ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

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

The latter makes more sense grammatically, and Google prefers it by about 10 times as many hits. But the former sounds more colloquial to me, and since the expression is basically slang, it seems like that should be taken into consideration.

But what do I know: apparently, the second Google hit for "big upped" is something I wrote on ILM two years ago!

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 20:53 (nineteen years ago)

Ha -- I'm going to go out on a limb and say they're distinct usages:

Big-upped = "Big up to my man Ray-Ray"
Bigged-up = "I just want to big up my girl Trina back home"

... in which "big up," the earlier usage, is a noun (something given to someone, like a shout-out), whereas the later usage is a transitive verb.

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:02 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, that's right, I went there.

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:04 (nineteen years ago)

I am in awe of you. For Realz.

― Young Fresh Danny D (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:05 (nineteen years ago)

But I would match the modern gerund (which is "bigging up," not "big-upping") and go with "bigged up," which is mostly how people do it now. ("Big-upped" could be marked archaic/90s and reserved for such uses.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:06 (nineteen years ago)

Oh no you di'int. (XP)

― Laurel (Laurel), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:07 (nineteen years ago)

http://daphne.palomar.edu/hgerhardt/images/Golf%20We%20are%20not%20worthy.JPG

l-r: ILE, ILM, nabisco

― Young Fresh Danny D (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:08 (nineteen years ago)

(xxp) Huh, well, I buy that "big up" can function as a noun or a verb, but if you're putting it in the past tense, then it seems like it's only referring to the usage as verb. How does "big-upped" correspond to a noun usage?

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:08 (nineteen years ago)

"Big up to my man Ray-Ray"

I'd also propose that you hear "big ups" (plural) just as often as the singular, when it's used in this way.

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:10 (nineteen years ago)

Hm. For a slightly different approach to the same distinction, to have "big-upped" someone requires that you actually used the words "big up [to]" in the original situation, whereas "bigged up" could be any kind of inflated praise or strong recommendation.

Oh bother, you've basically all said it already.

― Laurel (Laurel), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:11 (nineteen years ago)

Okay I'm actually mostly joking here, but I think there's been a shift in the words. At first people would say, you know, "big up to so and so," in which "big up" sounded interchangeable with "much respect" or similar. But then as soon as people started talking about this habit, it had to become a verb, and so the "big" part became the verb, maybe -- in part because it makes intuitive sense as an equivalent to talking a person up.

xpost -- I meant "big-upped" refered to a noun in the way that e.g. "toilet-papered" can be a verb that's been made out of a noun. Also, yes, spot on with "big ups!" Which are kinda offered TO people, right?

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:12 (nineteen years ago)

Wait, no, that actually makes sense, Laurel.

So: "I big-upped Nabisco" = "I said, 'Big up to Nabisco.'"
Whereas: "I bigged-up Nabisco" = "I was talking about how great Nabisco is."

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:13 (nineteen years ago)

No hyphen in the second one!

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:17 (nineteen years ago)

So, Nabisco, would these usages transpose to the British variant, shout-out?

― suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:19 (nineteen years ago)

No hyphen in the second one!

You're hardly one to talk, but you're right in this case.

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:20 (nineteen years ago)

I don't think "shout-out" is uniquely British...?

― Young Fresh Danny D (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:21 (nineteen years ago)

No. Neither does Webster's, which usually has a little chiefly Brit. caveat:

shout-out n (1990) : a brief expression of greeting or praise given esp. on a broadcast or audio recording

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:23 (nineteen years ago)

Of course he's right, I didn't use a hyphen for a reason. ; )

― Laurel (Laurel), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:25 (nineteen years ago)

I didn't use a hyphen in my initial post, either! The second time was a typo, I swear!

I think my problem with "bigged up" is that it's difficult to accept "big" as a verb with multiple tenses ("bigs," "bigged," etc.). "Up," on the other hand, already functions in this way in expressions like "upped the ante."

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:27 (nineteen years ago)

"Embiggens"

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 21:35 (nineteen years ago)

This discussion has been very embiggening.

― Aimless (Aimless), Tuesday, 12 September 2006 23:12 (nineteen years ago)

Moving on...

How do you shot something like, "Joey Jojo Junior Shabadoo, the Székesfehérvár, Hungary, based lovemachine, etc."? Do I need to shots a hyphen before "based" even though I have to specify what country Székesfehérvár resides in? Don't tell me I have to nix the comma after Hungary!

― c('°c) (Leee), Wednesday, 13 September 2006 15:46 (nineteen years ago)

the asnwer to 90% of such things is rewrite. Joey shabadoo, the lovemachine from Sz?keshfeh?rv?r, Hungary,

― stet (stet), Wednesday, 13 September 2006 15:48 (nineteen years ago)

or based in, natch

― stet (stet), Wednesday, 13 September 2006 15:48 (nineteen years ago)

Thanks stet. I knew to rewrite intuitively, but I saw another magazine (Spin, I think) recently do something like "the Manchester, England-based musician" and bugged out a little.

Next up: how do I kill the co-managing editor who's been ruining my reviews because he used to be the copyeditor and thinks he has a coherent grasp of grammar/style? Without, of course, arousing suspicion.

― c('°c) (Leee), Wednesday, 13 September 2006 15:53 (nineteen years ago)

Does he have a peanut allergy?

― Young Fresh Danny D (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 13 September 2006 15:55 (nineteen years ago)

The answer to 90% of such things is resign. Editors who think they can do X are a total pain in the tit. Staying in your office, keeping management off our backs and letting the staff alone is the job, so do it.

― stet (stet), Wednesday, 13 September 2006 15:56 (nineteen years ago)

Are you thinking of anyone in particular when you write such things?

― Mï¿½dchen (Madchen), Wednesday, 13 September 2006 20:12 (nineteen years ago)

[orly.jpg]

x-post

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Wednesday, 13 September 2006 20:31 (nineteen years ago)

Haha can your printer stack marks? Then you'd have options like "The Jackson 5, a Gary, Indiana|-,|based band..."

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 13 September 2006 20:38 (nineteen years ago)

Alternately, per our bigging up discussion: "The Jackson 5, a Gary-based Indiana band," or even "The Jackson 5, a Gary-based, Indiana, band" -- !

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 13 September 2006 20:41 (nineteen years ago)

That last one is an abomination, nab.

― Aimless (Aimless), Wednesday, 13 September 2006 21:50 (nineteen years ago)

I'd like to think they're all abominations!

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 13 September 2006 21:58 (nineteen years ago)

Although I suppose "A Gary-based Indiana band" is technically sound, along the model of "a water-based personal lubricant."

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 13 September 2006 21:59 (nineteen years ago)

I class most of these as irritations. However, your creativity outdid itself with: "The Jackson 5, a Gary-based, Indiana, band", and reached a lower standard.

― Aimless (Aimless), Wednesday, 13 September 2006 22:03 (nineteen years ago)

Were they actually based in Gary, or did they just originate there?

― Mï¿½dchen (Madchen), Thursday, 14 September 2006 14:40 (nineteen years ago)

That's your question on that one? Umm ... they originated in Gary and left quickly, but obviously at some early point you might have described them as Gary-based. My example is from 1965, maybe.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 14 September 2006 16:01 (nineteen years ago)

i have a couple of quick questions that can only be answered with a chicago manual of style but i don't have one right here with me, ugh, and people do not seem to be home/answering phones. if anyone can confirm, i would totally appreciate it :) pity me and my only having APA and MLA guides on hand (internet seems to be of no help for my questions.)

quotation marks: 1) double quotation marks all the time, right, except if one is quoting something and there are quote marks within that quote (these become single quotation marks), 2) include all punctuation inside the quotation marks or only non-period/comma punctuation? and if there is a source in parentheses, put period after that, correct? "Blah blah blah 'blah' blah!" (Thingy 1992).
and also (from the paper i'm actually editing): - These superheroes, with names like “Black Lightning” and “Black Panther”, indicate the status - that comma there, should in go inside the quotation marks or is it correct as is, according to Chicago style.

― rrrobyn, the situation (rrrobyn), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 00:40 (nineteen years ago)

Comma should go inside quotation:

with names like "Black Lightning" and "Black Panther," indicate the status

I'm not sure about the source in parentheses, since I don't really know Chicago Manual of Style at all -- every course I've ever taken has used MLA. I'm assuming that the exclamation is what's throwing you off, though, right? Because "ordinarily you'd just do this" (Dude, 2005).

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 01:40 (nineteen years ago)

yeah, that's what i figured, but he's got commas outside throughout and , now that i've talked to him, he seems to think this is correct. so, blah, i'm going to stick with the consistency argument on that one. and, yep, he's got a chicago guide, but damn if those things ever answer all our questions.

i have to say, i dig APA but i'm going MLA for my own stuff, unless i go do something in psych or maybe soc, of course...

thanks :)

― rrrobyn, the situation (rrrobyn), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 01:49 (nineteen years ago)

the punctuation outside the quotes plus the insistence on single quotation marks instead of double is probably going to drive me crazy by the time i'm done, gotta say

― rrrobyn, the situation (rrrobyn), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 01:54 (nineteen years ago)

I seem to recall Britishers using single quotes quite often for ordinary quotation usage.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 15:51 (nineteen years ago)

Is the "author", British? British style puts punctuation outside of the quotation "marks", strangely. I really "don't", like it.

― c('°c) (Leee), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 15:56 (nineteen years ago)

Surely this has been done to death a million times.

From ahem wikipedia manual of style, yes ok I know, but they speak the truth here:

When punctuating quoted passages, include the punctuation mark inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation mark is part of the quotation ("logical" quotations). When using "scare quotes", the comma or period always goes outside.

― ledge (ledge), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 16:02 (nineteen years ago)

I would put the punctuation outside the quotation marks unless the puncuation is part of the quote or whatever which is the content of the quotation marks.

But I am (1) not a sub/copy editor and (2) a Britisher. So don't listen to me. Why *would* you put the punctuation inside the quotation marks, unless they are part of the quotation to be marked?

(xpost - yay, I speak sense!)

― ailsa (ailsa), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 16:08 (nineteen years ago)

i think i lean towards whatever looks cleaner, and punctuation outside quotation marks looks less clean to me. but hey! each style guide is different. and i have not gone crazy over it after all.

― rrrobyn, the situation (rrrobyn), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 16:13 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, this is def. a US/UK divide. Americans put exclamation points and question marks outside the quotes if they are not part of the quote, but we put commas and periods inside the quotes. It's not very logical, but it does look a lot cleaner to my eyes -- prob. just because I'm used to it. Don't know what Canadians do.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 16:20 (nineteen years ago)

Don't know what Canadians do.

cornhole each other, mostly.

― otto midnight (otto midnight), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 16:20 (nineteen years ago)

US = inside the quotes
UK = outside the quotes
CHICAGO = in the US

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 16:22 (nineteen years ago)

Well, yes, but what about the source is parentheses? Do you need an extra period after the parenthetical, even though you've already used an end punctuation within the quote before the parenthetical?

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 16:25 (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.