ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

bummer

From my company's blog, which is written by a number of guest contributors:

"In my last blog, I concluded that Fred Thompson was the logical candidate for Republicans to turn to this year."

^^ wording is the least of the problems there

Ha.

(To be fair, that post is from Jan. 2, but still.)

But umm seriously is it possible that the bad style here is based on trying to make "blog" function more along the lines of the "log" that's part of it? I would still use "(web) log entry," but I can get slightly closer to imagining someone using "log" in that singular way.

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"!

It clearly should have been called "Not Quite New TOO (For Men)"

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.

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.

haha

Aww, Shirts on Sheffield spawned?

an elegy for copy editors

Do you blog "on" something or "about" something?

Once you turn that noun into a verb, everything that follows is a disaster.

yesterday i couldn't even blog on, it was so frustrating

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?

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.

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

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).

I would use the first one.

I'd go with the first one. I don't think I've even come across the seond usage.

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.

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).

"The strength and weakness of the book are in its dream-like quality."

Why does the "are" in this sentence jar with me?

"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

The "in" is superfluous.

Two things "are" one thing, though?

yes, but one thing, in this case, is two things! tracer, i was about to post your exact alternative sentence.

It implies the strength is the weakness? I dunno.

The 1930s were a time of racism division.

or

The 1930s was a time of racism division.

?

Neither???

The 1930s WERE a time of RACIAL division.

Though probably not in Sweden.

The 1930s were a time of racism and division.

Sorry - was slotting in other words to replace the real ones and cocked up.

(ie forget about racial and racism. It's just the was/were thing.)

1930s = plural
decade = singular

this happens a lot. it's ok.

While I do consider myself a Grammar Fiend, I am a little bit confused over the usage of "its" and "it's".

o_O

haha yeah i know, that's like the #1 question in the Are You a Grammar Fiend pass/fail test

That's because its a stupid test.

HAH I typed 'it's' correctly by habit and had to go back and change it.

Another disagreement with my French Canadian supervisor. Please pick one:

"The odds are against us demonstrating..."

or

"The odds are against us to demonstrate..."

numba one

I don't think the odds are actually against 'us'. They're against our having success in demonstrating something.

the odds against OUR demonstrating

The odds are against us in demonstrating?

Zelda OTM.

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?

Iit's certainly redundant there. Was that writer paid by the word?

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."