it carries this reputation in written English at all. And especially since the company I work for ("for whom I work") produces reference materials, I'm not likely to stop using it any time soon.

― jaymc, Thursday, 14 June 2007 15:15 (6 years ago) Permalink

I like saying whom! It's a nice soft sound, and anything that softens guttural weegian is a good thing.

― stet, Thursday, 14 June 2007 15:16 (6 years ago) Permalink

I use it at work too. But I wouldn't in my own writing. I'd make the poor sub/copyeditor change it.

― Jamie T Smith, Thursday, 14 June 2007 15:18 (6 years ago) Permalink

Stet - "I fancy women such as Carey Mulligan out of Dr Who" just sounds stupid and stilted to me, even if I do fancy Carey Mulligan herself, not just other women who are similar to her. Like has a different scope in this context that shouldn't be bound by its meaning elsewhere. I (along with almost every writer who ever files copy) THINK.

― Alba, Thursday, 14 June 2007 15:28 (6 years ago) Permalink

Ridiculously strict house styles: classic or dud?

― Jamie T Smith, Thursday, 14 June 2007 15:31 (6 years ago) Permalink

I have to change every "while" that isn't a temporal one to a "whereas" or an "although".

― Jamie T Smith, Thursday, 14 June 2007 15:31 (6 years ago) Permalink

Jamie, I'm with you on the as-such thing, although it's something that had only annoyed me non-specifically before, and now I'm sure I'll notice it all the time...

― Not the real Village People, Thursday, 14 June 2007 15:35 (6 years ago) Permalink

But if you just fancy Carey Mulligan, you don't need either such as or like, surely? If you fancy women like her, then like is the right word anyway.

― stet, Thursday, 14 June 2007 15:40 (6 years ago) Permalink

NO SHIT people don't use "whom" in informal conversation, but if you're teaching people grammar then you might at least let them know the formal rules, because, you know, they can probably pick up on informalities on their own.

― Curt1s Stephens, Thursday, 14 June 2007 15:41 (6 years ago) Permalink

No, I fancy both Carey Mulligan and women who resemble her.

― Alba, Thursday, 14 June 2007 15:42 (6 years ago) Permalink

Maybe he fancies Carey Mulligan AND woman who resemble her. (xpost)

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Thursday, 14 June 2007 15:42 (6 years ago) Permalink

though I guess if you're doing ESL teaching it might be simpler to just cut to what doesn't sound awkward in conversation

― Curt1s Stephens, Thursday, 14 June 2007 15:42 (6 years ago) Permalink

Ah. That was redundant. (xpost)

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Thursday, 14 June 2007 15:43 (6 years ago) Permalink

though I guess if you're doing ESL teaching it might be simpler to just cut to what doesn't sound awkward in conversation

Obviously. If someone is trying to learn a language you equip them to deal with the language they will actually encounter in the real world, rather than what someone feels they ought to encounter.

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Thursday, 14 June 2007 15:46 (6 years ago) Permalink

then you fancy such women as carey mulligan. but any minute now the dude who wrote that style is going to come crashing through the doors shouting about Tescos, so I'm going to leave this one

― stet, Thursday, 14 June 2007 15:47 (6 years ago) Permalink

yeah I had to reread the thread before I realized you were teaching English as second language

― Curt1s Stephens, Thursday, 14 June 2007 15:48 (6 years ago) Permalink

xpost

When you're teaching English (as an SL) you find a lot of students use whom ALL the time, cos they've learnt from books or non-native teachers or whatever, so yes, the challenge is to make them sound a little more natural, but be aware of it as a marker of formality.

― Jamie T Smith, Thursday, 14 June 2007 15:49 (6 years ago) Permalink

But there is the point about when exactly we give it up.

"You" also has an object form (thee) and a subject form (thou), which obvioulsy fell out of use. When does the disjunct between used language and the rules get big enough to change the rules?

I reckon pretty soon with "whom", in that, as Jamie and I have been saying, it's already taught as an optional form in ESL textbooks.

― Jamie T Smith, Thursday, 14 June 2007 15:55 (6 years ago) Permalink

obvioulsy !

― Jamie T Smith, Thursday, 14 June 2007 15:56 (6 years ago) Permalink

Personally I choose to never use the word 'whom' because I don't want to sound like an ageing, posh Oxbridge Don.

Yes, better then to come across as a redbrick bumpkin. British writers (for Americans have a less feisty attitude toward these rules) should be aware that any international readers they may have do not interpret their supposedly naturalistic style as favorably as their countrymen do.

― Jeb, Thursday, 14 June 2007 16:06 (6 years ago) Permalink

But there is the point about when exactly we give it up.

"You" also has an object form (thee) and a subject form (thou), which obvioulsy fell out of use. When does the disjunct between used language and the rules get big enough to change the rules?

I reckon pretty soon with "whom", in that, as Jamie and I have been saying, it's already taught as an optional form in ESL textbooks.

Anyone reading that who doesn't know that my name is also Jamie will think you are talking to yourself.

There are various aspects of the language which are in the process of changing. The question is to what extent the change has been adopted: what proportion of the population use the new form rather than the old form (or if people use both forms, how often do they prefer the new to the old)? 'Posh'/'educated' English tends to be more formal and conservative, as does written English, so sometimes forms can linger for decades there (such as our old friend 'whom') that have virtually disappeared from everyday speech.

The grammar books used for teaching English are obviously going to side more with descriptivists because communication is the goal. House style guides are obviously going to be far more prescriptivist (but even they would have to update their rules eventually). The grammar books for teaching English usually give both alternatives (the old and the new). Where the change has been largely adopted then there is usually a note saying that old form is considered very formal and uncommon. Where the change is less complete then there is usually a note saying that the new form is considered informal and not used in 'careful speech'.

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Thursday, 14 June 2007 16:08 (6 years ago) Permalink

I quite like the idea of international readers thinking we're idiots. It facilitates the mounting of a surprise attack.

― Alba, Thursday, 14 June 2007 16:08 (6 years ago) Permalink

"You" also has an object form (thee) and a subject form (thou), which obvioulsy fell out of use.

"thee" and "thou" were informal singular second-person, analogous to tu/ti in Spanish, du in German, etc. "Ye" was the object form of "you."

― Curt1s Stephens, Thursday, 14 June 2007 16:09 (6 years ago) Permalink

And yeah I don't consider people who say "whom" to be overbearingly posh like the Britishers apparently do.

― Curt1s Stephens, Thursday, 14 June 2007 16:13 (6 years ago) Permalink

oh wait this is the thread where you can't use "like" in place of "as"

― Curt1s Stephens, Thursday, 14 June 2007 16:13 (6 years ago) Permalink

British writers (for Americans have a less feisty attitude toward these rules) should be aware that any international readers they may have do not interpret their supposedly naturalistic style as favorably as their countrymen do.

It's not necessarily the case that British writers (or editors) are more carefree about breaking/changing rules than Americans, it might just be that this whole 'who'/'whom' thing is another difference between British English and American English.

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Thursday, 14 June 2007 16:14 (6 years ago) Permalink

xpost

Hmm, that's not what wikipedia says (as I checked), but the point stands in any case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ye_%28pronoun%29

I also think I just used a word (disjunct) that not only sounds pompous, but also doesn't exist!

― Jamie T Smith, Thursday, 14 June 2007 16:15 (6 years ago) Permalink

foiled again by wikipedia

― Curt1s Stephens, Thursday, 14 June 2007 16:17 (6 years ago) Permalink

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou

Originally, thou was simply the singular counterpart to the plural pronoun ye, derived from an ancient Indo-European root. In imitation of continental practice, thou was later used to express intimacy, familiarity, or even disrespect while another pronoun, you, the oblique/objective form of ye, was used for formal circumstances (see T-V distinction).

I still got ye/you mixed up though ;_;

― Curt1s Stephens, Thursday, 14 June 2007 16:18 (6 years ago) Permalink

Surely there's another thread for arguing about middle-english pronoun forms?

I have to go. It's been fun. Death to all prescriptivists! Sub-editors for a living language unite etc.

― Jamie T Smith, Thursday, 14 June 2007 16:21 (6 years ago) Permalink

Language moves on, but I don't think we've got to the point where use of who/whom is totally optional. I'd say spoken English it's "who" these days, but for written English there are plenty of cases where "who" simply sounds wrong. You wouldn't want to write a legal document using "who" instead of "whom", would you?

As for that/which, I have a feeling there's a UK/US divide here - in the UK you can use either for a defining clause, but in the US you have to use "that".

― underpants of the gods, Thursday, 14 June 2007 16:22 (6 years ago) Permalink

But legal English is full of all kinds of archaic terms that are never used anywhere else

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Thursday, 14 June 2007 16:26 (6 years ago) Permalink

nb I'm no prescriptivist

― Curt1s Stephens, Thursday, 14 June 2007 16:27 (6 years ago) Permalink

Does a descriptivist sub-editor even have to show up for work?

― nabisco, Thursday, 14 June 2007 16:53 (6 years ago) Permalink

Nice.

― jaymc, Thursday, 14 June 2007 16:56 (6 years ago) Permalink

Descriptivism and prescriptivism are on a ... continuum. When I am feeling more descriptivist than usual, I get to go home early.

― Alba, Thursday, 14 June 2007 17:12 (6 years ago) Permalink

I infer from the above that I must be a hardcore descriptivist

― Curt1s Stephens, Thursday, 14 June 2007 17:25 (6 years ago) Permalink

When I'm at my most descriptivist the other sub editors feed me biscuits until it goes away

― stet, Thursday, 14 June 2007 18:02 (6 years ago) Permalink

I mean geez, what's we're talking about here has nothing to do with prescriptivism or descriptivism -- it just has to do with how rigorous or indulgent your editing is, and how formal or conversational the tone of your publication is. Editing is, by definition, an act of prescription. Changing stuff to sound like common speech because "whom" sounds "too poncey" is every bit as prescriptive as the other way around, except at least the other way around you can't be a huge hypocrite and act like you're striking some grand blow against language snobs.

― nabisco, Thursday, 14 June 2007 18:14 (6 years ago) Permalink

Re the well/good situation, I found this on the internets.

It says stuff like:

'Realize that when you respond "I'm good" to the question "How are you?" you are telling the person that you are beneficial, kind, favorable or perhaps virtuous (depending on how the listener interprets your answer).'

But, yuh, I'm not necessarily agreeing with it....

― Drooone, Thursday, 14 June 2007 22:07 (6 years ago) Permalink

...but it does back up my drunken argument.

― Drooone, Thursday, 14 June 2007 23:16 (6 years ago) Permalink

Changing stuff to sound like common speech because "whom" sounds "too poncey" is every bit as prescriptive as the other way around, except at least the other way around you can't be a huge hypocrite and act like you're striking some grand blow against language snobs.

Nobody was saying you should do that, anyway. I said that you could use 'who' or 'that' as relative pronouns in certain cases (see waaaaaay upthread now) and somebody claimed that 'who' was wrong and needed to be changed to 'whom' because that was TEH RULE. The whole debate was about the fact that this 'rule' is wrong, and both 'who' and 'whom' are acceptable, but that you would only expect to encounter the latter in formal, written language. Nobody was suggesting that you should change formal documents to sound like common speech, we were fighting against the idea that you should change common speech to sound like formal documents because some house style guide says it's the rule.

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Friday, 15 June 2007 09:46 (6 years ago) Permalink

I think maybe some of the misunderstanding results from the fact that this thread is entitled "ATTN: Copyeditors," and the vast majority of what it's about is written English.

― jaymc, Friday, 15 June 2007 13:18 (6 years ago) Permalink

Ok.

This is making my brain hurt:

bored of
bored with
bored by

I've always used all three of these interchangeably. Am I wrong in doing this? Someone's just told me "bored of" is not correct English.

Argh. I need a decent reason for any assertion!

― CharlieNo4, Monday, 18 June 2007 10:03 (6 years ago) Permalink

"bored with" is the one preferred by the purists. the other two are ok in informal writing.

― Jeb, Monday, 18 June 2007 10:40 (6 years ago) Permalink

ok, i've now done some of my own homework and discovered this:

"The normal constructions for bored are bored by and bored with. More recently, bored of has emerged (probably by analogy with other words, such as tired of), but this construction, though common in informal English, is not yet considered acceptable in standard English." (Oxford dictionary of English 2003)

So it seems bored of, although technically incorrect, is becoming acceptable purely through frequency of usage. Woo...

― CharlieNo4, Monday, 18 June 2007 10:49 (6 years ago) Permalink

So it seems bored of, although technically incorrect, is becoming acceptable purely through frequency of usage. Woo...

How else would it become acceptable?

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Monday, 18 June 2007 11:40 (6 years ago) Permalink

well, some constructions never become "officially" acceptable despite widespread usage: "I could of done it", for example, or "I'm going to try and come later". But I've never seen "bored of" in any light other than an acceptable one. Maybe that's just me.

― CharlieNo4, Monday, 18 June 2007 11:47 (6 years ago) Permalink

On a similar note, 'obsessed with' or 'obsessed by'?
I hate 'obsessed by' but don't know why as I can't see any particular reason for it to be wrong.

Oh, also can you say 'this is the reason why....' or should it be 'reason for (something happening)' or 'reason that (something happened)'?
Again I don't like 'this is the reason why...' but not sure why...

― Not the real Village People, Monday, 18 June 2007 12:50 (6 years ago) Permalink

i'm so, so glad i was too busy to be reading ILX while that whole debate above was going on. especially as, on friday night, i nearly started a pub fight about the use of "whom". no, really.

When I'm at my most descriptivist the other sub editors feed me biscuits until it goes away

see if we do end up facing each other across some kind of merged desk? that sentence will be re-cast, and "feed me biscuits" will be replaced by (or is it "with"?) "hit me with bats".

― grimly fiendish, Monday, 18 June 2007 23:19 (6 years ago) Permalink

the Guardian style guide says it's "All mouth and trousers", not "all mouth and no trousers". Surely not??

― the next grozart, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 14:16 (5 years ago) Permalink

I've noticed the Guardian does that but I don't know the answer.

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 14:18 (5 years ago) Permalink

blimey... there's a whole blog devoted to keeping the "all mouth and trousers" expression. Apparently it's a Northern expression that's been corrupted by bungling Southerners into "all mouth and no trousers". Well I'll be!

― the next grozart, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 14:32 (5 years ago) Permalink

It's "all mouth and trousers" i.e. all front - it's what's in yer trousers that counts. I think people started to conflate that phrase with things like "all bark and no bite" hence the corruption but it just turns it into a nonsense phrase IMO.

(oops the slowest typing ever made an x-poster outta me)

― NickB, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 14:40 (5 years ago) Permalink

I feel like wading back into the who/whom debate, but I'm rather busy, so I'll just post this, from the Guardian style guide:

Use of "whom" has all but disappeared from spoken English, and seems to be going the same way in most forms of written English too. If you are not sure, it is much better to use "who" when "whom" would traditionally have been required than to use "whom" incorrectly for "who", which will make you look not just wrong but wrong and pompous.

My argument is not that "whom" should never be used in any context, but that it is not "wrong" in any meaningful sense to use "who" instead. It's just a marker of formality and we should recognise it as such. "Could of", in contrast, is actually wrong, as CharlieNo4 says above.

And say that all prescriptivists are actually deluded descriptivists, since they make their pronouncements based on a version of the language as it is spoken/written. It's just that descriptivists actually spend vast amounts of time, money, computer analysis and so on to find out statistically what is actually said or written in a variety of contexts, whereas prescriptivists make it up. Laters ; )

― Jamie T Smith, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 15:05 (5 years ago) Permalink

(oops the slowest typing ever made an x-poster outta me)

-- NickB, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 14:40 (39 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

Depends whether you think of the "trousers" bit to connote embarassment or denote that the subject has no balls.

― the next grozart, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 15:21 (5 years ago) Permalink

The monstrosity below illustrates why “whom” may come in handy on occasion:

A beaut: Game shows, the story said, are “popular only with older viewers, who advertisers are least interested in reaching.” Which is to say, least interested in reaching they.

http://cjrarchives.org/tools/lc/who.asp

― Jeb, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 15:41 (5 years ago) Permalink

No, it doesn't. It's only a "monstrosity" if you regard 'whom' as the only possible form of 'who' when it's the object of a verb, but (as this thread has gone into great detail) hardly anyone nowadays thinks you have to use 'who' instead of 'whom' in informal speech and lots of people consider both 'who' and 'whom' to be acceptable in writing, with the only difference being the level of formality that it signifies.

It would only "come in handy" if the sentence that you've quoted was either impossible to understand (which it isn't) or hideously inelegant (which is a matter of opinion, but to my eyes "...whom advertisers are..." looks far odder).

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 19:30 (5 years ago) Permalink

but to my eyes "...whom advertisers are..." looks far odder

whoa really? I think that this is one of the few cases in which the use of "who" actually offends my eyes/ears. Not so much because of its grammatical function, but because of how it sounds to have the "who" preceding a vowel without the "m" stepping in between, like an a/an situation. I know this is completely not how who/whom works, but "who advertisers are.." really hurt my brain unexpectedly, and I think that's the irrational reasoning behind it.

― Curt1s Stephens, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 19:41 (5 years ago) Permalink

to who it may concern

― nabisco, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 19:57 (5 years ago) Permalink

I'm becoming more and more convinced that this is just a difference between British and American English. (xpost)

Nabisco - I think everyone agreed that after a preposition you would have to use 'whom', but that most of the time you can easily avoid that word order (one of the exceptions being fixed expressions like that).

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 20:01 (5 years ago) Permalink

oh well if there's a PREPOSITION then of course

― nabisco, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 20:06 (5 years ago) Permalink

Seriously, though, I doubt I've ever corrected anyone's who/whom in my life, but this kind of approach seems kinda incoherent -- you're basically saying the rule is bunk EXCEPT in cases where the rule happens to be obvious, which is like saying "stop lights are meaningless and archaic! unless there's a cop behind you, then stop."

Whereas of course the truth is that the words make a consistent distinction that most people just aren't very interested in, and we only bother to correct it in cases where it's so egregious that a substantial portion of readers would actually catch or be bothered by it.

― nabisco, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 20:12 (5 years ago) Permalink

aka pick-your-battles prescription

― nabisco, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 20:13 (5 years ago) Permalink

No, I'm not saying that. The whole argument has been against people saying it's wrong to use 'who' as a relative pronoun when it's the object of the verb. Some of us are on one side saying this is perfectly acceptable (and is perfectly normal for the vast majority in spoken English) and that the choice between 'who' or 'whom' is just one of register. Some are on the other side saying "Noooooo! It's the rule!"

I've never said it was impossible to use 'whom' in that position, just that it was a marker of formality, and in many cases would look excessively formal. Judging from the responses, this is not the case in American English, and its use is probably more widespread and less marked in the USA.

I've agreed that 'who' is not used after prepositions, but only from a descriptivist point of view. In other words it's 'wrong' because no one does it. At the same time I've said that in many situations you wouldn't put the preposition before the relative pronoun as this is also considered (perhaps only in Britain) as a marker of considerable formality (e.g. the vast majority of people would say or write "the school which I went to" instead of "the school to which I went"). So while the use of 'whom' is 'correct' after the preposition, this is only because the location of the preposition signifies formality in exactly the same way as the choice of the word 'whom'. The fixed expression "to whom it may concern" is only used in very formal writing and is used without variation (nobody says "to who it may concern"), so this is one rare occasion where you there is no alternative.

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 20:42 (5 years ago) Permalink

(ignore rogue 'you' in final sentence)

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 20:44 (5 years ago) Permalink

the vast majority of people would say or write "the school which I went to"

Or, preferably, "the school that I went to."

― jaymc, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 20:54 (5 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, fine, but that doesn't really answer what I'm saying, which is more of a meta issue here.

The who/whom thing isn't just a directive that you use one or the other in particular situations -- it's a general, consistent rule that one is an object and the other is, like, not.

When you say it's acceptable to not use "whom" in certain situations (based on people's usage), but it should be used after a preposition, you're just acknowledging that people only follow this rule when it's REALLY obvious (because the preposition is making it very clearly an object). So ... the general rule remains somewhat intact, but only in those instances where the average person might actually notice. No judgment is being made either way on the rule as a whole; we're just electing to not care about applying it except in the extreme.

So I used the term "pick-your-battles prescription" to denote that however descriptively you might want to frame this, the truth is that it's quite possible to acknowledge both that (a) there is an extant rule that "whom" is an object, and that (b) it is completely normal and acceptable to most people to ignore/break that rule in speech and all but fairly formal writing, enough so that it's not really worth fighting people over doing it correctly.

The main meta issue I'm having is acting as if there's a vast complex of individual who/whom rules applying to individual sentences, whereas there's actual one fairly simple overarching one. Your version of how we apply that irregularly is descriptively accurate. But it's just silly for you to say that "this 'rule' is wrong," as you did upthread, because you're not talking about the rule. You're just accepting that nobody applies the rule except in very obvious cases (and in those obvious cases the old, general rule stands just as much as it ever did).

― nabisco, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 21:10 (5 years ago) Permalink

(Anyway a rule can't be "wrong" -- it can be good or bad, useful or pointless, followed or not-followed, but not incorrect.)

― nabisco, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 21:15 (5 years ago) Permalink

...or that the rule described the language as it was once used, but is increasingly irrelevant today (but not completely irrelevant yet). So the use of 'whom' as the object form of 'who' has disappeared from everyday speech, but persisted in more conservative use. Even in more conservative use, i.e. written speech, it is slowly disappearing. It may be that in fifty years time nobody uses 'whom' except where it has become fossilized in fixed expressions (such as 'to whom it may concern') and that in a further fifty years it has disappeared even from them, or that those expressions are no longer used.
(xpost)

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 21:18 (5 years ago) Permalink

Dude, rules do not DESCRIBE, they are RULES!

And again, yes, precisely, that is what I am saying: you are just riding the wave of diminishing use, so you shouldn't pretend to have some kind of call on the RULE -- if you had an opinion on the rule either way, you would either ask for it to be used or consistently not-used, not just casually describe its current irregular status.

― nabisco, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 21:21 (5 years ago) Permalink

Actually I shouldn't even be referring to this as a rule-use issue: it's more a matter of having two distinct words for someone we've decided could be covered by just using one all the time.

― nabisco, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 21:24 (5 years ago) Permalink

Dude, rules do not DESCRIBE, they are RULES!

We're not really going to agree on this one, are we? ;-)

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 21:29 (5 years ago) Permalink

ARGH that statement has nothing to do with your descriptive jones, which I think is making you miss my point entirely -- hell, a good descriptivist should be the first to understand "rules" as meaning consistent strict guidelines, rather than likely observances. But whatever, nevermind.

― nabisco, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 21:36 (5 years ago) Permalink

how can you say "to who" is unacceptable? I have noticed increased acceptable usage of phrases like "to who" by such OTM people as nabisco

― Curt1s Stephens, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 22:29 (5 years ago) Permalink

Hey wait possibly the sand in my vadge is just the idea of champions of endless description even using terms like "wrong," "rule," "acceptable," and "unacceptable!"

― nabisco, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 22:35 (5 years ago) Permalink

(Well that and not acknowleding that prescription is as much a part of natural human language development as anything else, down to the routine prescriptions of second grade -- cf the lack of similar stances and developments with regard to spelling, where there's a much more free-flowing level of interpersonal prescription and total respect for arbiters & authorities like, umm, the dictionary.)

― nabisco, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 22:42 (5 years ago) Permalink

If nabisco is not otm, who else should we turn to? It boggles.

― Aimless, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 22:44 (5 years ago) Permalink

WHOM YA GONNA CALL?

― JimD, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 22:46 (5 years ago) Permalink

Aw crap. That was me, not JimD.

― ledge, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 22:48 (5 years ago) Permalink

(Anyway a rule can't be "wrong" -- it can be good or bad, useful or pointless, followed or not-followed, but not incorrect.)

Nabisco otm. To place rules in slightly different frame of reference, a rule is always prescriptive, but never self-enforcing, and therefore is not necessarily descriptive of anything occuring in nature. It need only meet the internal necessity of being prescriptive to become a rule.

I may, for example, formulate a rule that white shoes may not be worn prior to Easter, or that when one spills salt a pinch of it must be thrown over one's left shoulder using one's right hand. These are legitimate rules. At one time they were both widely followed, now they are not. This says nothing about their inherent "ruleness". Rules they remain and forever shall be, even when they are forgotten by those who walk the earth.

― Aimless, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 23:04 (5 years ago) Permalink

Technically he could be using "rule" the way it's used in "as a rule" or "the exception that proves the rule" -- i.e., a descriptive kind of rule -- but obviously that'd be an interesting choice here, and like I say, it ignores the way prescription plays a massive role in even grass-roots, all-natural language. (The same way prescriptive rules about what you should wear play a huge part in what everyday people actually do wear.)

― nabisco, Wednesday, 27 June 2007 23:13 (5 years ago) Permalink

Wading back in to the debate ...

I prefer "patterns", not "rules", when it comes to grammar. It seems to make a whole lot more sense.

And something is "wrong" when it doesn't fit the pattern of the language as it is actually used, which of course varies according to context, register, channel, audience etc. As I said above, this is in essence what yer 19th Century grammarians were doing anyway, but rather than actually doing the research, which would anyway have been impossible without computer technology, they just used their insight and their own ideolect and got down to it. I find it surprising that people find this difficult. After all, that is pretty much how dictionaries have always worked. You do your research, collect your citations etc. They are now all written using corpus research. Why shouldn't we take the same approach to grammar?

So, we are saying that who/whom is a matter of pragmatics in addition to one of morphology, yougetme?

Also, in Jeb's link, the editor of the New York Times, no less, was campaigning for this distinction to be dropped. He ceased to be editor in 1950, so this was seen as archaic and pompous at least 57 years ago, probably more! Enough is enough.

― Jamie T Smith, Thursday, 28 June 2007 12:30 (5 years ago) Permalink

http://www.amazon.com/Hardcover-Longman-Grammar-Written-English/dp/0582237254

This is great, by the way!

― Jamie T Smith, Thursday, 28 June 2007 12:31 (5 years ago) Permalink

I think the preposition issue is interesting. You (Nabisco) are presenting the loss of a marked form for the object personal relative pronoun as one of sloppiness. We all know the rule, but we don't follow it, but we do for prepositions because it's more obvious.

That may actually be right, but I'd look at it another way. To me, regularity is what makes something part of the language at large, and not just a mistake/error/slip or whatever. And, here across a wide range of language we have a very regular pattern that we mark the pronoun after prepositions, but not when in object position. The frequency of it after a preposition is VERY high, and the frequency of it in object position is VERY low. You see, that looks more like *language change in action, folks* a new rule, than it does sloppiness.

I actually spent a couple of days getting my hands dirty researching this using the Cambridge International Corpus, which includes a lot of different corpora (corpuses? wonder what the frequency of those is ...) from different universities and other publishers and so on. It's one of the biggest, if not the biggest, and although there are problems with the weighting of different forms of language, it's pretty good.

― Jamie T Smith, Thursday, 28 June 2007 12:46 (5 years ago) Permalink

it ignores the way prescription plays a massive role in even grass-roots, all-natural language. (The same way prescriptive rules about what you should wear play a huge part in what everyday people actually do wear.)

This is OTM. I think the fact that descriptivist and prescriptivist grammars are actually so similar shows you the enormous influence of the rules as taught (but also of how each individual does carry the whole language around with them, so their insights are going to be pretty good).

Descriptivist grammars, by starting from how the language is and then saying how it ought to be, rather than the other way round, are going to be a bit quicker to respond to language change, though. Which is what we're really talking about.

― Jamie T Smith, Thursday, 28 June 2007 13:01 (5 years ago) Permalink

I mean descriptive and prescriptive grammars. Lose the "ist". (Idiot!)

― Jamie T Smith, Thursday, 28 June 2007 13:09 (5 years ago) Permalink

Since 'definately' gets 16 million hits on Google, do you think dictionaries should list it as an alternative spelling?

― Zelda Zonk, Thursday, 28 June 2007 13:10 (5 years ago) Permalink

Don't get me started on spelling! You'd be shocked.

― Jamie T Smith, Thursday, 28 June 2007 13:13 (5 years ago) Permalink

But anyway, Google is not a corpus. It's all written and you can't weight for different kinds of writing etc.

Definitely gets 132,000,000 hits anyway, so I think we can make some, rough, assumptions about frequencies there.

― Jamie T Smith, Thursday, 28 June 2007 13:16 (5 years ago) Permalink

Say that definately was used 90% of the time in a properly weighted sample, including prepared and sub-edited writing as well as spontaneous writing, then we'd have to think about it, wouldn't we?

That's where we are with whom.

― Jamie T Smith, Thursday, 28 June 2007 13:19 (5 years ago) Permalink

Ha - me complaining about google being all writtenwhen we're discussing spelling = idiot!

― Jamie T Smith, Thursday, 28 June 2007 13:20 (5 years ago) Permalink

Requiring 90 percent compliance is a bit steep, isn't it? After all, dictionaries have plenty of alternative spellings that are used far less than that (shewn, for example - it's in the dictionaries but when do you ever see it now?).

I guess my point is although it seems to make sense for grammar/spelling 'rules' to be descriptivist, I'm not sure they ever really are or can be. How exactly do you weigh usage, anyway? Surely that's inherently relative. Back in the old days dictionary citations were all from English literature. No doubt there's some other kind of bias that operates now. (I think it's highly likely that certain grammatical 'mistakes' might predominate in certain socio-economic or ethnic groups, without them ever finding their way into grammar handbooks as alternatives.)

― Zelda Zonk, Thursday, 28 June 2007 13:31 (5 years ago) Permalink

That is an issue, but that is exactly what descriptive grammars such as the Longman one that I linked to above, attempt to do ie they look at different genres/registers/channels etc. and see how things work. Collecting spoken English is expensive - even for TV and radio you have to pay transcribers, and for conversational or business language you have to get volunteers to wear microphones for a few weeks or months and then transcribe that. I'm sure there are issues around who get to be the volunteers and thus the language that makes it in, and the spoken sample is always going to be smaller. The new genres of informal written English brought about by the internet should be both cheap to collect and fascinating.

― Jamie T Smith, Thursday, 28 June 2007 13:38 (5 years ago) Permalink

Spelling works VERY differently: people develop all kinds of different speech patterns that get fairly ingrained, but there's almost total deference to the idea that there's a "right" way to spell things, even when people don't know what it is. (There's also a dictionary exercising authority on this point in nearly every home, whereas consulting a grammatical authority is rather harder.)

Jamie, I still feel like my point is somewhat getting missed, but maybe it's just not that great of a point. You say "regularity is what makes something part of the language at large," but you're talking about descriptive regularity. I'm not saying people should start using "whom" all the time -- I'm just pointing out that in relation to the Rule, our current usage is highly irregular. It's a pattern, yes, but it's not a coherent rule in the least.

― nabisco, Thursday, 28 June 2007 14:06 (5 years ago) Permalink

I think I am missing something. How about this?

The way in which we break the Rule is so regular and so frequent that it invalidates the rule, or suggests a new one. How quick the gatekeepers of the language are to react to things like this is what we're arguing about.

Or, are you referring to the internal consistency of the grammar point?

Because on the face of it it seems a little irregular to have all your other relative pronouns not having a different object form, and the personal one having one. That said, it has a genitive form (whose) that nobody is knocking, and none of the others do. (In fact, I wish there was one for which. That would be really handy. whiches maybe?) That's the problem when you look at the internal logic. The language as desribed by the Rules is still full of quirks and inconsistencies.

Or am I still missing the point?

― Jamie T Smith, Thursday, 28 June 2007 15:09 (5 years ago) Permalink

Argentine or Argentinian? I thought argentine was only for silvery things.

― Zoe Espera, Friday, 29 June 2007 12:44 (5 years ago) Permalink

spelling = identification
grammar = communication

chew on that a bit.

― mitya, Friday, 29 June 2007 13:30 (5 years ago) Permalink

[chews, isn't sure, swallows politely anyway]

Argentine or Argentinian? I thought argentine was only for silvery things

can't remember, but a good dictionary (ODWEs?) will help you out on the distinction i'm missing. i think you're right, but i might be wrong :)

― grimly fiendish, Friday, 29 June 2007 14:03 (5 years ago) Permalink

My OD has neither! But I will search in others. It has no countries or country-related adjectives, in fact. And doesn't even have argentine as in silvery.

*throws 2-yr-old OD in bin*

― Zoe Espera, Friday, 29 June 2007 14:07 (5 years ago) Permalink

argentine = silvery
Argentine = relating to Argentina (adjective); a citizen of Argentina (noun)
Argentinian = relating to Argentina (adjective); a citizen of Argentina (noun)
Argie (offensive) = relating to Argentina (adjective); a citizen of Argentina (noun)

I don't know if there are distinctions such as those between Arab, Arabic and Arabian.

― Jeb, Friday, 29 June 2007 15:07 (5 years ago) Permalink

I've always used Argentine and Argentinian interchangeably. Based on the frequency of usage within our online database here, it appears we prefer "Argentine" to refer to someone or something from Argentina.

― jaymc, Friday, 29 June 2007 15:15 (5 years ago) Permalink

Argentine = relating to Argentina (adjective); a citizen of Argentina (noun)
Argentinian = relating to Argentina (adjective); a citizen of Argentina (noun)

hmm. i'm sure i've always perceived a difference between the two usages -- ie "Argentine" is the adjective and "Argentinian" the noun, or the other way round -- but that could be a house-style thing.

unlikely, given the state of the existing style book in our, er, "house". but hey. if i had a copy of ODWEs to hand, i'd check. but i don't. so i can't. so hey.

xpost

― grimly fiendish, Friday, 29 June 2007 15:16 (5 years ago) Permalink

I like the adjective "Argentine" just on a gut level, mostly because I feel like we have a lazy English-speaking habit of always trying to force everything to fit the "_____ian" format. (To which we've recently added a lazy habit of always trying to force things to fit the "____i" format!)

― nabisco, Friday, 29 June 2007 15:19 (5 years ago) Permalink

Thank you all.

― Zoe Espera, Friday, 29 June 2007 15:22 (5 years ago) Permalink

(I think my habit has been to say Argentinian for a person and Argentine for a thing....no logic to that whatsoever.)

― Zoe Espera, Friday, 29 June 2007 15:24 (5 years ago) Permalink

(To which we've recently added a lazy habit of always trying to force things to fit the "____i" format!)

Yeah, this is most apparent with people who've heard "Iraqi" and "Pakistani" deciding that someone from Afghanistan is an "Afghani" rather than an "Afghan."

― jaymc, Friday, 29 June 2007 15:27 (5 years ago) Permalink

But but but afghans are blankets, and I like the sound of Afghani better.

― Laurel, Friday, 29 June 2007 15:33 (5 years ago) Permalink

And such variations make it even more daft that my dictionary doesn't bother to tell me what is correct. Rubbish. Anyway.

― Zoe Espera, Friday, 29 June 2007 15:36 (5 years ago) Permalink

To be fair, Webster's lists both.

― jaymc, Friday, 29 June 2007 15:36 (5 years ago) Permalink

Euro: capped or not?

("We expect a gradual appreciation of the US dollar vs. the euro...")

― mitya, Monday, 2 July 2007 12:38 (5 years ago) Permalink

As a unit of currency, it's lowercased.

― jaymc, Monday, 2 July 2007 13:12 (5 years ago) Permalink

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=FSq&q=%22Which+community-oriented+goals+should+I+share%3F%22&btnG=Search&meta=

hey i was wondering if there is something wrong with the grammar of this sentence ? seems like a question that ought to be more common than that , lol

― Sébastien, Thursday, 12 July 2007 04:53 (5 years ago) Permalink

gramatically it's reasonable.

semantically, though ...

― grimly fiendish, Thursday, 12 July 2007 22:27 (5 years ago) Permalink

"Just minutes of exercise helps older women"

No problem, right?

― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 24 July 2007 14:02 (5 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I think in that case it refers to a singular block of time. That usage is common and pluralizing the verb sounds v. awkward.

― Curt1s Stephens, Tuesday, 24 July 2007 14:05 (5 years ago) Permalink

Personally, I'd add 'a few' and make it 'can help'.

― Madchen, Tuesday, 24 July 2007 16:22 (5 years ago) Permalink

Which one?

1. Vegetable oil-based inks
2. Vegetable oil based inks
3. Vegetable-oil based inks
4. Vegetable-oil-based inks

― Eyeball Kicks, Wednesday, 25 July 2007 09:36 (5 years ago) Permalink

first one, definitely.

― CharlieNo4, Wednesday, 25 July 2007 09:38 (5 years ago) Permalink

Well, I don't like doing it that way. Often you can get away with making this form less ugly by doing 4. But not here, I think. I'm for 2.

― Eyeball Kicks, Wednesday, 25 July 2007 09:45 (5 years ago) Permalink

Anyway, why are you so sure? I sometimes see people write things like "red wine-based sauce", which is crazy as well as ugly.

― Eyeball Kicks, Wednesday, 25 July 2007 09:50 (5 years ago) Permalink

hang on, why did you ask then? only one of those is correct and that's the first one.

deconstruct it thus: vegetable oil is a type of oil; if the inks had their basis in oil, they'd be oil-based inks; so if they're based on vegetable oil, they're vegetable oil-based inks, end of story. you need the hyphen.

xpost ugly or no, red wine-based sauce is correct also!

― CharlieNo4, Wednesday, 25 July 2007 09:53 (5 years ago) Permalink

No it's not! "Red wine-based sauce" could easily mean a sauce made using white wine and... beetroot!

This doesn't happen with "vegetable oil based inks" because "vegetable" isn't usually an adjective, so your version can only be understood in one way -- but I dislike the ugly inconsistency nonetheless.

― Eyeball Kicks, Wednesday, 25 July 2007 09:58 (5 years ago) Permalink

Hmm, I take it back actually. A sauce made with white wine and beetroot would be a "red, wine-based sauce". I'm wrong.

― Eyeball Kicks, Wednesday, 25 July 2007 10:03 (5 years ago) Permalink

No it's not! "Red wine-based sauce" could easily mean a sauce made using white wine and... beetroot!

it could, but it'd take quite a dunderheaded and unnecessary leap of logic to come to that wholly non-obvious conclusion. However, the insertion of a comma ("red, wine-based sauce") would make the ambiguity of which you speak, more overt - if, say, your sauce were based on white wine and rose but is only red on account of lots of tomatoes therein, or something.

haha xpost!

― CharlieNo4, Wednesday, 25 July 2007 10:05 (5 years ago) Permalink

yes i'm with charlieno4, although i agree it's ugly

― mitya, Wednesday, 25 July 2007 11:03 (5 years ago) Permalink

Personally, I would go with #4, although a case could be made for #1, since there isn't likely to be much confusion.

In the case of the sauce made of red wine, though, I would argue strenuously for "red-wine-based sauce," since "red sauce that happens to be wine-based" makes a whole lot more sense (and thus is likely to be read by some as such) than ""vegetable ink that happens to be oil-based."

#2 and #3 shouldn't be used, as "-based" should always be hyphenated.

― jaymc, Wednesday, 25 July 2007 13:24 (5 years ago) Permalink

― Maria :D, Wednesday, 25 July 2007 13:37 (5 years ago) Permalink

When I'm done with the TV show I'd really like to try and do more movies so I guess that's when I'll really see how competitive it is.

My problem with this is the "try and" construction. I usually change it to "try to" but am I being too harsh? He's not trying and doing more movies, he's trying to do more movies, right?

I Just think "try and" is a spoken-only construction that oughtn't be written down. Thoughts?

― CharlieNo4, Wednesday, 25 July 2007 14:01 (5 years ago) Permalink

Definitely. "Try and" makes no sense - what are you going to try, and why are you doing this other thing at the same time?

― Ray, Wednesday, 25 July 2007 14:38 (5 years ago) Permalink

yes, agreed. "try and" comes across my desk more than i'd expect it to. i always change it.

― tipsy mothra, Wednesday, 25 July 2007 14:39 (5 years ago) Permalink

DUDES
"vegetable oil--based inks"
with an N dash
Chicago style
that's what it's there for

― nabisco, Wednesday, 25 July 2007 16:59 (5 years ago) Permalink

Hmmm, I only really use the en-dash in a case like this when hyphenating all three words makes it confusing as to which words go together.

For instance,

"A screwdriver is a vodka-orange-juice concoction."

Since it's not clear whether it's "vodka and orange juice" or "vodka, orange, and juice" or some drink called "vodka orange" mixed with juice, it'd make better sense to say "vodka--orange-juice" (where the double hyphen represents an en-dash).

― jaymc, Wednesday, 25 July 2007 17:28 (5 years ago) Permalink

erk! i have never seen the n-dash used that way

― mitya, Wednesday, 25 July 2007 17:39 (5 years ago) Permalink

DUDES
"vegetable oil--based inks"
with an N dash
Chicago style
that's what it's there for

This is the in the UK, and I'd never use -- I've never seen -- an N-dash used in that way.

For what it's worth, the text originally had version 1, which I immediately marked to be changed to 4. Then I doubted myself, posted to this thread, found another instance of version 4 and steted my change. (Also, the first example was in whatever-you-call-the-bit-on-page-3-of-a-magazine-with-all-the-small-print, which never changes, so version 1 had been happily existing there for several issues before I came along to meddle with it).

― Eyeball Kicks, Wednesday, 25 July 2007 17:39 (5 years ago) Permalink

And I'd use "vodka and orange-juice concoction" (hyphen in "orange juice" even though it doesn't normally need one).

― Eyeball Kicks, Wednesday, 25 July 2007 17:42 (5 years ago) Permalink

This is the in the UK, and I'd never use -- I've never seen -- an N-dash used in that way.

I would never use a sentence used in this way either.

― Eyeball Kicks, Wednesday, 25 July 2007 17:43 (5 years ago) Permalink

"The en dash is used in place of a hyphen in a compound adjective when one of its elements is an open compound or when two or more of its elements are open compounds or hyphenated compounds (see 7.83)."

the post--World War II years

I am skeptical of those who say they've never seen en dashes used this way, since it is sensible Chicago style, and it used by many major publications and in many common texts.

― nabisco, Wednesday, 25 July 2007 17:44 (5 years ago) Permalink

I've never used Chicago style. The style guide at my current job recommends the en-dash in compound nouns, at least one element of which is a group of words (such as "a New York--Seattle flight"), and also in compound adjectives of similar construction (such as "German--Scots-Irish ancestry"). It's not very clear on adjective-participle constructions like "red wine-based sauce."

― jaymc, Wednesday, 25 July 2007 17:58 (5 years ago) Permalink

Sure, J, but I'm saying I KNOW you've read stuff like the New York Review of Books, the Village Voice, or Slate, three out of a whole bunch of publications that use en dashes that way (IIRC).

― nabisco, Wednesday, 25 July 2007 18:01 (5 years ago) Permalink

oh, that chicago-style thing is joyous. i'd forgotten all about it, and my incredibly short-lived attempt to introduce it into scottish journalism. absolutely wonderful. i envy you, nabisco, being able to use it.

given that it's not a convention with which UK readers would be familiar, however, the correct answer is #4, and i'll fight anyone who disagrees. to the death.

there's a subeditors' group on facebook now. joy.

― grimly fiendish, Wednesday, 25 July 2007 23:11 (5 years ago) Permalink

looks like somebody around here's using en dashes....

chicago style

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 25 July 2007 23:38 (5 years ago) Permalink

Actually, I am UNABLE in my work capacity to use those disambiguating en dashes, which kinda saddens me.

Apparently there are now books on typography that advocate throwing out the em dash entirely, and using spaced-out ens for dashes. Which makes me want to barf, and which I suspect is subtly influenced by the fact that word turns a spaced-out "--" into an en.

― nabisco, Thursday, 26 July 2007 00:24 (5 years ago) Permalink

word = microsoft Word

― nabisco, Thursday, 26 July 2007 00:24 (5 years ago) Permalink

Nabisco, I feel like maybe I've mentioned this to you before, but can you do something-- talk to Scott or whatever-- about Pitchfork's ghastly habit of using double hyphens as in this sentence, with only one space instead of two? I mean, I'm OK with substituting double hyphens for em-dashes when it comes to web journalism, but the single space really drives me nuts. At least they seem to be consistent about it.

― jaymc, Thursday, 26 July 2007 05:37 (5 years ago) Permalink

Check out this masterpiece of headline subbing (click thru for story)
)
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=337901&cc=5739

― ledge, Thursday, 26 July 2007 13:08 (5 years ago) Permalink

And I'd use "vodka and orange-juice concoction" (hyphen in "orange juice" even though it doesn't normally need one).

that's just madness.

i've literally never heard of this chicago-style en dash thing in my life! i don't think it exists in the uk, as grimly said.

mind you, grimly also disagreed with me - so a fight to the death it is!

(where's this subs' facebook group then?)

― CharlieNo4, Thursday, 26 July 2007 13:22 (5 years ago) Permalink

Up there with "Keegan fills Schmeichel's gap with Seaman"

Also "Celtic need Fanni to tighten up"

xpost

― onimo, Thursday, 26 July 2007 13:27 (5 years ago) Permalink

that's just madness.

it is, although i bet we'd disagree as to why ;)

(where's this subs' facebook group then?)

it's findable. a good sub can find anything ;)

― grimly fiendish, Thursday, 26 July 2007 23:12 (5 years ago) Permalink

(a really good sub wouldn't use the same emoticon twice in succession, mind. probably.)

― grimly fiendish, Thursday, 26 July 2007 23:13 (5 years ago) Permalink

J, I've brought that up with them before, and Ryan had an explanation for why he chose the style -- something about certain browsers breaking and wrapping lines in the middle of the two-hyphen dash? Like:

and this album -- which is really ridiculously awesome -
- is now available

I'm not clear on whether that's a style he adopted back in the day, under different browser conditions, and just sticks with now, or if that's still a concern.

― nabisco, Thursday, 26 July 2007 23:18 (5 years ago) Permalink

Oh, that kind of makes sense, actually.

― jaymc, Thursday, 26 July 2007 23:21 (5 years ago) Permalink

how hard is it to search "--" and replace with , sheesh

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 26 July 2007 23:53 (5 years ago) Permalink

note that comma is grammatical, not htmlical

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 26 July 2007 23:53 (5 years ago) Permalink

So hella easy on a mac, just alt+hyphen. That is really the only thing I like about Macs – easy makings of the symbols & more arcane punctuation marks & c.

― Abbott, Thursday, 26 July 2007 23:56 (5 years ago) Permalink

yeah! if it's gonna be on a web page though you got to use those codes.

― Tracer Hand, Friday, 27 July 2007 01:17 (5 years ago) Permalink

one in five 18- to 29-year-old buyers failed to carry out any basic assessments

how do we feel about they hyphen after the 18?

― CharlieNo4, Friday, 27 July 2007 13:49 (5 years ago) Permalink

It displeases me

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Friday, 27 July 2007 13:52 (5 years ago) Permalink

it's not wrong though is it? i've had arguments about this before but i can't find any diktat either way.

― CharlieNo4, Friday, 27 July 2007 13:57 (5 years ago) Permalink

hyphen's fine where it is

― braveclub, Friday, 27 July 2007 14:41 (5 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, that hyphen seems pretty standard to me.

― jaymc, Friday, 27 July 2007 14:45 (5 years ago) Permalink

it's grammatically correct and i like it. but, as N,B&S says, it upsets some people.

fuck them ;)

― grimly fiendish, Saturday, 28 July 2007 12:07 (5 years ago) Permalink

hahaha how about "one in five 18–29-year-old buyers"

― Tracer Hand, Saturday, 28 July 2007 14:23 (5 years ago) Permalink

good article about esing em and en dashes in the web here - http://www.alistapart.com/stories/emen/

― Tracer Hand, Saturday, 28 July 2007 14:24 (5 years ago) Permalink

probably an easy one, but...from CNN:

Chief Justice John Roberts suffered a seizure Monday, causing him to fall at his summer home off the coast of Maine, the Supreme Court said.

could a comma after "fall" or "home" save Roberts from a watery grave? or is this correct, and the fall/off coincidence just seems to make it more ambiguous than it is?

― negotiable, Tuesday, 31 July 2007 08:01 (5 years ago) Permalink

I think it's OK as is, since the phrases are arranged in a logical sequence.

E.g., "causing him to fall" --> Where did he fall? --> "at his summer home" --> Where is his summer home? -- "off the coast of Maine"

If he really fell off the coast of Maine, it'd make more sense to say "causing him to fall off the coast of Maine at his summer home" or "causing him to fall, at his summer home, off the coast of Maine."

― jaymc, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 15:41 (5 years ago) Permalink

I have a question. Why do we use the apostrophe-S in a phrase like "A friend of Nabisco's lent me a dollar to buy a popsicle"? It makes sense in "Nabisco's friend lent me..." since it's functioning as a possessive, but when the word "of" is already there designating possession, there doesn't seem to be the need to use the apostrophe, too.

This was in last week's New Yorker, in that article about the woman with the bionic arm. Supposedly, a "friend of Mitchell's had heard about" the new scientific advances in prosthetics.

― jaymc, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 15:47 (5 years ago) Permalink

We just do. I think it's got something to do with the 'a' at the start. If you said "Nabiso's friend lent me..." then that implies we know which friend you're talking about (perhaps because Nabisco only has one friend), so that's not very useful when it's not a specified friend. You couldn't say "a Nabisco's friend lent me..."

If you use pronouns/possessives it's quite odd, too. You could say "your friend", but not "a your friend", or "a friend of you", or even "a friend of your", it would have to be "a friend of yours".

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 16:37 (5 years ago) Permalink

I've not heard of anyone falling off a coast before. Off a cliff, sure, but off a coast, nope. So I think the sentence is fine.

― Madchen, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 18:06 (5 years ago) Permalink

But why couldn't you just say "A friend of Nabisco lent me..."?

― jaymc, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 18:13 (5 years ago) Permalink

It's odd and inexplicable, but for some reason "A friend of Nabisco" sounds stilted and archaic (or just yodarrific) whereas "A friend of Nabisco's" does not. To my tin ear, anyway.

― Chim Chimery, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 18:18 (5 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I agree it sounds odd, I just wondered if there was some reason for doing it that way that I wasn't aware of.

― jaymc, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 18:22 (5 years ago) Permalink

I'm going to reach really far up my ass for this one:

The phrase "A friend of Nabisco" has an oratorical ring to it, along the lines of "A statesman, a patriot, and a friend of the common man." As if "Nabisco" is a (possibly grandiose) abstract entity. Adding the 's demotes "Nabisco" to the status of human individual.

This doesn't answer the question of "Is there grammatical justification for the practice of adding an apostrophe-s to a noun that's already been designated as possessive by the word 'of'?" Also it's a complete fabrication. But it has the ring of truth.

― Chim Chimery, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 18:41 (5 years ago) Permalink

"A friend of Dorothy"

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Wednesday, 1 August 2007 18:47 (5 years ago) Permalink

If you're starting a sentence with a letter that's lowercase by nomenclature, eg, "n-3 fatty acids," do you cap the N?

― Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 16:15 (5 years ago) Permalink

my standard fudge would be to try and reorder the sentence if at all possible, so you don't start with it

if not possible, then no, don't cap the n: if nomenclature is important enough that you have to ask, it's important enough to take precedence, despite weird-lookingness

― mark s, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 16:19 (5 years ago) Permalink

... would be my personal answer and attitude

― mark s, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 16:20 (5 years ago) Permalink

In other words, the bell hooks/k.d. lang problem. I've noticed that the New York Times ignores these idiosyncratic spellings and just goes with Bell Hooks and K.D. Lang (presumably to avoid this predicament), but in this Austin Chronicle article about the former, the writer starts sentences with "hooks" several times.

Knowing nothing about the subject, I'm curious: does capping the N in "n-3 fatty acids" mean something different?

― jaymc, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 16:29 (5 years ago) Permalink

I just proof the damn stuff, but I don't think so.

― Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 16:39 (5 years ago) Permalink

The AMA manual, since stuff this specific, isn't indexed, is frequently no help at all.

― Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 16:43 (5 years ago) Permalink

haha i have subbed bell hooks -- she is just the WORST stylist, and throws tantrums when you try and suggest improvements

prob w.having caps and non-caps in formulae would be exactly that someone would read it and think "is this meant to mean something different?" -- ie it introduces confusion and doubt, hence avoid if possible

(i can think of plenty of mathematical contexts where it WOULD change the meaning)

― mark s, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 16:44 (5 years ago) Permalink

It might confuse an uninformed reader to see a sentence like, "The next lecture in the series will feature bell hooks."

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 16:46 (5 years ago) Permalink

Luckily, E.E. Cummings poses no such problems.

― jaymc, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 16:55 (5 years ago) Permalink

i once had to stomp on a gallery who insisted for the catalogue we were producing that we put TWO spaces between the "The" and whatever their poncey name was -- i told em that the computers wouldn't let us, it automatically corrected and they would have to lump it (= a lie, obv)

they went out of business so the problem disappeared

― mark s, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 16:59 (5 years ago) Permalink

"a pair of legal analysts say(s)"

― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 16 August 2007 17:42 (5 years ago) Permalink

"says." The object is the pair-- ONE pair, therefore singular :)

― Will M., Thursday, 16 August 2007 17:47 (5 years ago) Permalink

Or were you asking?

― Will M., Thursday, 16 August 2007 17:48 (5 years ago) Permalink

My answer depends on what they're saying.

― jaymc, Thursday, 16 August 2007 17:48 (5 years ago) Permalink

Well, in the strictest sense, it'd be "says." However, if these two legal analysts were saying it seperately, that wouldn't be conveyed with "says," so the sentence would need a rewrite to something like "Two legal analysts say..."

― Will M., Thursday, 16 August 2007 17:49 (5 years ago) Permalink

I was asking, thx. (They're writing together, those analysts, which by AMA standards clinches "says.")

― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 16 August 2007 17:51 (5 years ago) Permalink

xpost, exactly

― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 16 August 2007 17:51 (5 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, that's sort of what I was getting at. Are they saying the exact same thing at the same time? (Of course, changing "a pair of" to "two" avoids this dilemma altogether.)

― jaymc, Thursday, 16 August 2007 17:53 (5 years ago) Permalink

Is it bad that I'm more than a tiny bit proud that I answered that?

― Will M., Thursday, 16 August 2007 17:54 (5 years ago) Permalink

Nope. I just sat through an hourlong "grammar review" at work this morning.

― jaymc, Thursday, 16 August 2007 18:02 (5 years ago) Permalink

love reading this thread

― deej, Thursday, 16 August 2007 18:04 (5 years ago) Permalink

xpost

and you agreed to abolish hyphens in prenominal adjectives?

(ducks)

― grimly fiendish, Thursday, 16 August 2007 18:04 (5 years ago) Permalink

prenominal compound adjectives, natch.

― grimly fiendish, Thursday, 16 August 2007 18:05 (5 years ago) Permalink

Why would we do that?

― jaymc, Thursday, 16 August 2007 18:38 (5 years ago) Permalink

"black cab driver" vs. "black-cab driver"

― jaymc, Thursday, 16 August 2007 18:39 (5 years ago) Permalink

1/N, damnit

pear says
pears say

― nabisco, Thursday, 16 August 2007 18:59 (5 years ago) Permalink

Black-cab? Is that a thing?

― Will M., Thursday, 16 August 2007 19:05 (5 years ago) Permalink

It is in the UK.

― jaymc, Thursday, 16 August 2007 19:10 (5 years ago) Permalink

Is it something you have to specify at any point? Like, are there yellow cabs and black cabs and one's worth more or less than the other, and you have to say to someone "Hey, I think he's a black-cab driver, let's ask him for a ride"?

― Will M., Thursday, 16 August 2007 19:53 (5 years ago) Permalink

"Hey, you --- you black cab-driving jerk!" = comes off racist
"Hey, you --- you black cab--driving jerk!" = doesn't

― nabisco, Thursday, 16 August 2007 19:56 (5 years ago) Permalink

Further confusion is added when you realise there are no* black black-cab drivers in London.

*or if there is I've yet to see one

― onimo, Thursday, 16 August 2007 19:59 (5 years ago) Permalink

or if there are

― onimo, Thursday, 16 August 2007 20:00 (5 years ago) Permalink

they'd be black-^2-cab drivers

― nabisco, Thursday, 16 August 2007 20:03 (5 years ago) Permalink

Is it something you have to specify at any point?

Apparently.

― jaymc, Thursday, 16 August 2007 20:11 (5 years ago) Permalink

er, yes: ie to differentiate between a dude who drives a minicab and a dude who drives a black cab.

― grimly fiendish, Thursday, 16 August 2007 20:19 (5 years ago) Permalink

minicabs = unlicensed
black cabs = licensed, have to pass an exam where everything within a certain radius is

― mark s, Thursday, 16 August 2007 21:27 (5 years ago) Permalink

not all black cabs are black these days

― mark s, Thursday, 16 August 2007 21:27 (5 years ago) Permalink

pedant.

;)

― grimly fiendish, Thursday, 16 August 2007 21:37 (5 years ago) Permalink

IT'S MY JOB

AND YOURS

AND MORBSES

LUCKY US

― mark s, Thursday, 16 August 2007 21:42 (5 years ago) Permalink

praise be! w00t, etc.

actually, i got asked in the pub last night what subeditors actually did.

"everything".

― grimly fiendish, Thursday, 16 August 2007 21:59 (5 years ago) Permalink

I'm glad I do "everything" in the US, since I'm not sure I like what the "sub-" prefix implies. Nor do I like your period outside the quotes, but we've been over that.

― jaymc, Thursday, 16 August 2007 22:13 (5 years ago) Permalink

actually, no, you're right; shoulda been inside there.

as for the "sub" bit ... people infer all sorts of oddness. at the first (very small) place i was a staffer, i went from being a subeditor to being assistant editor.

"oh," said a relative. "so, you were ... umm, demoted?"

― grimly fiendish, Thursday, 16 August 2007 22:31 (5 years ago) Permalink

Hi there. Few questions...

1. Is the word "quintessence" an absolute? I mean, is it alright to say "the most quintessential" for instance?

2. This is down to style really, but what do you prefer - If referring to oneself in, say a review, do you say I/We/You/One?

― the next grozart, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 00:25 (5 years ago) Permalink

I've got a question:

long johns (the kind that keep you warm in winter)

Is this an Americanism?

― Maria :D, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 01:48 (5 years ago) Permalink

maria: i don't think so, no. i'd call a pair of long johns a pair of long johns before anything else.

TNG: 1) i think it is. "most quintessential" just sounds tautological.

2) "I". i think all else looks like you once read somewhere that you shouldn't use the word "I" in a review, so you're feebly trying to avoid it ;)

― grimly fiendish, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 10:31 (5 years ago) Permalink

You can't be a bit quintessential any more than you can be a bit unique or a bit pregnant: it's an absolute. It's also a cliche, but that's by the by.

Re: using first person in copy, I'm tacitly happy to use "I" in a review, but I'll pretty much always favour "we" in a feature.

― CharlieNo4, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 10:40 (5 years ago) Permalink

Or a bit dead! The unique thing, man that drives me CRAZY.

― Laurel, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 11:34 (5 years ago) Permalink

"Hey, you --- you black cab--driving jerk!"

Dear Efrim, this is the silliest name yet, but good work on the dash differentiation.

Thangyewverymuch, and apparently I won't be here all week, since it took me a week to reply to that and all.

(I love this thread! I'll stop ruining it now.)

― a passing spacecadet, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 12:10 (5 years ago) Permalink

hahaha, the BBC News website is such shit. They do this kind of thing with a little too much frequency:

The 23-year-old is due to make her first public appearance since attending rehab at the award ceremony.

― Rock Hardy, Tuesday, 4 September 2007 18:34 (5 years ago) Permalink

these data vs this data

― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 4 September 2007 21:40 (5 years ago) Permalink

Webster's says that both are standard. My inclination would be to go with "this data," since "these data" is starting to sound stuffy, but I suppose there's a place for the latter if it's actually in reference to multiple, discrete pieces of information.

― jaymc, Tuesday, 4 September 2007 21:52 (5 years ago) Permalink

the AMA likes stuffy, it seems.

― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 4 September 2007 21:53 (5 years ago) Permalink

how about "this data translates" vs "these data translate"

― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 4 September 2007 21:54 (5 years ago) Permalink

Guardian style guide says

data
takes a singular verb; like agenda, strictly a plural, but no one ever uses "agendum" or "datum"

which is even more liberal than it used to be; it used to say something like "the battle over data being a plural is now lost", which at least conceded that it was once a contentious issue. And I think that scientific publications might still go the traditional route but yeah, for everyone else data is now a mass noun, so "this".

― ledge, Tuesday, 4 September 2007 21:56 (5 years ago) Permalink

What do this/these data translate to? If it's a single conclusion or result or whatever, then the singular makes even more sense to me, on the logic of a one-to-one translation: X means Y.

― jaymc, Tuesday, 4 September 2007 22:01 (5 years ago) Permalink

i gen agree.

― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 4 September 2007 22:03 (5 years ago) Permalink

I saw "datum" in print last week and was momentarily amazed.

― nabisco, Tuesday, 4 September 2007 22:19 (5 years ago) Permalink

is the word "actress" as anachronistic in 2007 as "comedienne"? It seems odd to me to see, say, Diana Rigg referred to as "an actor". Am I over-reacting?

― CharlieNo4, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 13:52 (5 years ago) Permalink

Read a bit in the Grauniad where it said that "actress" still had some uses, gave the example of some not gay chap's obit where it said "he developed an interest in young actors".

― ledge, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 13:55 (5 years ago) Permalink

My latest peeve word—"rationality." Uh, you mean "reason?" My BP and I have been using it as often as possible, appending even more syllables.

― Beth Parker, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 13:57 (5 years ago) Permalink

Calling women "actors" seems forced to me, too, but my very good friend who is a lady actor does it, and she's a huge grammar stickler.

― Beth Parker, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 13:58 (5 years ago) Permalink

A hate the way "waitress" and "waiter" are being subsumed by "server."

― Beth Parker, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 13:59 (5 years ago) Permalink

xxpost, cf. v. burglarize from n. burglar from v. burgle.

― caek, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 14:00 (5 years ago) Permalink

And "massage therapist" ascends because nobody can figure out that a "masseuse" is a gal and a "masseur" is a guy.

― Beth Parker, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 14:00 (5 years ago) Permalink

And, I guess, v. orientate from n. orient from v. orient.

― caek, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 14:01 (5 years ago) Permalink

And, a moment of silence for "stewardess."

― Beth Parker, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 14:01 (5 years ago) Permalink

aksherly both burgle and burglarize come from burglar - so burgle is a back formation and arguably less correct than burglarize.

― ledge, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 14:02 (5 years ago) Permalink

how about actorette?

― CharlieNo4, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 14:02 (5 years ago) Permalink

My BP
Oops. MR BP.

― Beth Parker, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 14:03 (5 years ago) Permalink

Is "dominatrix" the only "-trix" that's survived (while "aviatrix," "editrix," etc., have disappeared)?

― jaymc, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 14:03 (5 years ago) Permalink

And "massage therapist" ascends because nobody can figure out that a "masseuse" is a gal and a "masseur" is a guy.

whoa hold up, they're not the same thing! my sister is a (qualified) massage therapist, but i can tell you in no uncertain terms she is not a "masseuse" and she will kick the puny ass of anyone who calls her one! (trust me on this)

― CharlieNo4, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 14:04 (5 years ago) Permalink

Oh, sorry. I don't want to get all those massage therapists mad at me, because the sad truth is, my ass IS puny.
I love the verb "burgle."
The good thing about moving toward gender-neutral job titles is that you can trot out the gender-specific ones when you want to be catty.

― Beth Parker, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 14:06 (5 years ago) Permalink

burglarise/ize is american isn't it? i don't remember ever having seen it in a uk publication.

― CharlieNo4, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 14:09 (5 years ago) Permalink

When did people start saying 'in agreeance' instead of 'in agreement'? It just doesn't seem cromulent.

― moley, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 14:11 (5 years ago) Permalink

yep. Burglarize and burgle were both coined around the same time, late 19th century. xp.

― ledge, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 14:12 (5 years ago) Permalink

xpost Since 1540?

― jaymc, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 15:18 (5 years ago) Permalink

I have a question on the usage of “says x”. E.g.:

Says Joe Scatterbrain, “We must fight them over there so that we don’t have to fight them over here.”

I think it looks ugly as sin, but I have encountered quite a few good writers employing it. Is it acceptable in formal writing?

― Jeb, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 16:43 (5 years ago) Permalink

Beth: "server" is in many places being usurped in turn by "waitron"!!

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 16:47 (5 years ago) Permalink

(or is it the other way around?)

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 16:48 (5 years ago) Permalink

and pronunciation freaks: is it "way tron" or "way truhn"?

http://bartelby.com/61/8/W0010850.html

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 16:49 (5 years ago) Permalink

do ppl actually say waitron, Godfrey Daniel!

― Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 16:51 (5 years ago) Permalink

I have a question on the usage of “says x”. E.g.:

Says Joe Scatterbrain, “We must fight them over there so that we don’t have to fight them over here.”

I think it looks ugly as sin, but I have encountered quite a few good writers employing it. Is it acceptable in formal writing?

-- Jeb, Wednesday, September 12, 2007 4:43 PM

It's an affectation, surely, to put the "Says" before both the quote and the speaker? I don't mind it, and it's certainly not incorrect per se, but it's arguably archaic.

― CharlieNo4, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 17:02 (5 years ago) Permalink

That would be changed in any US publication, says I

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 17:02 (5 years ago) Permalink

Morbs a friend of mine in the restaurant business says it as a matter of course

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 17:03 (5 years ago) Permalink

Ok, thanks.

That would be changed in any US publication, says I

I saw it being used in a Slate article a couple of days ago, actually.

― Jeb, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 17:05 (5 years ago) Permalink

I think it's sort of colloquial-sounding but not wholly incorrect.

― jaymc, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 17:09 (5 years ago) Permalink

hahaha Slate doesn't count!

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 12 September 2007 17:09 (5 years ago) Permalink

3 weeks pass...

The plural form of BBS. BBSes? BBSs? What say you?

― Will M., Wednesday, 3 October 2007 14:44 (5 years ago) Permalink

BBSs

― quincie, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 15:42 (5 years ago) Permalink

Definitely “BBSs.” Same thing as with the DVD discussion earlier in this thread; some style guides (most notably NY Times’) go for DVD’s (BBS’s), but most recommend just adding an “s,” DVDs (BBSs).

― Jeb, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 15:52 (5 years ago) Permalink

I am SHOCKED that ANY style guide calls for an apostrophe for the plural of an abbreviation! That is crazy talk!

― quincie, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 17:21 (5 years ago) Permalink

I dunno, even the hyper-sensitive Lynn Truss chalks that one up to 'usage'.

― aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 17:43 (5 years ago) Permalink

even the apostrophe-averse AP uses it for plurals of single characters: mind your P's and Q's. because Ps and Qs looks odd. (but yes, DVDs, SUVs, STDs...)

― tipsy mothra, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 18:20 (5 years ago) Permalink

I don't think Ps looks that odd. Is and Os and the other vowels look very odd though. I suppose you could do "I"s and "O"s.

― Alba, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 18:24 (5 years ago) Permalink

while this thread is active, i'm curious to what degree anyone is aware of copyediting being outsourced or back-officed. i wrote a book for a small publisher earlier this year, and they shipped it to india for proofing and copyediting (not for substance -- the editors here did that -- but for basic typos and style issues). the indian editors did a fine job, caught a lot of small mistakes. but is this a widespread practice? are there copyediting shops popping up like there are call centers and coding shops? since it's what i actually get paid to do, it makes me a little nervous.

― tipsy mothra, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 18:24 (5 years ago) Permalink

I used to work for a textbook development firm, and we basically did proofreading, fact-checking, and design for large textbook publishers, as well as other publishing outfits. (Part of how I got hired at my current company was that we were briefly a client of my old company and so I already had experience with one of the projects.) I don't know how much straight-up copyediting took place, but it doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility.

In this case, I think the advantage was that the work was done quickly and reliably, when the publishers didn't have the time or the staff to do it themselves. Outsourcing the work to India makes me think that there's a financial motivation, though, as well.

― jaymc, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 18:38 (5 years ago) Permalink

oh yeah i'm sure the indian copyeditors make a lot less than american copyeditors do.

― tipsy mothra, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 19:42 (5 years ago) Permalink

I wrote into AP and asked my BBS plural question, and they said:

Probably BBSes. If you are abbreviating bulletin board systems for computers, suggest use the more understandable, if longer, bulletin boards.

― Will M., Thursday, 4 October 2007 20:50 (5 years ago) Permalink

My favourite part: "Probably." Thanks, AP's ask the editor. Thanks for your decisiveness.

― Will M., Thursday, 4 October 2007 20:54 (5 years ago) Permalink

I frequently write in margins "probably..." or "I'd suggest..." which should be understood as "there is no right or wrong here unless you pay me far more to rewrite the whole piece cos even when I fix the obvious errors it will still be gibberish".

In most questions like the BBS one, sadly, the answer does not matter.

I'd have said BBSs, out of the two choices. But BBSes gets used often enough that I wouldn't care much. "Bulletin boards" is better, though, if that's what you mean.

― Eyeball Kicks, Thursday, 4 October 2007 23:06 (5 years ago) Permalink

Probably BBSes.

Where did that one come from?!? Since “BBSes” is just as ripe for misinterpretation as “BBSs,” why bother with the extra “e”?

― Jeb, Thursday, 4 October 2007 23:51 (5 years ago) Permalink

Kisss
Boxs
Gass

That's your where/why.

― Eyeball Kicks, Thursday, 4 October 2007 23:59 (5 years ago) Permalink

are there copyediting shops popping up like there are call centers and coding shops?

i feel like there was an article about this on the bbc or somewhere, with the answer being "yes," although i recall hearing about it more in the context of major multinationals (i.e. Citigroup or Dow Jones, say, moving these parts of their operations there, or parts of these parts, i guess) rather than indepedent "shops."

― mitya, Friday, 5 October 2007 07:18 (5 years ago) Permalink

Probably BBSes

absolutely BBSes. i mean ... do none of you remember the fucking pertuises?

but really, that isn't an argument i want to go through again. ever.

― grimly fiendish, Friday, 5 October 2007 08:42 (5 years ago) Permalink

(hmm: not sure how i've managed to anchor that link halfway down the thread. meant to start at the top, obviously.)

― grimly fiendish, Friday, 5 October 2007 08:44 (5 years ago) Permalink

Some questions about a teacher's edits to a s1ght and sound piece:

1. She circled the phrase 'by that t0ken' and called it a cliche. Do you agree or disagree?
2. "Cust0dians work dilig3ntly during the night sh1ft, mopping the d1rty halls before the m0rning teenagers arriv3." She circled "work dilig3ntly" and put 'show.' Really?
3. "3ducation continues to burr0w its way into the m1nds of students" She wrote: "Why are you using personification?" Thoughts?
4. "She makes her way to a wat3r fountain, pushes th3 tab and gorg3s" She circled 'makes her way' and wrote "What is blocking her?" ^^

I have more, but I'll leave it at this.

― Tape Store, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 01:03 (5 years ago) Permalink

Without the context of the whole piece it's hard to say... #1 seems nitpicky, #2 has some merit, 'diligently' seems a little lazy, #3 is way OTM, wtf is that bro, #4 seems dubious as you have to kind of make your way to most water fountains.

― wanko ergo sum, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 01:13 (5 years ago) Permalink

Mostly agree with W and with teacher, though it depends on context:

1. "by that token" is an acceptable stock phrase in, say, a magazine article, but doesn't work in anything where the prose itself is supposed to be valuable

2. I get the sense she wants you to SHOW "work diligently" because that's somehow the point of the piece? (I don't know what "a s1ght and sound piece" refers to, but the "s1ght and s0und" bit sure makes it seem like showing would be good)

3. yes, way OTM, cause it's a weird personification to have education (which is usually, like, acquired) attacking these kids -- if your point is that education gets in despite the students' passive disinterest, you'd need more on that

4. I don't know how much I agree with teacher, but her point is that "makes her way" can sound a bit like she's fording streams and carrying a pack

― nabisco, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 01:56 (5 years ago) Permalink

Thanks for the help...I'm keeping #1 (while, as a whole, the prose is supposed to be nice, flowery and descriptive, this sentence appears in the very beginning, when I explain what the piece is a bout).

I know how to show #2, and I'll probably just have a conversation with her about #4...

Re: #3, I wasn't attempting to make some statement about the students' interest level. Rather, through imagery, I was trying to show how, when you're in a learning environment, information tends to seep into your brain without you ever realizing it...

And a sight and s0und = when you go to a place, observe and then write a piece about it. It's f0r a high school newspaper.

― Tape Store, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 02:36 (5 years ago) Permalink

i'm just glad there are still high school newspapers, much less ones with good teacher/editors. listen to her, she knows what she's talking about.

― tipsy mothra, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 03:54 (5 years ago) Permalink

(generally, yes...but I think you need to know a little more background before you can say listen to her)

― Tape Store, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 04:22 (5 years ago) Permalink

I am intrigued.

― Alba, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 07:48 (5 years ago) Permalink

I thought the expression was "by the same token". In any case it doesn't mean much. Why not drop it?

You could say that custodians mop the dirty halls. (Or just "halls" -- presumably if they were clean, no mopping would be required!) Do you really know that they were "diligent"? They might have been smoking and cracking jokes half the time. If you DO know that they were diligent, write how you know this, rather than that they were diligent.

Things burrowing into minds recalls a particularly uncomfortable scene in Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan.

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 09:46 (5 years ago) Permalink

Well, use "information" rather than "education" (if you must use personification, at least use the thing you actually mean).

― ailsa, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 09:52 (5 years ago) Permalink

"Inf0rmation continues to burr0w its way into the m1nds of students, bearing light artillery, wool blankets and supplies for several months."

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 09:55 (5 years ago) Permalink

Education burrowing it's way... -> I was trying to show how information tends to seep into your brain...

Say that then - "Information continues to seep/drip into/be absorbed by the minds of students..."

― Ray, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 11:40 (5 years ago) Permalink

What is a custodian?

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 14:43 (5 years ago) Permalink

A janitor

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 14:59 (5 years ago) Permalink

AHhhhhhhh I was just in a work meeting that was really well run and informative, but unfortunately the presenter has the habit of saying "just simply" this and "just simply" that. Arrrrlghghg redundancy.

― Laurel, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 15:00 (5 years ago) Permalink

Heh, I thought you were writing an article for

― jaymc, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 18:52 (5 years ago) Permalink

Can someone help me with these two ongoing conundrums:

1. While/whilst, among/amongst
(I almost always avoid the 'st' versions, but is there a rule?)

2. which/that
("my socks, which/that are hanging up to dry over there" for example) Word seems to moan if I use "which" in many contexts, but I read it in print all the time. Again, what is the rule?)

― the next grozart, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 19:22 (5 years ago) Permalink

1. chiefly Brit

2. It has to do with whether you're clarifying which pair of socks you're talking about, or whether you're just adding an extraneous details. For example: "I shouldn't wear the socks that are hanging up to dry, but I'll wear the socks that are in my drawer." Versus: "The socks, which are hanging up to dry, are still a little damp."

― jaymc, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 19:25 (5 years ago) Permalink

1. While and among are generally thought preferable. The -st versions are a bit fusty, though I don't really dislike them myself.
2. According to the (poorly followed) rule:

"My socks that are hanging up over there" is about defining the socks you're talking about (ie the socks that are hanging up over there, rather than those other ones)
"My socks, which are hanging up over there" is about adding additional information about the socks, the identity of which is not in question.

"That" defines, "which" informs.

x-post

― Alba, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 19:29 (5 years ago) Permalink

Imagining pausing (or putting a comma) before the that/which gives you a pointer. If a comma/pause works, then it should be "which", if not then "that".

― Alba, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 19:32 (5 years ago) Permalink

That's true, although I should note that a comma doesn't just work in front of "which": it's required. Similarly, there shouldn't be a comma before "that."

― jaymc, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 19:34 (5 years ago) Permalink

Additionally, to remember which one is which, you could try the old trick of putting “by the way” after that/which. If it sounds all right, it should be “which.”

E.g.

“My socks, which (by the way) are hanging up over there.” (works)
“My socks that ~~(by the way)~~ are hanging up over there.” (doesn’t work)

― Jeb, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 19:42 (5 years ago) Permalink

hmm. try living in glasgow for a bit. "by the way" works after absolutely everything, byrraway.

― grimly fiendish, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 19:48 (5 years ago) Permalink

This is all making it more clear-cut than it sometimes is. I quite often come across examples where it's kind of a grey area whether one is defining or informing. And am sometimes tempted in those cases to get across that greyness by putting a which without a comma before.

― Alba, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 19:52 (5 years ago) Permalink

If you want an example of someone who flouts the that/which rule as a matter of course, download and listen to Kate Adie introduce From Our Own Correspondent each week on Radio 4. I know most people don't even know the rule, but they must instinctively have a bit of an ear for it, because Adie sticks out so much. I think someone must have once told her "that" was common or something.

― Alba, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 19:59 (5 years ago) Permalink

I'm kinda endlessly surprised by how mixed people get on that/which when writing, since folks follow it pretty decently (when necessary) in speech. (The main problem seems to be that when writing, people try to use "which" for "that" on the grounds that it sounds classier, something they'd NEVER do when speaking.)

― nabisco, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 20:07 (5 years ago) Permalink

Folks don't much talk classy.

― Abbott, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 20:09 (5 years ago) Permalink

The situation in which I'm most likely to accidentally deviate from the rule is in a sentence with a compound "that." The second one often turns into a "which." Viz.:

"This is the kind of rule that I usually follow but which gets me into trouble sometimes."

I feel like proper usage dictates that it should be "but that gets me into trouble," but for some reason "which" just sounds better after a conjunction: it seems more solid, I guess.

― jaymc, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 20:10 (5 years ago) Permalink

We had this whole 'which' / 'that' debate at great length upthread. It is true that you can't use 'that' in non-defining relative clauses (only which), but it's not true that you can't use 'which' in defining relative clauses (you can use 'which' or 'that').

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 20:55 (5 years ago) Permalink

I think that's right nabisco. When I was writing papers, my first editing step was to just do a find on 'which' and 9 times out of 10, I'd realise it should've been a 'that'. Instinct leads you to type 'which' when trying to sound scholarly.

― aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 21:03 (5 years ago) Permalink

Wikipedia says: "(re:which or that)....Of the two, only which is at all common in non-restrictive clauses. Problems arise in restrictive clauses, where traditionally either that or which could be used. This is still the case in normal speech and in British English, but in formal American English it is generally recommended to use only that for restrictive clauses." So this is obviously just a British v American thing.

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 21:08 (5 years ago) Permalink

You wrote that wikipedia entry!

― Alba, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 21:10 (5 years ago) Permalink

No, I didn't. I'm not sure what a restrictive clause is, for a start.

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Wednesday, 10 October 2007 21:15 (5 years ago) Permalink

I have never disputed that which is true.
I have never disputed which which is true.
I have never disputed that that is true.

― Will M., Wednesday, 10 October 2007 21:18 (5 years ago) Permalink

What about which that?

― Madchen, Thursday, 11 October 2007 12:11 (5 years ago) Permalink

“It’s even easier when you don’t care whom you kill.”

Doesn’t this passage look really odd? The one below looks better, IMO, but is the one above even acceptable?

“It’s even easier when you don’t care about whom you kill.”

― Jeb, Friday, 12 October 2007 13:22 (5 years ago) Permalink

Eh, sentence, even.

― Jeb, Friday, 12 October 2007 13:22 (5 years ago) Permalink

"It's even easier when you don't care who you kill."

Fixed!

― Tracer Hand, Friday, 12 October 2007 13:44 (5 years ago) Permalink

Isn't "caring about" ambiguous here, because it could mean not having feelings for the victim rather than not caring about their identity?

― Alba, Friday, 12 October 2007 13:53 (5 years ago) Permalink

I think we're seeing a breakdown of the who/whom distinction. There are cases in which the use of 'whom', although tradionally correct, now looks a bit odd and you should use 'who' instead.

― Zelda Zonk, Friday, 12 October 2007 14:09 (5 years ago) Permalink

Thanks. I found it in this Slate piece, which is why I was a bit puzzled. =)

― Jeb, Friday, 12 October 2007 15:43 (5 years ago) Permalink

Isn't "caring about" ambiguous here, because it could mean not having feelings for the victim rather than not caring about their identity?

Absolutely. The original one, sans the “whom,” is best.

― Jeb, Friday, 12 October 2007 15:45 (5 years ago) Permalink

isn't "who you kill" a subject/predicate on its own? So who is acceptable over whom? It's been a while since I studied this stuff. I'm rusty and mostly operating by feel.

― Will M., Friday, 12 October 2007 15:48 (5 years ago) Permalink

I think I only use "whom" when it's part of a prepositional phrase. "Around whom did you fanny" for instance.

― Tracer Hand, Friday, 12 October 2007 17:03 (5 years ago) Permalink

MS Office tells me this is wrong, is it?

"...this task could take an additional three or four man-hours to sort out..."

It says that I should delete the word "an." WTF?

― Will M., Friday, 12 October 2007 20:10 (5 years ago) Permalink

MS Office is full of shit half of the time.

― Pleasant Plains, Friday, 12 October 2007 20:12 (5 years ago) Permalink

Man, just do CTRL-A, DELETE... problem solved.

― Eyeball Kicks, Friday, 12 October 2007 20:12 (5 years ago) Permalink

WTF I JUST DID THAT YOU ASSHOLE

― Will M., Friday, 12 October 2007 20:21 (5 years ago) Permalink

HOW DO I MAKE IT GO BACK OH GOD IT WAS 18 PAGES LONG

― Will M., Friday, 12 October 2007 20:22 (5 years ago) Permalink

I GUESS THAT'S 3-4 LESS MAN-HOURS

― Will M., Friday, 12 October 2007 20:22 (5 years ago) Permalink

Funny guy.

― Eyeball Kicks, Friday, 12 October 2007 20:29 (5 years ago) Permalink

"Treatment for asthma and pulmonary disease are not identical"

― Dr Morbius, Friday, 19 October 2007 14:25 (5 years ago) Permalink

the prob I see with using "treatments" is it no longer reads like a 1-to-1 comparison.

― Dr Morbius, Friday, 19 October 2007 14:27 (5 years ago) Permalink

Add a "the" to the start?

― Alba, Friday, 19 October 2007 14:36 (5 years ago) Permalink

I'd keep treatment singular, but add another 'for' for clarity:
"Treatment for asthma and for pulmonary disease are not identical"

― Zelda Zonk, Friday, 19 October 2007 14:37 (5 years ago) Permalink

The treatment (singular) sits clunkily with "are" though.

― ailsa, Friday, 19 October 2007 14:46 (5 years ago) Permalink

"Treatment ... are"?

xpost

― Tracer Hand, Friday, 19 October 2007 14:47 (5 years ago) Permalink

I'm putting the s on in a query, ja

― Dr Morbius, Friday, 19 October 2007 14:52 (5 years ago) Permalink

The treatment for asthma and that for pulmonary disease are not identical.

― jaymc, Friday, 19 October 2007 15:07 (5 years ago) Permalink

I r a medical editor. Therefore you must do as I say and use 'The treatments.'

xpost jaymc I love you but that is horrible.

― quincie, Friday, 19 October 2007 15:08 (5 years ago) Permalink

yes, esp as it also has to go in a callout.

― Dr Morbius, Friday, 19 October 2007 15:11 (5 years ago) Permalink

wait asthma IS a pulmonary disease!

― quincie, Friday, 19 October 2007 15:13 (5 years ago) Permalink

Sentence is too long. Consider simply going with "Fixin' lungs is tough."

― Will M., Friday, 19 October 2007 15:13 (5 years ago) Permalink

Asthma is treated differently than other pulmonary diseases.

― quincie, Friday, 19 October 2007 15:14 (5 years ago) Permalink

xpost jaymc I love you but that is horrible.

Well, if it were up to me, I'd probably use "treatments," but the good Dr. Morbius seemed like he wanted to avoid that.

― jaymc, Friday, 19 October 2007 15:14 (5 years ago) Permalink

"The treatment for asthma is not identical to the treatment for pulmonary disease."

― s1ocki, Friday, 19 October 2007 15:15 (5 years ago) Permalink

I shortened it, quincie; the other disease is actually COPD, but I didn't wnat to confuse the civilians...

― Dr Morbius, Friday, 19 October 2007 15:15 (5 years ago) Permalink

I dunno. "The love I have for Berlin and for Paris are quite different."
You wouldn't want "loves" there, would you? The second love is simply understood without being written out.

― Zelda Zonk, Friday, 19 October 2007 15:15 (5 years ago) Permalink

Asthma and COPD are treated differently.

― quincie, Friday, 19 October 2007 15:16 (5 years ago) Permalink

DO I WIN OR WHAT?

― quincie, Friday, 19 October 2007 15:16 (5 years ago) Permalink

no, I can't rewrite it that much. It's not my decision, I merely (feebly) suggest. Also the AMA stylebook NEVER has the example I'm looking for, ever!

― Dr Morbius, Friday, 19 October 2007 15:18 (5 years ago) Permalink

my mom works with COPD patients!

― s1ocki, Friday, 19 October 2007 15:19 (5 years ago) Permalink

Zelda, that sentence is weird either way. That "are" is like a cyst on that sentence. Why wouldn't you say something like, "I love Berlin and Paris in different ways" or something? Also, active voice, because you're talking about yourself (not as easy with the COPD/Asthma sentence since the treater of diseases is mostly irrelevant to the sentence).

― Will M., Friday, 19 October 2007 15:19 (5 years ago) Permalink

what about my suggestion morbius

― s1ocki, Friday, 19 October 2007 15:19 (5 years ago) Permalink

I have no power over what the Krell -- I mean, my editor -- will decide. I've added an "s" query and moved on.

― Dr Morbius, Friday, 19 October 2007 15:21 (5 years ago) Permalink

I still think the original sentence with "treatments" instead of "treatment" doesn't read unclearly, btw, Morb.

― Will M., Friday, 19 October 2007 15:23 (5 years ago) Permalink

xpost yay :)

― Will M., Friday, 19 October 2007 15:23 (5 years ago) Permalink

Zelda, that sentence is weird either way.

Yeah, I guess you're right!

― Zelda Zonk, Friday, 19 October 2007 15:24 (5 years ago) Permalink

You really have to query something as small as that? God, I'd go nuts.

― quincie, Friday, 19 October 2007 15:25 (5 years ago) Permalink

I don't have to; I simply don't want to decide.

― Dr Morbius, Friday, 19 October 2007 15:27 (5 years ago) Permalink

Morbius the Scrivener

― jaymc, Friday, 19 October 2007 15:34 (5 years ago) Permalink

hahaha

― Tracer Hand, Friday, 19 October 2007 15:41 (5 years ago) Permalink

full stops at the end of bullet-pointed sentences, yay or nay?

― Upt0eleven, Monday, 22 October 2007 11:49 (5 years ago) Permalink

I say nay, unless you have more than one sentence per bullet point.

― Madchen, Monday, 22 October 2007 11:51 (5 years ago) Permalink

(I don't know why, other than it feels somehow right so somebody else will have to give you a proper answer).

― Madchen, Monday, 22 October 2007 11:52 (5 years ago) Permalink

Tends to depend on style guide/consistency, with yes/no/only-last-one all possible.

― Eyeball Kicks, Monday, 22 October 2007 11:57 (5 years ago) Permalink

I think I would punctuate it as I would a sentence if I'd chosen to break up the thing with commas instead of bullet points, so if you have three partial ends to a sentence it could end:

+ like this, or
+ like that, or
+ like something else entirely.

― ailsa, Monday, 22 October 2007 12:00 (5 years ago) Permalink

This is mostly because I like things to look nice and logical, not because I know lots about the "right" way of doing things.

― ailsa, Monday, 22 October 2007 12:01 (5 years ago) Permalink

I hate it when people end them with 'or', 'and' or (worst of all) semicolons. We are sophisticated readers who understand how lists work.

― Eyeball Kicks, Monday, 22 October 2007 12:03 (5 years ago) Permalink

It makes me think of leaflets about social security benefits.

― Eyeball Kicks, Monday, 22 October 2007 12:03 (5 years ago) Permalink

i have thusly been fullstopping because i just think a full sentence should be fully punctuated but most places seem not to. i can't handle the conflict.

― Upt0eleven, Monday, 22 October 2007 12:09 (5 years ago) Permalink

dos and don'ts
do's and don'ts
do's and don't's

― Zelda Zonk, Monday, 22 October 2007 12:17 (5 years ago) Permalink

First one. Though I'm pretty sure the second one is acceptable as well.

― ailsa, Monday, 22 October 2007 12:19 (5 years ago) Permalink

I agree, but "dos" still somehow looks a bit wrong...

― Zelda Zonk, Monday, 22 October 2007 12:20 (5 years ago) Permalink

I remember asking somewhere else about the expression fair dos/fair does/fair do's and being told the former and latter were both acceptable as a pluralisation of do. Don't like it much though.

― ailsa, Monday, 22 October 2007 12:21 (5 years ago) Permalink

ooh can you do former/latter with a triple option? is the 2nd a... middler?

― r|t|c, Monday, 22 October 2007 14:21 (5 years ago) Permalink

Probably not, heh, I am keeping this thread on its toes and reminding you all that I am just an amateur pedant so my advice is not to be taken seriously.

― ailsa, Monday, 22 October 2007 14:23 (5 years ago) Permalink

google tells me it shouldn't be used formally, but is used conversationally as it still conveys what is meant fairly clearly.

― ailsa, Monday, 22 October 2007 14:28 (5 years ago) Permalink

Re the plural of BBS:

An article just landed on my desk that uses the abbreviation SNS (social networking site) and its plural SNSs. I'm going to query it.

― jaymc, Monday, 22 October 2007 17:23 (5 years ago) Permalink

Do's appears in many dictionaries as an independent word, because dos and don'ts may look suspiciously like Spanglish for "two and don'ts."

Thus: do's and don'ts

(You can trust me, because I got totally burned on trying to "correct" that a couple years back.)

― nabisco, Monday, 22 October 2007 17:27 (5 years ago) Permalink

sort of a follow-up on my question about outsourcing copyediting.

― tipsy mothra, Monday, 22 October 2007 17:40 (5 years ago) Permalink

I thought it was "do's and don't's"? Looks kind of retarded, sure.

― Laurel, Monday, 22 October 2007 17:45 (5 years ago) Permalink

it would never, ever, ever be "do's and don't's". ever. in any possible universe.

― grimly fiendish, Monday, 22 October 2007 17:56 (5 years ago) Permalink

I thought whatsherface from the shoots and leaves book had said it was? But my copy is at home. Anyway, I was checking b/c we publish a book by that title and it gets done all different ways in the systems.

― Laurel, Monday, 22 October 2007 17:57 (5 years ago) Permalink

I thought whatsherface from the shoots and leaves book had said it was?

if she did (and i doubt it), she's an even bigger cock-end than i think she is.

― grimly fiendish, Monday, 22 October 2007 17:58 (5 years ago) Permalink

I think the apostrophe in do's is a special case, for clarity/disambiguation -- there is no reason to do the same for don'ts, which perfectly clear in its natural no-apostrophe plural.

― nabisco, Monday, 22 October 2007 18:00 (5 years ago) Permalink

it would never, ever, ever be "do's and don't's". ever. in any possible universe.

What about that universe of yours where 2+2 != 4?

― stet, Monday, 22 October 2007 18:02 (5 years ago) Permalink

hah, i was discussing that with F on saturday, believe it or not.

but no, not even in that one.

― grimly fiendish, Monday, 22 October 2007 18:03 (5 years ago) Permalink

Dunkin Don't's

― nabisco, Monday, 22 October 2007 18:08 (5 years ago) Permalink

DOS is definitely a don't these days. C:/suck

― Abbott, Monday, 22 October 2007 18:10 (5 years ago) Permalink

dos and windon'ts ... no, that doesn't work. forget i said it.

― grimly fiendish, Monday, 22 October 2007 18:11 (5 years ago) Permalink

How about does and doesn'ts?

― Alba, Monday, 22 October 2007 18:12 (5 years ago) Permalink

and dozy dotes and little lamsy divey

― tipsy mothra, Monday, 22 October 2007 18:17 (5 years ago) Permalink

Do-si-dos.

― jaymc, Monday, 22 October 2007 18:19 (5 years ago) Permalink

eyes to the right noses to the left

― stet, Monday, 22 October 2007 18:19 (5 years ago) Permalink

what do you like better:

on-site
or
onsite

like, onsite repair vs on-site repair

― rrrobyn, Thursday, 25 October 2007 15:35 (5 years ago) Permalink

both are "correct"

― rrrobyn, Thursday, 25 October 2007 15:36 (5 years ago) Permalink

On-site.

― Eyeball Kicks, Thursday, 25 October 2007 15:39 (5 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I would hyphenate that, too. It's not quite at the level of "online."

― jaymc, Thursday, 25 October 2007 15:41 (5 years ago) Permalink

yeah that was my reasoning too - also it has more impact i find
cool
thanks guys

― rrrobyn, Thursday, 25 October 2007 15:46 (5 years ago) Permalink

The official spelling is Daylight Saving Time, not Daylight SavingS Time.

Saving is used here as a verbal adjective (a participle). It modifies time and tells us more about its nature; namely, that it is characterized by the activity of saving daylight. It is a saving daylight kind of time. Because of this, it would be more accurate to refer to DST as daylight-saving time. Similar examples would be a mind-expanding book or a man-eating tiger. Saving is used in the same way as saving a ball game, rather than as a savings account.

http://webexhibits.org/daylightsaving/b.html

― Tracer Hand, Sunday, 28 October 2007 23:41 (5 years ago) Permalink

has the word "waiter" lost its gender? y'know, like "actor" supposedly has now come to encompass the male and the female.

i'm writing in the singular so can't use the term "waiting staff" and would rather not write "waiter/waitress".

chars

― Upt0eleven, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 10:30 (5 years ago) Permalink

no it still has a gender

waitron

server

order-jockey

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 11:03 (5 years ago) Permalink

not Daylight SavingS Time

who in the NAME OF SORRY FUCK would say "daylight savings time"?

― grimly fiendish, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 13:35 (5 years ago) Permalink

Oh fuck you, Grimly. Only everyone in the US, that's who.

― Laurel, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 13:39 (5 years ago) Permalink

It's still early enough here for ME to be cranky, what's YOUR excuse?

― Laurel, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 13:40 (5 years ago) Permalink

He's a knob.

― Alba, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 13:43 (5 years ago) Permalink

I rationalise this phenomenon on the basis that I can imagine Ned Flanders saying: "Okie-diddley-okie, it's time for some of them daylight savings!"

― Alba, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 13:46 (5 years ago) Permalink

Do the British even say Daylight Saving Time, with or without the 's'? It's British Summer Time isn't it?

― Zelda Zonk, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 13:49 (5 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, though it seems to be creeping in, especially when we talk about the practice in a non-parochial, abstract context.

― Alba, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 13:52 (5 years ago) Permalink

Also, computer OSes have popularised the phrase.

― Alba, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 13:54 (5 years ago) Permalink

It's a bit of a confusing name, to be honest. Because the clock-shifting thing is sold to us on the clocks-going-back, October end of things, it being deemed important for farmers and schoolchildren to have more daylight in the morning. But that's when we come off daylight saving time (aka BST). So the daylight we want to save comes in the GMT section of the year.

― Alba, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 14:00 (5 years ago) Permalink

Laurel OTM. In New York we still "stand on line," too, and everyone else can fuck off.

If "actor" has become gender-neutral (except for awards season), why can't waiter?

― Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 14:01 (5 years ago) Permalink

xpost Farmers - ha, reminds me of this Straight Dope gem:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_052.html

― ledge, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 14:02 (5 years ago) Permalink

If "actor" has become gender-neutral (except for awards season), why can't waiter?

It can, it just hasn't.

― n/a, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 14:03 (5 years ago) Permalink

He's a knob

no, a twat. get it right!

Also, computer OSes have popularised the phrase

YES, WITHOUT THE EXTRA S!

It's still early enough here for ME to be cranky, what's YOUR excuse?

an entire nation's grammatical idiocy, if what you say is right ... and i really, really don't want to believe you are, but i fear the worst :(

a cursory google reveals the odd occurrence of this particular craziness, but ... really, WTF? there's no logic there at all.

wow.

― grimly fiendish, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 14:04 (5 years ago) Permalink

(fucking hell: to think that for all this time i've argued that the UK should adopt american english, too. this could change everything in a heartbeat :)

― grimly fiendish, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 14:05 (5 years ago) Permalink

In New York we still "stand on line," too

that could almost -- almost -- have a grain of logic behind it. just about. i mean, you could sorta imagine a line.

but daylight savings time? jesus wept, america.

― grimly fiendish, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 14:06 (5 years ago) Permalink

xxp Sure there is. You have savingS banks, money put away every month is called your savingS, and Daylight SavingS Time is a standard that allows you to accrue a bit more savings every day.

― Laurel, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 14:07 (5 years ago) Permalink

YOU WHAT?

10/10 for trying, though :)

― grimly fiendish, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 14:08 (5 years ago) Permalink

if what you say is right

Hi, have we met?

― Laurel, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 14:09 (5 years ago) Permalink

heheheheh :)

― grimly fiendish, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 14:09 (5 years ago) Permalink

I like "savings" time. It's nice for words to be just an edge away from their literal workmanlike meanings.

Alba: I always thought it was because you got extra hours of sunlight in the summer evening, when it matters. fuk one farmer.

― stet, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 14:10 (5 years ago) Permalink

dude. don't you fucking start. mind: from a sub who admits he takes a descriptive approach to grammar, i guess i should expect no better. pah.

― grimly fiendish, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 14:11 (5 years ago) Permalink

No, look: if you found something that cost $100 on sale for $75, that would be a 25% savingS. When you come home at 6pm and it's light until 10 instead of until 9, that's an hour's savingS of daylight (you wouldn't say "an hour's saving").

It's not a perfect logical line but it's not hard to understand/justify the usage, either.

― Laurel, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 14:13 (5 years ago) Permalink

The page that I pasted that from says it would be more accurate and less confusing to call it "Daylight-Shifting Time" since no daylight is, after all, saved. It is just shifted to a different time of day.

On the airplane last Sunday the pilot made some chortling reference to a new (possibly EU-derived) phrase which is supposed to supplant BST as the official terminology, but I can't remember what it was.

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 14:14 (5 years ago) Permalink

Aha!

Western European Summer Time
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

--> (Redirected from British Summer Time)

!!!

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 14:15 (5 years ago) Permalink

WEST

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 31 October 2007 14:15 (5 years ago) Permalink

British pissing-down-again Sad-farmers high-time-to-emigrate Time?

―