ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

The results are in...

"Darling v Osborne: who’s got the edge?"

Heh.

http://www.boston.com/ae/music/blog/edge.jpg

Are you "hot on the trail" of someone or "hot on the tail"? Or do they mean different things?

believe it's the first in reference to hunting dogs. have never heard of the second usage

What surprises me is that that "hot on the tail" has so many more hits in Google than "hot on the trail". I expected it to be closer.

'hot on the trail' = About 215,000 results

'hot on the tail' = About 2,870,000 results

Oh, those links buggered up:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=SRK&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&q=%22hot+on+the+trail%22&aq=f&aqi=g5&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=SRK&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&q=%22hot+on+the+tail%22&aq=f&aqi=g5&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

huh. maybe it's in reference to chasing an animal?

Prob confusion between "on (someone's) trail" and "tailing" someone in a surveillance way.

At least some of the results for "hot on the tail of" seem to use it as synonymous with "in the wake of"/"shortly after."

I'd use "hot on the heels"
About 59,700,000 results (0.39 seconds)

Hm, same problem I think - I'd usually expect that to mean "soon after" rather than pursuing something.

Or do they mean different things?

Both are metaphors, but each invokes a slightly different image. To be hot on the trail of someone or something implies following a scent or other vestiges of passage. To be hot on the tail of someone or something implies following closely enough to have the object almost within one's grasp, certainly within sight.

The other suggested variant, of being hot on the heels, implies an even stronger degree of closeness.

Obv, you can use any phrase that adequately expresses what you want to convey. There's no need to employ the most common one, if something else says it better.

When you have a phrasal verb which finishes with 'on' and the next word in the sentence is 'to', you don't combine them into 'onto', do you?
E.g.
He went on to become a laywer v He went onto become a lawyer
She moved on to the next task v She moved onto the next task
I feel the first form is right and second one wrong, but I'm having a crisis of confidence.

don't combine

i am in harbl agreement

Same here. A small peeve of mine.

yeah, 'onto' implies 'on top of' for me. He climbed onto a lawyer

not saying that it can't ever be used, so

Beta-blockers and calcium channel blockers' effect on risk of stroke

Does "beta-blockers" need an apostrophe too?

(yes they are different effects)

Then does effect need to be plural?

how about "The effect[s] of beta blockers and calcium channel blockers on [the] risk of stroke"

It's a headline, I can't make it that much longer. I went with one apo & effects.

i feel like beta-blockers needs its own apostrophe but i am not 100% sure

But it'll look uglier and besides, only doctors are reading it.

HUGE USED BABY AND CHILD CLOTHES AND ITEMS SALE

a week late, but for a second I read this as "we are selling a gigantic pre-owned baby, plus some other stuff"

I think that's why it was posted?

http://www.slate.com/id/2258669/

This is a tedious grammar question, but is Levin's "First, there need to be a load of top-notch free agents," grammatically correct? Presumably it should be "there needs," no? I hunted around for answer, but couldn't find anything -- anyone know?

the economist style guide has some sensible suggestions for dealing with collective nouns: basically, follow the sense rather than strict number, eg treat "a couple" and "a pair" as plural. "a load" to my ear implies combining into a single undifferentiated mass, so i'd go for "needs". (although you could justify it as written: "a load of" as just a colloquial adjectival phrase meaning "many".)

http://www.economist.com/research/styleguide/index.cfm?page=805687

yeah should be "there needs." but i'm thinking it's because it's "a load." is that the right reason why? i'm not sure the verb is supposed to agree with that or something else.

yeah that's why i think- what joe said

no i mean, when you are saying "there x"
i'm thinking too hard and confusing myself though

Hey guys, I know you're going to dispute me even using this word, but what do the grammarians here think about 'myriad' as noun vs adjective? I would always say 'a myriad of x' rather than 'a myriad x'. However, it seems that some people think the former is archaic.

i have never heard the latter?

Was just thinking about this yesterday. My friend had her uni tutor tell her off for using "a myriad of x" which sounded right to me at the time but since then I've believed that "myriad x" (not "a myriad") is correct. Eg "there are myriad reasons for blah blah blah"

^ otm

oh yeah, w/o the "a" works for me

"A myriad" indicates an inexact number. The same applies to "a whole bunch", "a lot", or "a double handful". Their usage follows the same pattern. If you think that "a bunch people" sounds right, while "a bunch of people" sounds archaic, then you're barmy.

OED is happy with either "myriad ___s" or "a myriad ___s", and with its use as a noun. I would probably do one of the former in figurative use and avoid using it as a noun unless there are literally 10,000 of whatever it is, but neither OED nor Fowler's express any preference.

"myriad x" (not "a myriad")

Yes, actually, that would be the alternative. The sentence I'm using it in definitely sounds better with 'a myriad of', so as long as it's a valid usage, even if not to some tastes, then I'll stick with it.

the noun usage is first in both of my dictionaries so that feels like the more correct one

Can you use "whose" to refer to a thing rather than a person?

"T******r, a company whose employees seem to have their mental faculties fully intact..."

vs

"T******r, a company, employees of which seem to have their mental faculties fully intact..."

Ugh to both of 'em.

Former is better. I think that grammatically companies are more often treated as living entities than not.

Trouble is, our house style dictates that companies are always cold and clinical singular entities - "Apple has just released the iPhone 4", "the BBC has shelved plans to close 6Music" etc - which doesn't sit quite right with "whose" suddenly imbuing them with a soul!

Wait a minute, why are you dragging singular/plural into this? 'Whose' and 'has' are both singular. And 'has' is not particularly impersonal - 'John has declared his undying love for Jane'.

Hmm. Had a quick google, and this seems to help with the problem a little: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/grammar-who-that.aspx

It gives an example that makes me think 'whose' is definitely right in this particular case:

That is the company whose managers fled the country.
That is the table whose legs were damaged last week.

With nonrestrictive clauses, you can also do this:

"That is my father's table, the legs of which were damaged last week."

Yeah, I wasn't saying that was the only way to structure the sentence, just that it is a plausibly correct way, and thus supports the idea that one can do the same to companies without negating house style.

Yes, you can use 'whose' with things as well as people.

Consider:

"A pair of boots appears" vs "A pair of boots appear." Which is accepted? The latter sounds much less awful but the stupid former is probably right, right? Love you, copyeditors/grammar fiends. <3