ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

fuck I got the word 'quiddity' and all I could think about was the q&a thread and the debate we had over whether or not quiddity was appropriate for the title

3740 on my first try

3880 on first go. Don't fancy trying it again now for fear I'll just get worse.

I got 3800, and that was with getting all ten right and clicking as fast as I damn could on my stupid laptop trackpad, so it seems like doing any better would just be luck.

"Pro and anti-government protesters"

"Pro- and anti-government protesters"

It's a case where you can't recast. I'm going for the former, as the latter looks ugly and the hyphen leads you briefly to expect something else. Any idea what some of the main manuals of house style would say?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2011/mar/31/sanaa-yemen-protests-abdullah-saleh

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/02/02/egypt_protester_violence_mubarak

I would go the latter

Thanks conrad. Hmmm, I think I'm going to go with the former, AA. Specifically in this case it's for an on-screen item, and the latter looks a bit fussy to my eye. I guess the latter does indicate clearly that it belongs to something coming a bit later, though.

Especially where 'pro' can be taken as an abbreviated form of 'professional'.

I prefer the latter as well.

Latter.

Thanks everyone. I'd feel rather stubborn if I went for the former still after tapping the collective wisdom on offer, so I'm going mull it over tonight and decide tomorrow. I mean, who cares really? But sometimes those sort of questions are the toughest ones to come to a decision on.

pro- I think

For a headline I'd say the former; for body copy, the latter

latter seems kid of pedantic to me. former.

latter seems kind of correct to me. latter

Latter.

can you omit to notice something?

nope imo, you can fail to

xp I guess this phrase is a thing, but I would use fail to notice, or neglect

you can actually - i've seen it used but depending on the type of literature in which it's used it'd probably be better to go with a less obscure transitive verb like "fail" or "neglect"

lol or exactly what brad said

ja, you can omit to do things. it's verging on archaic usage though.

"omit" sounds more intentional/conscious than "fail" imo. In that case, whether it makes any sense to "omit to notice" something probably depends on the precise sense of "notice" being used.

"omit to notice" has a faint rhetorical or joky undertone, suggested that actually you perhaps intentionally overlooked the thing

if this is what you want to suggest, then it's ok -- if a bit arch

xp

things like this characterize clunky writing - even if as a reader i know what you mean, i'm going to pause for a split second to make the connection. the writer sacrifices flow for a pat on the back when there are plenty of equally economical & non-cliche synomyms from which to choose

"to notice" is kind of...you notice something or you don't. not seeing a meaningful difference w/ the preceding verbs really

there's always a difference

There are more agentive senses of notice (e.g., "To mention; to remark on; to refer to or speak of (something observed)") but OED marks them all as "rare" - in those cases it might be useful to distinguish between intentional and neglectful inaction.

But relying on obsolete senses is a scoundrel's game, I wouldn't do it.

it's exactly because notice no longer routinely has an "agentive" sense that omit can in fact have joky or rhetorical force; it sets up an anticipation that's then overturned, and challenges the covert assumption that intention can ever be absent (cf long stretches of sartre's being and nothingness)

but there are almost certainly better ways to get this idea across -- it's the sort of style tic that christopher hitchens gets applause for, and you don;'t want to end up like him

arch done badly or pointlessly = clunky

I think you omit doing something, rather than omit to do something. "Omit" needs a better direct object than an infinitive verb standing in as a d.o.

I read this sentence (in a novel) the other day: "She could use to lose weight."

The word "use" leapt out at me as weird. But I think it's just because it's not often used before an infinitive verb.

These seem to be the usual formulations:

"She could stand to lose weight" (before infinitive verb)
"She could use a haircut" (before object)

But I wonder if there's a shade of difference in meaning between them. "Stand" sort of implies the willingness to accept a burden, while "use" can be more positive (e.g., "I could really use a beer right now!")

haha that really seems like an uncorrected typo to me jaymc, but yr reading is excellent

"omit to do such-and-such" is standard UK english

had my "x failed to notice" changed to "x omitted to notice"

me 1 cunty colleague 0

giles cozen :D

haha that really seems like an uncorrected typo to me

Well, it was an excerpt from a character's e-mail -- this was Gary Shteyngart's Super-Sad True Love Story -- so I thought it might've been intentional.

"omit to do such-and-such" is standard UK english

― mark s, Wednesday, August 24, 2011 12:26 PM (3 hours ago)

ohhhhhhhhhhhhh

"Advances in biotechnology make it now possible to..." versus "now make it possible to..."

Latter in a blink for me.

Yeah, get the modifying word (now) out of the verb phrase (make possible).

grammar question (sorta)

i've noticed recently in a lot of my writing (both formally and informally i.e. emails) that i keep saying stuff like "that i noticed that" or "that i said that" -- would it be more grammatically correct to say for instance "that i noticed that the car was red" or "that i noticed the car was red"? or is it just personal preference?

I always prefer to read 'noticed that' bc I have had to re-read some sentences when 'that' isn't there and it's bugged me.
E.g. you could read it as "I noticed the car" (I spotted its presence) and then get confused by the 'was red', so it potentially makes for less easy reading. But I've no idea if this is proper or not? And probably wouldn't care in informal use if it makes sense.

Taking out extra thats is one of the great joys of editing, imo. A lot of them aren't necessary. Yes it gives you a little more clarity, but often more than needed, and at the expense of flow.

(as for a rule, the only one I've ever heard about it is take them out when you can.)

Personally I'd put it in if it makes the sense clearer, but leave it out if otherwise there would be repetition of "that". If neither of those things are issues, I'd probably leave it out, or just go with the rythmn of what sounds best.

what are our thoughts on the definition of "comprise" drifting to essentially become synonomous with "compose"? i'm reading some DFW and he's got a few questionable usages of the word.

i'm somewhat of a snob on this partic usage tbh - i know some ppl think it's whatever and will just let it slide

"Comprised of" is no.1 pet hate of mine. I've come to accept it in some uses but being used as 'composed of' or 'consists of' seems quite commonplace.

tomorrow when i'm more sober i'll quote the parts of "mr. squishy" where DFW commits his apparent transgressions but i wonder if he just disagreed with the conventional wisdom on this partic issue and left those in just to troll

I like the difference between comprise and compose, but I'm not gonna go to the grave for it. You gotta pick your battles. I'm focused on fighting off 'free reign.'

There's no way I can let the author (a doctor, of course) have this last comma.

"Improved validity of the studies is needed, but it is better served by more insightful reviewers and consumers, accepting the trial-and-error nature of that process."

You can't cut off two nouns from a verb like that, or I have no idea what you're trying to say.