You know what else I hate? When there is one store/restarant called "store/restaurant X" and then they open ANOTHER store called "store/restaurant X TOO. Why do they do that???
Also this sort of thing can lead to some funny constructions. Maybe not the best example but the suburb where I am from had a ladies clothing store called "Not Quite New" (used clothing, get it?) which then opened a sister (brother?) store called "Not Quite New For Men"!
― admrl, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 21:06 (4 years ago) Permalink
It clearly should have been called "Not Quite New TOO (For Men)"
― admrl, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 21:07 (4 years ago) Permalink
xxp I'd actually think the opposite -- that if people were to think about the term's origins, they'd realize that it doesn't make sense to call a blog post a blog any more than it would make sense to call an entry in a log a log. A log is always a log of component parts.
― jaymc, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 21:07 (4 years ago) Permalink
Adam, there's a clothing store in Chicago called Shirts on Sheffield, located, unsurprisingly enough, on Sheffield Avenue. When they opened up another location, this time on Broadway, they called it Shirts Off Sheffield.
― jaymc, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 21:10 (4 years ago) Permalink
haha
― admrl, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 21:13 (4 years ago) Permalink
Aww, Shirts on Sheffield spawned?
― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 21:27 (4 years ago) Permalink
an elegy for copy editors
― tipsy mothra, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 21:31 (4 years ago) Permalink
Do you blog "on" something or "about" something?
Once you turn that noun into a verb, everything that follows is a disaster.
― Autumn Almanac, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 21:43 (4 years ago) Permalink
yesterday i couldn't even blog on, it was so frustrating
― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 19 June 2008 00:45 (4 years ago) Permalink
This week's New Yorker has a shockingly obvious misspelling/typo in the Seabrook article! I was QUITE taken aback. Is this the first sign of the copyediting apocalypse?
― quincie, Thursday, 19 June 2008 13:31 (4 years ago) Permalink
yeah, i've seen a few typos in the new yorker lately.
Is this the first sign of the copyediting apocalypse?
the first sign was all those misplaced apostrophes on storefront marquees. this is probably more like the seventh sign.
― tipsy mothra, Thursday, 19 June 2008 15:05 (4 years ago) Permalink
When the Times of London reported in 1837 on two University of Paris law profs dueling with swords, the dispute wasn't over the fine points of the Napoleonic Code. It was over the point-virgule: the semicolon. "The one who contended that the passage in question ought to be concluded by a semicolon was wounded in the arm," noted the Times. "His adversary maintained that it should be a colon."
^^ REAL men
― nabisco, Friday, 20 June 2008 21:54 (4 years ago) Permalink
Would you say
"A and B correspond to X and Y respectively"
or
"A and B correspond respectively to X and Y"?
I am in the middle of a fight about this with my supervisor. One of them sounds just plain weird to me. My supervisor is French Canadian, so I don't trust him (about anything, not just English usage).
― caek, Tuesday, 1 July 2008 18:05 (4 years ago) Permalink
I would use the first one.
― HI DERE, Tuesday, 1 July 2008 18:07 (4 years ago) Permalink
I'd go with the first one. I don't think I've even come across the seond usage.
― ailsa, Tuesday, 1 July 2008 18:09 (4 years ago) Permalink
one of my math professors was pretty intense in his belief that saying "respectively" is redundant. aside from that, both of those are correct, but you may need a comma before "respectively" in the first example.
― 69, Tuesday, 1 July 2008 18:10 (4 years ago) Permalink
I have also come across anti-"respectively" editors; I can go either way on that one. But yeah, I prefer the first example with a comma before "respectively" (at least in U.S. usage).
― quincie, Tuesday, 1 July 2008 18:50 (4 years ago) Permalink
"The strength and weakness of the book are in its dream-like quality."
Why does the "are" in this sentence jar with me?
― Alba, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 11:40 (4 years ago) Permalink
"My bat and my cap are in the car" sounds fine. I don't know.
I guess I'd write:
"The book's dream-like quality is its strength and its weakness." instead
― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 11:46 (4 years ago) Permalink
The "in" is superfluous.
― Jarlrmai, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 11:55 (4 years ago) Permalink
Two things "are" one thing, though?
― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 12:01 (4 years ago) Permalink
yes, but one thing, in this case, is two things! tracer, i was about to post your exact alternative sentence.
― CharlieNo4, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 12:24 (4 years ago) Permalink
It implies the strength is the weakness? I dunno.
― Autumn Almanac, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 22:53 (4 years ago) Permalink
The 1930s were a time of racism division.
The 1930s was a time of racism division.
?
― Alba, Thursday, 3 July 2008 15:23 (4 years ago) Permalink
Neither???
― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 3 July 2008 15:23 (4 years ago) Permalink
The 1930s WERE a time of RACIAL division.
― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 3 July 2008 15:24 (4 years ago) Permalink
Though probably not in Sweden.
The 1930s were a time of racism and division.
― CharlieNo4, Thursday, 3 July 2008 15:26 (4 years ago) Permalink
Sorry - was slotting in other words to replace the real ones and cocked up.
― Alba, Thursday, 3 July 2008 15:27 (4 years ago) Permalink
(ie forget about racial and racism. It's just the was/were thing.)
1930s = plural decade = singular
this happens a lot. it's ok.
― CharlieNo4, Thursday, 3 July 2008 15:31 (4 years ago) Permalink
While I do consider myself a Grammar Fiend, I am a little bit confused over the usage of "its" and "it's".
o_O
― jhøshea, Thursday, 3 July 2008 16:47 (4 years ago) Permalink
haha yeah i know, that's like the #1 question in the Are You a Grammar Fiend pass/fail test
― rrrobyn, Thursday, 3 July 2008 17:19 (4 years ago) Permalink
That's because its a stupid test.
― Autumn Almanac, Thursday, 3 July 2008 22:44 (4 years ago) Permalink
HAH I typed 'it's' correctly by habit and had to go back and change it.
― Autumn Almanac, Thursday, 3 July 2008 22:45 (4 years ago) Permalink
Another disagreement with my French Canadian supervisor. Please pick one:
"The odds are against us demonstrating..."
"The odds are against us to demonstrate..."
― caek, Saturday, 5 July 2008 16:07 (4 years ago) Permalink
numba one
― G00blar, Saturday, 5 July 2008 16:35 (4 years ago) Permalink
I don't think the odds are actually against 'us'. They're against our having success in demonstrating something.
― G00blar, Saturday, 5 July 2008 16:36 (4 years ago) Permalink
the odds against OUR demonstrating
― Zelda Zonk, Saturday, 5 July 2008 16:45 (4 years ago) Permalink
The odds are against us in demonstrating?
― Autumn Almanac, Saturday, 5 July 2008 21:14 (4 years ago) Permalink
Zelda OTM.
― jaymc, Sunday, 6 July 2008 02:17 (4 years ago) Permalink
From the NYTimes Estelle Getty obit:
In the show, Sophia was the mother of Dorothy Zbornak, played by Bea Arthur who, in real life, was older than Ms. Getty.
Not exactly a copyeditor and grammar fiend question, but: am I wrong to think that the phrase 'in real life' is one of those casual, almost childish, expressions that shouldn't see their way into print?
― G00blar, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 16:32 (4 years ago) Permalink
Iit's certainly redundant there. Was that writer paid by the word?
― Autumn Almanac, Thursday, 24 July 2008 03:00 (4 years ago) Permalink
i don't know, i think it helps keep things clear. but i guess you could shorten it and lose a clause by just writing "who was actually older than ms. getty."
― tipsy mothra, Thursday, 24 July 2008 04:03 (4 years ago) Permalink
bea > estela
― Autumn Almanac, Thursday, 24 July 2008 04:14 (4 years ago) Permalink
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/chi-typo-guys-0521may21,0,6902266.story
Insufferable douches or fearless crusaders or, y'know, just a bit of harmless fun?
― ledge, Sunday, 3 August 2008 23:19 (4 years ago) Permalink
hello.
can it be said of someone that they are effronterous, or temeritous even. if not why not - an man of audacity is audacious, plainly.
thanks in advance.
― r|t|c, Tuesday, 19 August 2008 21:00 (4 years ago) Permalink
temericious? no.
― r|t|c, Tuesday, 19 August 2008 21:01 (4 years ago) Permalink
Imagine some marketing spiel for a company going on about "our firm, our designers, as we go forward..." for three paras, and then ending "I hope you enjoy our new brochure! (signed) Mr Head Honcho". Is the switch from "we" to "I" ok, or a bit off?
― ledge, Monday, 25 August 2008 08:29 (4 years ago) Permalink
I always thought 'typo' as in 'typographical error' referred to genuine finger-slippage or similar when typing e.g. 'teh' instead of 'the' - where you didn't mean to type what you did. Most of the examples given in this story I'd be hard pushed to call typos. Maybe the Millwaukee one seeing as they got it right one time. The rest of them would appear to be actual mistakes, e.g. not understanding how to use apostrophes. But obviously you can't actually tell for sure. Can you make such a distinction between typos and stupid mistakes?
― Not the real Village People, Monday, 25 August 2008 12:57 (4 years ago) Permalink