ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (3946 of them)

View Previous Page...

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

Skipping 3846 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

I know, I know, STYLES, but:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/4-copy-editors-killed-in-ongoing-ap-style-chicago,30806/

― sunn o))) dude (Leee), Sunday, 13 January 2013 01:14 (4 months ago) Permalink

Also, orthography game:

http://type.method.ac/

― sunn o))) dude (Leee), Sunday, 13 January 2013 01:18 (4 months ago) Permalink

"...many of whom are displaced refugees who risk imprisonment to travel for even the most basic care."

that second "who"...it's who, not whom, right? they are traveling, who = subject, care = object?

― manti 乒乓 (k3vin k.), Saturday, 26 January 2013 23:16 (3 months ago) Permalink

I would say so. Whom usually only used after a preposition - if at all - these days.

― pplains, Saturday, 26 January 2013 23:45 (3 months ago) Permalink

plus a double-whom would make that a really strange-sounding sentence

― set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Saturday, 26 January 2013 23:51 (3 months ago) Permalink

could just say "risking"

― manti 乒乓 (k3vin k.), Saturday, 26 January 2013 23:54 (3 months ago) Permalink

yes, "who" because it's the subject of the relative clause

(though the direct object is "imprisonment" and I guess "care" is some kind of indirect object but that's where my grammar runs out - not that it makes any difference to the who/whom question here)

― a panda, Malmö (a passing spacecadet), Sunday, 27 January 2013 00:18 (3 months ago) Permalink

ha no yeah you're right about the object

― manti 乒乓 (k3vin k.), Sunday, 27 January 2013 00:20 (3 months ago) Permalink

thx!

― manti 乒乓 (k3vin k.), Sunday, 27 January 2013 00:21 (3 months ago) Permalink

1 month passes...

If I wanted to file Dr. John alphabetically, would he go under D or J? Wikipedia lists him under J, but to argue against that, the title is part of his stage name, so D, no?

― Liz Phair Dinkum (Leee), Friday, 1 March 2013 06:08 (2 months ago) Permalink

Yeah D. A possibly more interesting question is whether he goes with the Do's or the Dr's. I would say Do on the basis that Dr. is an abbreviation.

― my father will guide me up the stairs to bed (anagram), Friday, 1 March 2013 06:19 (2 months ago) Permalink

Good question, though I would lean the other way, just because you have to go by the letters you actually see, and not infer them ( though we pronounce them that way).

― Liz Phair Dinkum (Leee), Friday, 1 March 2013 06:45 (2 months ago) Permalink

Excel imo

― poll that whitey music pfunkboy (darraghmac), Friday, 1 March 2013 06:50 (2 months ago) Permalink

Hope he doesn't get filed in the wrong place at the wrong time.

― pplains, Friday, 1 March 2013 14:25 (2 months ago) Permalink

You should not file music alphabetically imo.

― and that sounds like a gong-concert (La Lechera), Friday, 1 March 2013 14:28 (2 months ago) Permalink

Yes, file it by tempo instead.

― pplains, Friday, 1 March 2013 14:46 (2 months ago) Permalink

wealth-blessing plz.

― Fizzles, Saturday, 9 March 2013 10:59 (2 months ago) Permalink

haha

― set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Saturday, 9 March 2013 17:23 (2 months ago) Permalink

Fighting shy of colons-stupid or beyond stupid?

― Aimless, Saturday, 9 March 2013 17:28 (2 months ago) Permalink

Colons are not just for Sunday.

― Fizzles, Saturday, 9 March 2013 18:07 (2 months ago) Permalink

2 months pass...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22403731
What kind of lunatic complains about the phrase 'too much, too young'?

― Hearing moyes confirmedare we hearing m (Nasty, Brutish & Short), Monday, 13 May 2013 10:48 (1 week ago) Permalink

After a childhood avid for the praise generated by my schoolwork's demonstration of correct spelling and punctuation I have slowly turned traitor to the whole notion that minor aberrations in either category are worth paying attention to. I accept them in informal writing without demur, unless they somehow obscure the meaning or introduce an unwanted ambiguity.

I especially condemn those who become hissy over perfectly good split infinitives.

― Aimless, Monday, 13 May 2013 17:37 (1 week ago) Permalink

xp http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4606

― caek, Tuesday, 14 May 2013 00:17 (1 week ago) Permalink

^ I can't open that link, caek

― Hearing moyes confirmedare we hearing m (Nasty, Brutish & Short), Tuesday, 14 May 2013 08:32 (1 week ago) Permalink

try now?

― caek, Tuesday, 14 May 2013 23:36 (1 week ago) Permalink

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.