ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

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

The prefix for "invaluable" doesn't mean "very," though. It's more metaphorical -- it means something is useful to the point where you can't put a value on it, kind of like "priceless."

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 28 September 2006 17:12 (nineteen years ago)

Lucky Day: Reading telegram: "Three Amigos, Hollywood, California. You are very great. 100,000 pesos. Come to Santa Poco put on show, stop. The In-famous El Guapo."

Dusty Bottoms: What does that mean, in-famous?

Ned Nederlander: Oh, Dusty. In-famous is when you're MORE than famous. This man El Guapo, he's not just famous, he's IN-famous.

Lucky Day: 100,000 pesos to perform with this El Guapo, who's probably the biggest actor to come out of Mexico!

Dusty Bottoms: Wow, in-famous? In-famous?

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 28 September 2006 17:17 (nineteen years ago)

I'm sorry I (quietly) doubted you, nabisco.

Main Entry: in-
1 : in : within : into : toward : on
2 : 1en-

Main Entry: en-
1 : put into or onto : cover with : go into or onto -- in verbs formed from nouns

― c('°c) (Leee), Thursday, 28 September 2006 17:33 (nineteen years ago)

two weeks pass...

Punctuated names, redux: how would Neu! fit into a list of bands?

Neu! Britney Spears, Smoosh and Edith Piaf.

Or:

Neu!, Britney Spears, Smoosh and Edith Piaf.

Moral of the story: be like GY!BE and move the exclamation mark into the middle of the name.

― c('°c) (Leee), Friday, 13 October 2006 03:15 (nineteen years ago)

Use the comma unless you're referring to a band called "Neu! Britney Spears."

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Friday, 13 October 2006 03:25 (nineteen years ago)

definitely include comma - it could be an actual issue of clarity in this case, in which case i always err on the side of too much punctuation

― Maf54 (plsmith), Friday, 13 October 2006 03:25 (nineteen years ago)

of course you need a comma.

also to avoid confusion with nu britney spears.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Friday, 13 October 2006 03:34 (nineteen years ago)

Best proof of the comma's necessity is probably provided by Panic! At the Disco.

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 13 October 2006 03:58 (nineteen years ago)

i like how the comma after the exclamation mark seems slightly distainful of enthusiasm - yes, yes, you're excited, we know, but we've got to move on here

(also, at first i thought neu! britney might be kind of awesome but then i realized it really would not)

― rrrobyn, the situation (rrrobyn), Friday, 13 October 2006 14:47 (nineteen years ago)

I still think it might be.

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 13 October 2006 15:10 (nineteen years ago)

Btw, neither of those lists are correct, Lee, because you're missing the serial comma, you bitch.

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 13 October 2006 15:12 (nineteen years ago)

OMG exactly jmc

― Maf54 (plsmith), Friday, 13 October 2006 15:17 (nineteen years ago)

My magazine eschews the serial comma (over my objections), you Oxford whore.

― c('°c) (Leee), Friday, 13 October 2006 15:47 (nineteen years ago)

Sorry, "Oxfordian."

― c('°c) (Leee), Friday, 13 October 2006 15:48 (nineteen years ago)

HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN ABOUT GOD AND AYN RAND?

― ledge (ledge), Friday, 13 October 2006 15:49 (nineteen years ago)

Hello,

This is my first foray onto this thread, so be kind.

I keep getting sentences like this at work:

Although much of the NOC's plans are devoted to oil, ...

And the count/non-count usage of much/many is troubling me. Obviously it's grammatically wrong, because the NOC's plans are plural, so we shouldn't use much. However,it would be misleading to use many, because they don't have a bunch of different plans, some of which are devoted to oil. Something like

Although much of the content of the NOC's plans is devoted to oil, ...

would be correct, it sounds terrible. Any ideas? Or just let it slide?

ps Pity me having to sub reports about the Libyan oil industry. Sigh.

― Jamie T Smith (Jamie T Smith), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 11:48 (nineteen years ago)

What is that comma doing after Hello? You can't start a sentence with And. There's a missing but etc. etc.

I must edit my own posts on this thread of all threads!

― Jamie T Smith (Jamie T Smith), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 11:50 (nineteen years ago)

I think "much of the NOC's plans" is prefectly defensible. The NOC has a few plans, and large bits of said plans are devoted to oil, hence much not many.

Or avoid the issue by using "a lot"

― Revivalist (Revivalist), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 12:03 (nineteen years ago)

Hmmmm. Not convinced yet, although that's the no-work answer.

Lets substitute 'cakes'. (These are stupid artificial examples. Can't think of anything better)

Much of the cake was eaten. YES. Many of the cakes were eaten. YES.

Much of the cakes were eaten? NO. (And a lot can stand in for either, but the meaning changes depending on whether it's a plural or not)

You see my problem?

― Jamie T Smith (Jamie T Smith), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 12:08 (nineteen years ago)

Oh and going back a few posts.

You don't use a full stop after most abbreviations (in our house style anyway) because people aren't cretins. I know Mr is an abbreviation. No. gets one because you don't have to be a cretin to get it confused with no, the opposite of yes. Nos doesn't get one because nos is obviously the abbreviation for numbers and not something else.

Sense trumps consistency.

― Jamie T Smith (Jamie T Smith), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 12:12 (nineteen years ago)

You see my problem?

Not really...

Berlin and Hamburg were bombed during the war. Much of these two cities was destroyed.

That's acceptable isn't it? In which case "much of NOC's plans" is also acceptable (and semantically different from "many of NOC's plans")

― Revivalist (Revivalist), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 12:21 (nineteen years ago)

Much better example than mine! Thanks.

That is OK. But you've used a singular verb. In my case that would mean changing it to

Although much of the NOC's plans is devoted to oil, ...

which is horrible. I lack the wit to explain why your example works, though. Anyone else?

― Jamie T Smith (Jamie T Smith), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 12:25 (nineteen years ago)

Change plans to planning, then...

― Revivalist (Revivalist), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 12:26 (nineteen years ago)

I agree that "much" shouldn't be plural, but there are other instances where the singular looks so strange so we acceptably use plural:

A number of people were gathered

― Revivalist (Revivalist), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 12:31 (nineteen years ago)

BINGO!

Thanks.

(I am interested in the underlying grammar of this, though, if anyone else is still awake.)

― Jamie T Smith (Jamie T Smith), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 12:32 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah.

I suppose 'a number' is acting as a collective noun there, though.

I think much/many is different.

― Jamie T Smith (Jamie T Smith), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 12:35 (nineteen years ago)

I'm going to disagree w/ Revivalist.

Much of these two cities was destroyed.

There's an implied noun after much, IMO, e.g. "Much architecture of these two cities etc." or something similar, because the cities themselves weren't destroyed, but something in them was.

How about "most" instead of "much" in your NOC example, which I read as being a relative majority issue?

― c('°c) (Leee), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 15:49 (nineteen years ago)

Yup, "planning." Much of their planning.

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 17:48 (nineteen years ago)

You can all laugh at my ignorance here, but does "..course for third and fourth year undergraduates" need some hyphenation?

― toby (tsg20), Wednesday, 25 October 2006 06:39 (nineteen years ago)

ja. "third- and fourth-year undergraduates."

meanwhile, here's the copyediting story of the week.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 25 October 2006 06:54 (nineteen years ago)

'Vehicles left at owners' risk' or 'Vehicles left at owner's risk'?

― Winterland (winterland), Friday, 27 October 2006 12:23 (nineteen years ago)

Former - multiple vehicles have multiple owners.

― ledge (ledge), Friday, 27 October 2006 12:31 (nineteen years ago)

"premier issue" of a magazine? always thought "premier" exclusively meant "primary," but I see secondary def is "first in time." Still looks weird without final e.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 27 October 2006 13:32 (nineteen years ago)

It looked weird to me too, but we must be thinking in French :-) UK, US and Canadian dictionaries all show "premier" as the adjective.

― surfer_stone_rosa (surfer_stone_rosa), Friday, 27 October 2006 15:12 (nineteen years ago)

two months pass...

does the frequent use and abuse of "curator" or the verb form annoy anyone else as much as it annoys me? i recently received yet another email from someone promoting and event and claiming that they were "curating" it. um, no. you're not curating anything. you're showing a movie a few times a month at a bar. GAH!

― lauren (laurenp), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 20:06 (nineteen years ago)

Hahaha, I totally appropriated that word for an art party I went to, because $ILXor's brother had organized/hung/lit the show and I kept having to explain to people why I should get in (after doormen stopped admitting) or why I was there even though I didn't know "Carlo"/so-and-so/such-and-such. I have no idea whether it was technically correct but I got in! And drank lots of wine.

― Laurel (Laurel), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 20:10 (nineteen years ago)

it seems reasonable to call someone who organized, hung, and did lighting design for a show the curator. i'm talking about really silly stuff like "music curated by so and so" for a show or suchlike.

― lauren (laurenp), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 20:14 (nineteen years ago)

One thing in its defense = I can't think of a different single word to use for "person in charge of selecting and programming the various pieces of art you will see at this event." It definitely seems excessive for screenings of one film a week, but as soon as there are multiple pieces / performances at one event, it's hard to come up with a snappy way of describing the person who chose them.

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 20:56 (nineteen years ago)

I like the term "curator" for things of this nature.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 20:56 (nineteen years ago)

(That said, I have been similarly annoyed by it ever since the time I looked at this woman's flyer in a dark bar and said "ahh, and you're the 'creator'" and she said "umm, curator" like I was illiterate and not just blind, and then several weeks later someone showed me some hilarious Chicago "art" porn starring her.) (Apparently "art" porn involves stuff that looks like bad student films in which no one gets naked or has sex but there are elaborate costumes and lots of non-sequitur "poetic" voice-over with the word "daddy" prominently featured.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 21:00 (nineteen years ago)

i guess i would prefer "organized by" or something similar to describe someone's role in putting an event together. to me, "curator" implies professionalism, experience, and education.

― lauren (laurenp), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 21:11 (nineteen years ago)

Curatorist! I mean, you're totally right -- people use the word because it has that professional air. But wouldn't it be kinda snobby of us to claim that the act of curating, as done by an educated professional, is so different from the act of an amateur that it requires distinct words? I mean, we could just use the word generically for the act, on any level, like we do with any number of professional terms.

(Ha, although I think we all get snobby on this topic when it comes to whatever we personally do: I am that way people describing themselves as "writers.")

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 21:22 (nineteen years ago)

i suppose it's the professional connotation of the word that leads to my annoyance at it's current usage. i mean, i wouldn't say that i had "doctored" someone's cut by putting a band-aid on it.

― lauren (laurenp), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 21:32 (nineteen years ago)

Messrs Schröder’s horse or Messrs Schröders' horse?

― Maria :D (Maria D.), Friday, 12 January 2007 03:57 (nineteen years ago)

I do think "curator" can be annoying wrt music events - we already have the words "booker" and "organizer" for that, and frankly, booking in most cases is not like curating. It's "We've got hot up-and-coming band x, now let's throw on a sort-of-hot soon-to-be-up-and-coming band with a moderate draw and a nobody band that always brings all their friends."

It makes more sense for a longer event with many bands, especially something like All Tomorrow's Parties where it's a specific artist's vision of what's teh hotness in music at the moment.

― A-ron Hubbard (Hurting), Friday, 12 January 2007 04:14 (nineteen years ago)

In ordindary plural you'd say "the Schroders' horse," so I'm guessing "Messrs Schroders' horse" would be correct.

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 12 January 2007 04:55 (nineteen years ago)

"ordindary" = milk products in a numerical sequence

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 12 January 2007 04:57 (nineteen years ago)

It makes more sense for a longer event with many bands, especially something like All Tomorrow's Parties where it's a specific artist's vision of what's teh hotness in music at the moment.

Why? If you book a night of five bands, surely you then book a weekend of them, too?

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Friday, 12 January 2007 10:44 (nineteen years ago)

Nabisco, I think you're coming at it the wrong way. It's Messrs Schroeder, not Messrs Schroeders.

So: Messrs Schroeder's horse.

― Mädchen (Madchen), Friday, 12 January 2007 11:03 (nineteen years ago)

"Messrs Schroeder's horse" reminds me of the menu option at Boston's late lamented Wursthaus, on Harvard Square, for "chili con carne mit beans."

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Friday, 12 January 2007 11:07 (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.