ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

i.e. "that might make a good choice" yes; "which choice should we go for" no

ahh ok now i am with you

high fives all around!

Hmm, I don't know about that. "You have two choices: you can either do x or do y." Is that use of "choice" wrong there, since the choice has yet to be taken? And yet it sounds OK to me...

But you hear old posh waiters in bowties saying "Excellent choice, sir," and if anyone would know the correct usage, they would.

yes Zelda i'm saying that is wrong - you have ONE choice: you can do either x or y - that is the choice in front of you

which is backed up by the common expression "i've got no choice" i.e. "i only have ONE option"

Not entirely convinced. My Shorter Oxford has as definition no. 3: "That which is chosen or to be chosen." That fits with "you have 2 choices: x or y". "You have one choice: x or y" doesn't sound right to me, it would have to be "you have a choice between x and y."

But you hear old posh waiters in bowties saying "Excellent choice, sir," and if anyone would know the correct usage, they would.

I don't think Tracer would have any problem with that. The choice (ie. decision) they made was exellent.

I hate the compulsion I feel to correct my typos on this thread.

"fingerfuck" or "finger-fuck"?

First one noun, second one verb.

Maybe both ways one word. Depends on your mood.

"fingerfoc"

http://www.discogs.com/release/130054

I don't think Tracer would have any problem with that. The choice (ie. decision) they made was exellent.

Ah, I think I get it now.

Obviously the heading "When and what is at risk?" is no good but what would be an elegant rewrite?

'what is at risk, and when?' is grammatiwockle, but maybe not elegant. if it's just a heading, why not just 'what is at risk?'

the 'when' part is kind of implied i think (immediacy being part of the overall risk).

SEZ U

ok how bout just "OMG RISKS?!!?!"

^^^^^^^ THAT

(the nyt has used both OMG and LOL in headlines in recent months, even though i can't find any mention of them in the style book)

Unrelated editing and life-in-general note: I hate the phrase

equal opportunity offender

because it is meaningless and stupid and lame and the underlying concept is basically bullshit.

(also because, in this case, it's missing a hyphen)

yes and it's generally deployed in defense of some asshole's assholishness. sometimes seen in the company of "not worried about political correctness."

Tracer, I'm with you on the choice thing - it's bugged me for ages.

I know we've had this before: "A panel of experts answer your questions..."

answers, collectively, right?

"A panel ... answers" is correct, but this is one of those past-arguing points of slippage where it's doubtful anyone would get on you about the other.

It should be "a panel of expert's answer you're questions"

This is tricky because the experts are presumably answering the questions separately, not as a unified panel (as opposed to, e.g., "A panel of experts reaches an agreement") -- but I'd still argue pretty fiercely for "answers" because there's no way you can read the subject of that sentence as anything other than "panel."

*sigh* slippage...

I think "a panel of experts answer your questions" is acceptable in the same way that "a number of people are coming". I mean, logically it should be "is coming", but no one is going to ever say/write that, are they?

but no one is going to ever say/write that, are they?

Or perhaps, "is he or she?"

but it's different (only in degrees, I admit) bcz those ppl ARE coming separately, for (near) certain.

so I am, as ever, querying.

(a number of) people are coming (from all over the place).

a number (of people) is coming (from the same place).

this is wildly pernickety, no?

actually it's not. we're talking about two different kinds of subjects, collective singular and collective plural. the "panel of experts" is acting as a collective singular, because it is the panel itself that will answer questions (there's no guarantee that any given member of the panel will answer any given question, and the q&a session will be conducted jointly and simultaneously by all the members of the panel). the "number of people" are acting individually as morbius notes, and so it makes more sense to give them the plural verb. (the confusion there is created by the "a number of" construction, but if you sub that out for, say, "several," the essentially plural nature of the subject becomes clear.)

but you can sub in "several" in the other case as well: several experts [sitting at a panel] will be answering questions. what's the difference?

A lot of people is thinking this is a bit silly.

do you come all over the place separately, or together - it is a question that has plagued mankind for millenia

panel has now blossomed into a very funny word

but you can sub in "several" in the other case as well: several experts [sitting at a panel] will be answering questions. what's the difference?

well try it like this: the difference is which word is the subject. in "a number of people" the active subject is people. the subject is not "a number." a number is just modifying the subject, telling you how many of them there are. conversely, in "a panel of experts" the subject is actually the panel. the panel is what will be answering questions. "experts" is just telling you what the panel is made of. and yes, if you change the sentence to "several experts," then experts does become the subject and would take a plural verb form.

Yes.

more the death of editing.

more ON the death of editing.

(or maybe i did that on purpose)

heh. interesting and worrying but nothing desperately new -- i mean, as the technology used to produce newspapers has adapted, so have all the age-old "but do we really need subs?" arguments.

the copyeditor's role is already changing, and will continue to do so. me ... i'm not sure i want to be part of that change. but that's my decision.

i posted this on the subs' group on facebook a week or so ago, in a discussion called "the vanishing subeditor".

well ... as i've said before around these parts, this particular sub is planning to vanish -- not just yet, but within the next few years.

after more than a decade as a staff sub/chief sub/production editor, i'm back at university part-time, with a view to a complete change of career. basically, i didn't get into this game to be marginalised as some kind of old-journalistic anachronism, which seems to be what an increasing number of managers and proprietors think. (and yes, as david so rightly points out: reporters are viewed in pretty much the same light, too.)

i take immense pride in my work as a sub, and will continue to do so for as long as i'm doing it. but really: i look at what's happening to newspaper journalism in the UK and i think, sod it, i don't want to be part of this any more. i've always said that, as a sub, my job is basically quality control: i think that's a reasonable definition. but when quality ceases to matter, where does that leave me?

i don't think the noble art of subbing is going to die out altogether. there'll always be room in the, er, "news hub" for -- let's think like a senior manager for a second -- "multimedia content refacilitators", battering away turning PA snaps into three-dimensional holographic txt msgs, or whatever this week's glorious digital dawn involves.

i just don't want to be one of them, that's all.

WE ASK THAT ALL SHOPPERS PLEASE TAKE CARE OF YOUR CARTS

I'm editing an article that uses the phrase "evoked comparisons to" (as in "Fernandez's glamorous image evoked comparisons to Eva Peron"), which a quick Google search shows is used by all sorts of reputable sources and yet there's something that seems kind of wrong about it. Notably, how can you evoke a comparison? Like it seems like it should either be "the image evoked Eva Peron" or "the image drew comparisons to Eva Peron" -- am I wrong?

i think you can evoke a comparison. if you're reporting that people compared fernandez to eva peron, then it's fair to say fernandez evoked (called forth, produced) the comparisons.

Yeah, I guess that makes sense.

xpost You're half and half, I think?

Technically it's fine -- it's using "evoke" in its most original sense (to call forth), the suggestion being "it calls that comparison out of me / other viewers" ...

But I'm with you, actually, because there's a vagueness of meaning due to the other sense of "evoke," the one often used in these contexts -- "to bring to mind," or into the imagination -- and in that sense, it doesn't belong. (Or else it's comically vague, and that phrase could mean stuff like "I looked at Fernandez's glamorous image, and it brought to mind this one time someone compared my mom's haircut to Eva Peron.")

It might depend on context, really -- I feel like there are a lot of art-related and criticism contexts where people automatically read "evokes" in the "brings to mind" sense rather than the "calls forth" sense.