ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (5075 of them)

View Previous Page...

"terror suspect's still held at US camp, four year's later"

BASTARDSSSSSS

― RJG (RJG), Friday, 10 March 2006 14:18 (twenty years ago)

Singular verbs with plural subjects, that's what really gets on my... :snore:

With apostrophes, it's cos it makes you expect a different progression

― beanz (beanz), Friday, 10 March 2006 14:19 (twenty years ago)

maybe you should re-examine things, a little

RJG, i'm a subeditor! futile rage against tiny grammatical transgressions is my raison d'etre. without it, i am lost.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Friday, 10 March 2006 14:47 (twenty years ago)

I have a question. As an Irisher (and therefore, spellastically at least, closer to the Britishers), I seem to remember we always spelled colorful as colorful. Now I am being accused of creeping Americanism because I do not spell it colourful. I do not think that I ever spelled it this way.

Oh spelling masters of ILE, can you settle this dispute?

― accentmonkey (accentmonkey), Friday, 10 March 2006 18:02 (twenty years ago)

Colourful is English, colorful American.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Friday, 10 March 2006 20:16 (twenty years ago)

and what is irish?

― pssst - badass revolutionary art! (plsmith), Friday, 10 March 2006 20:19 (twenty years ago)

i've never read the first post in this thread before. it makes me want to rip out people's eyes and eat them. there really is no fucking hope for (english-speaking) humankind.

-- grimly fiendish (simonmai...), March 10th, 2006 7:52 AM. (later)

See one Language Log post about "word rage."

― The Milkmaid (82375538-A) (The Milkmaid), Friday, 10 March 2006 20:36 (twenty years ago)

callerfool

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 10 March 2006 21:10 (twenty years ago)

Perhaps we should cut out manager's tongues. Then we wouldn't have to put up with their hideous mutilation of the language?

Bad moment to misplace an apostrophe.

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 10 March 2006 21:14 (twenty years ago)

"Building and maintaining a vital membership [is/are] critical to X's success."

is feels better but i can't explain why

― mookieproof (mookieproof), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 20:20 (twenty years ago)

er, it basically depends on whether you mean "building [ie first] and then maintaining [as an entirely separate action]", or "building and maintaining [ie as one continued action]". given that you'd almost always mean the latter, especially in this context, "is" is correct.

basically: how closely linked are the two concepts?

"shopping and fucking are important to me."

"drinking and fighting is important to me."

also, the phrase "a vital membership" is common to both participles/gerunds/whatever they are, which suggests that "building and maintaining" is a single ... christ, what? gerundive noun phrase, i guess. apologies if my terminology's wrong: it's a long time since i've dealt with this sort of stuff academically, as opposed to just shouting and rewriting.

(this is a pragmatic approach, rather than a structuralist one, but i think it works. next!)

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 23:34 (twenty years ago)

also: what exactly is a "vital membership"?

out of context, i'd suggest: "building and maintaining membership is vital to X's success." you could also use "the" or "our" membership. perhaps.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 23:36 (twenty years ago)

"vital membership" possibly lingo for "members who keep giving money" rather than "people who sign up once and are never heard from again"

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 23:42 (twenty years ago)

thanks.

i'd have rewritten the whole sentence, but i lack the authority. don't ask about "vital membership"--you'll just be told about "solutions"

xp tracer, as ever, otm

― mookieproof (mookieproof), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 23:42 (twenty years ago)

one month passes...

disaffected with? disaffected by? disaffected from?

― Gravel Puzzleworth (Gregory Henry), Monday, 24 April 2006 17:58 (twenty years ago)

I think it's just an adjective?

― Jordan (Jordan), Monday, 24 April 2006 18:03 (twenty years ago)

context?

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Monday, 24 April 2006 18:18 (twenty years ago)

"the brightest children and those who felt most disaffected, for various reasons, with/from/by their own school environment."

― Gravel Puzzleworth (Gregory Henry), Monday, 24 April 2006 18:24 (twenty years ago)

I feel like it almost has to be "about" or "with regard to" or etc.

― Laurel (Laurel), Monday, 24 April 2006 18:26 (twenty years ago)

"as a result of"

― ailsa (ailsa), Monday, 24 April 2006 18:27 (twenty years ago)

"disaffected with" is perfectly fine and normal usage. You can use "by" but it has a different meaning, putting the focus not on the disaffection with a particular thing but stating that it is caused by that thing. Don't use "from".

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Monday, 24 April 2006 18:31 (twenty years ago)

Or use "distanced from."

― Paul in Santa Cruz (Paul in Santa Cruz), Monday, 24 April 2006 18:49 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, "as a result of" = "by", but that's not necessarily what you mean. Need MORE context, I think. I can't actually tell whether or not "disaffected" is the word you are really looking for.

― ailsa (ailsa), Monday, 24 April 2006 19:07 (twenty years ago)

two weeks pass...

Plural of "smiley," which is becoming increasingly common as a noun?

In other words: smileys vs. smilies.

For no particular reason, I prefer the former.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 11 May 2006 20:00 (twenty years ago)

i agree.

― rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Thursday, 11 May 2006 20:04 (twenty years ago)

:) :) :)

― Jordan (Jordan), Thursday, 11 May 2006 20:05 (twenty years ago)

whats an example of an -ey word that would be capitalized with -ies, dudes?

― SQUARECOATS (plsmith), Thursday, 11 May 2006 20:12 (twenty years ago)

MONKIES

― dave's good arm (facsimile) (dave225.3), Thursday, 11 May 2006 20:15 (twenty years ago)

money --> monies

― ailsa (ailsa), Thursday, 11 May 2006 20:16 (twenty years ago)

QED BROS

― SQUARECOATS (plsmith), Thursday, 11 May 2006 20:16 (twenty years ago)

xpost ehhhh i guess so

― SQUARECOATS (plsmith), Thursday, 11 May 2006 20:17 (twenty years ago)

Good point, Pete. I've just seen the latter formulation so many times by now!

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 11 May 2006 20:17 (twenty years ago)

maybe you were misreading "similies"?

― SQUARECOATS (plsmith), Thursday, 11 May 2006 20:19 (twenty years ago)

ZING

― SQUARECOATS (plsmith), Thursday, 11 May 2006 20:19 (twenty years ago)

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 11 May 2006 20:20 (twenty years ago)

MORE CAPITALIZATION PLZ

― Dan (WOOT) Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 11 May 2006 20:21 (twenty years ago)

I've been interviewing about a technical writing internship. The employers haven't decided yet, but one of them sent me a small job to check out my editing skills. It's an 18-page technical document and he sez I shouldn't take more than two hours. What should I charge? I still don't go by an hourly rate for the other gig, which is a flat 230 USD per issue.

― crossposting(''c) (Leee), Thursday, 11 May 2006 20:22 (twenty years ago)

two months pass...

can you "mitigate the possibility"? I mean, is it possible to mitigate something that hasn't happened yet?

― teeny (teeny), Monday, 7 August 2006 20:35 (nineteen years ago)

Yes.

― Jesus Dan (Dan Perry), Monday, 7 August 2006 20:47 (nineteen years ago)

(Basically, you are manipulating circumstances to make the worst-case scenario less worse.)

― Jesus Dan (Dan Perry), Monday, 7 August 2006 20:55 (nineteen years ago)

Least worst thread ever!

― M. V. (M.V.), Tuesday, 8 August 2006 05:37 (nineteen years ago)

"mitigate" means "lessen the effects of," no? it just adds some action to the verb "anticipate." or maybe i'm wrong...

― Leave Brintey Alone (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 8 August 2006 05:43 (nineteen years ago)

Doesn't 'anticipate' mean to take action about a potential event, not just to acknowledge its potential? With in-built ambiguity, I suppose, because acknowledgement is itself an action...

With 'mitigate' – is the it possibility which is to be mitigated, or the possible event? The possibility is discrete from the event if you see what I mean.

NB I fully expect to be shown to be wrong.

― beanz (beanz), Tuesday, 8 August 2006 08:24 (nineteen years ago)

Somehow "mitigate the possibility" doesn't sound right to me -- you would mitigate the actual event/circumstance. It just seems to me there'd be a better phrase.

― i'll mitya halfway (mitya), Tuesday, 8 August 2006 08:34 (nineteen years ago)

You could also mitigate against the possibility of the event happening, which is what I presume the usage here to be.

― Jesus Dan (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 8 August 2006 09:11 (nineteen years ago)

I suppose it depends on whether "possibility" can properly mean "scenario in which" as well as just "chances".

― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 8 August 2006 09:12 (nineteen years ago)

to make the possibility less severe? seems funny

crosspost

― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 8 August 2006 09:14 (nineteen years ago)

I have just been to the pub.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Wednesday, 9 August 2006 12:36 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, I don't know about this phrase. A quick read-through leaves you unclear on the precise meaning -- whether it means controlling the event itself or the likelihood that the event will happen (and whether it should matter to the reader either way).

Technically, it seems to mean the latter, but once you start thinking about the words on that technical of a level, you start wondering why the word "possibility" is used. "Possibility" is kind of strict -- things are possible or not -- as opposed to words like "likelihood" or "chances," which imply more of a spectrum of odds. So now, in addition to the original ambiguity, you can start thinking about whether the phrase is supposed to mean the former of those things (trying to make a possible event impossible) or the latter (trying to reduce the chances of the event). It depends on the type of event, I guess.

On the plus side, if you want your readers to start having complex thoughts about what words really mean, then yes, this phrase is a great one.

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 9 August 2006 21:03 (nineteen years ago)

Please help me, O Wise ILX Grammarians.

An ESL client for whom I'm doing some editing wrote:
"Jim hands the last sheet of paper to gloomy Jeff."
I changed this to:
"Jim hands the last sheet of paper to a gloomy Jeff."
Now aforementioned client wants to know why I put the "a" in before "gloomy". He's quite right to ask this, as he's trying to learn, but for the life of me I can't explain why I did it -- it just sounded more idiomatically correct to me. Is it GRAMMATICALLY correct and can anyone give me a sound rule to trot out to him (because I've looked in all the bleedin' resources I can think of -- online, Chicago, Copyeditors' Handbook -- but am not quite sure what to actually look for here) or is it wrong and I've lost my mind? Perhaps I should just admit defeat and tell him to recast as "to Jeff, who looks gloomy"... TIA for helping out and saving me reputation...

― surfer_stone_rosa (surfer_stone_rosa), Saturday, 12 August 2006 18:45 (nineteen years ago)

Skipping 4975 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

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