ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

ooo.
Stan!

Beginning of shift: phone call from elderly doctor (retd) to tell me "data" is plural and so is "bacteria" and could we please have "datum" and "bacterium" in our pages when required, and by the way don't proofreaders spot such errors? We're practically a laughing stock in certain circles.

End of shift: find sweet letter from 7-year-old girl pointing out plural of "Ood" is "Ood".

what did you say to him? put him through to me if he calls back; i'd relish that fight

(tho i agree about bacterium, natch. data: when i've got my other hat on, i'd agree with that too. so it wouldn't be much of a fight.)

Also, the US way with singular bands means you end up having to work around things like "Oasis is great, but when it toured last year everyone laughed at Liam's new teeth".

I actually think there's something lovely and possibly even important in saying "Oasis is great, but when they toured last year"... yes, it doesn't agree, but it gets at something cool about bands, that they're an entity as well as a collection of separate people. I realize this doesn't fly at a newspaper, though. I think the way around it is to be clear about which sense you mean, or rewrite, rather than resort to this fudge of saying "Pink Floyd are great" or whatever. I know it's an accepted convention in UK writing, but "the band are great"? Irritating. I would write "Oasis is great, but when the band toured last year, everyone laughed..." or "Oasis is great, but when the boys toured last year..." or "Oasis is great, but during last year's tour everyone..." Would any of those fly in a UK newspaper, or are bands always considered plural??

Of course you could also go with the technically most correct "Oasis is shite".

Hello

I'm reading wildly conflicting style guidance about ellipsis points and other punctuation.

Do I have to put full stops (or points) in in addition to the ellipsis marks in this passage ie have four points? Do I put a space between the full stop and the ellipsis points? Our style guide just says to use three closed up dots with a space either side, but only gives an example of within a quotation.

Mr Suleiman told As Safir, a pro-opposition local daily newspaper, "I'm tired of the ongoing bickering over my name as a consensus presidential candidate … If one side nominates me, the other objects. If one country backs my nomination, other countries object … Every time we make a step forward, we find ourselves facing more demands." He firmly ruled out the possibility of taking power in a non-violent military coup: "Lebanon is not a country of military coups … All we can do as Lebanese is to keep calm and be patient."

On the bands thing, I used to like the way John Peel used the plural somewhat absurdly: "Those were the Wedding Present."

Sorry. It only gives an example of within a sentence.

NYT style guide says period, space, ellipsis.
(. ... )
Then again, I wrote a book once and the proofreader took out all the fourth points.

yeah at the end of a sentence you need the period plus the three points. within sentence, just the three points. in either case, a space on either side of the ellipses. (also using ellipses in quotes at all is bad practice, but i know lots of places do it. i've done it myself, although i've gotten a lot better about finding ways not to.)

Oh, the brain damage—can anyone tell me the word, which in another dimension I CAN SUMMON UP AT WILL, for the process of sorting by size?

i don't know, but a google search turns up a machine for sorting by size of pear-shaped objects.

I tried all manner of Google searches. I would sure hate to ask my ex-boss, who used the term regularly. Urgh. Better to stick to pear-shaped object sorting.
The average Anjou is smaller than the average woman's butt, yet larger than a lute.

NO! Smaller than a lute!
I am drunk.

Winnowing?

No that's not it.

the proofreader took out all the fourth points.

they did this to my thesis too, so i just took them out where applicable, whatever, even tho, yknow, i'm a copyeditor lol - dif styles to contend with. but i think it does look better/cleaner with just three dots. i never put a space before the first dot but do after the third one. but my copyeditor style is of the 'yeah whatever as long as it's consistent throughout the doc/program/company/etc' variety

I like the full stop because it tells the reader - yes, the sentence did end there, right there.

^^ Not that I can dredge up an example offhand, but I can picture situations in which that sentence-ending information would actually be important to meaning.

ending sentences is overrated

we're all connected in this great big universe don't try to put a limit on it let go

...

you know what's awesome rrrobyn

^^ punctuate as you're inclined

http://stevegarufi.com/manitouincline0.jpg

http://www.feeco.com/Portals/0/steep_incline_conveyors.jpg

hi nabisco

http://illuminations.nctm.org/lessons/students/incline.jpg

you know what's awesome? rrrobyn.

You! Know what's awesome, rrrobyn!

You-know-what's awesome, rrrobyn.

quit making me amenable to punctuation

here's one i'm curious about due to having to write it a lot: should one use the plural 'persons' for talking about people other than in the limited case of "carried upon their persons" and so forth? can you have "young persons"?

I think so? It's a bit "bullshit civic address" though, or like school administrator-speak, or something.

In Britain, we covet the YOUNG PERSONS RAILCARD.

i'm in britain. my young person(')s railcard has unfortunately lapsed, though, leaving me to pay full fare until i remember to renew it.

"disobeyal": a word?

disobedience.

thought so.

Which one sounds better?

She has a plausible chance to win the nomination

She has a plausible chance of winning the nomination

2nd one (to my ear). Neither would be incorrect.

I agree. Thanks.

"Stories of the late Joseph Heller" or "stories of the late Joseph Heller's"?

I would always always use the former but I'm not necessarily sure that's correct.

The "of" negates the need for the "'s" - option 1 is correct.

But you would say "stories of his" rather than "stories of him".

Yes, but I think that's an example of where common usage has superseded technically correct grammar, in the same way you'd say "he's a friend of mine" rather than "a friend of me".

So would you actually say "stories of him"? If not, why does common usage has supseding rights with that but not with "stories of Joseph Heller's"? Because you don't consider the latter is commonly used enough?

"has supseding" = "have superseding", in a better world.

"A friend of Mike's came round yesterday."

Surely this is correct? You wouldn't say "a friend of Mike". I don't think this is a question of common usage superseding technically correct grammar. I can't put my finger on the grammatical principle but I think it's there. English is too consistent on this point: ie "those books of yours" etc, surely there was never a time when "those books of you" was correct.

Actually, I think I can see the purpose of this double possessive. It's to emphasise possession when there are other possible interpretations. Compare:

"That photo of you"
"That photo of yours"

Completely different meanings.