ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

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.

Er, kinder/k3vin, "comprised of" has been used since the 18th century according to Merriam-Webster. Now a question of preference rather than right and wrong.

http://missioncreep.com/tilt/comprise.html

Morbs, what if he's not talking about the reviewers and consumers doing the accepting, but in accepting in general?

Like

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

I mean, I'm not sure either. Just a devil's advocate observation, in keeping with the spirit of this thread.

that's how i read it. I might have used brackets for that last bit tbh

Brackets FTW. I think that's how it was meant.

I wouldn't let "Improved validity of the studies is needed" past either. If what he's saying is that he needs more valid studies, then he should say "More valid studies are needed". Otherwise it sounds like he's trying to improve the validity of the existing studies, which is presumably impossible.

improved validation, maybe.

Course, that's unnecessarily obscure gobblygook

which is the fave dialect of medical writers.

That use of "accepting" is weird to me, but I'll accept it!

thank God I'm not an editor, so I can't rewrite everything or I'd never go home.

yeah that 'accepting' = 'allowing for' imo

actually the start of that sentence is "Improved validity of observational studies is needed..." and I'll assume readers know he means doing different studies.

Yeah, but just leaving the sentence as it is except for taking out that last comma makes the meaning of the whole sentence ambiguous at best.

xxp

But I'm gonna leave the comma in and go with the "in keeping with" interp.