ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

lie, sure

What's wrong with "I have a couple of follow-up questions for you to answer at your leisure"?!

Or, possibly: "I hv a cpl follw-up qs fr y to answr at yr liesur."

hit me up yo

Stop it, all of you. Well, not Lechera, she just made the whole thing simpler. Leee in particular is forcing me to repeat myself: LOSE THE "FOR." IT'S JUST WRONG.

yes, LL's formulation was easily the simplest, most direct and best way to say it.

it loses the gratitude but i guess that's these modern times for you.

just write the list and then express gratitude at the end in a separate sentence

i have a couple of follow up questions, but please don't feel rushed, i'm just happy you're doing this oh god oh god you hate me don't you, whatever, do it, or don't, i don't run your life, i mean it's obviously up to you, there aren't any rules where i'm the one who tells anybody what to do, it's your time to spend as you wish so anything you provide right now is seriously just a huge bonus and i don't expect it, but at the same time i am very interested in anything you might have to say, so.. wait sorry i've misplaced those questions, let me check my email

The gratitude was unnecessary imo.

went with tracer's

JUST ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTIONS.

Try that.

I'm cross posting this from the Chicago thread:

I need a quick refresher on helping verbs and the past perfect tense.

Plaintiff files a complaint against Defendant.
Defendant files a motion to dismiss part of the complaint.
Defendant must respond to the complaint, including the parts that it is trying to have dismissed.

Should the responses read: "Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss" because it is a finite action that occurred in the past and is no longer occurring, or should the responses read "Defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss" because filing the motion to dismiss by necessity occurred prior to the Defendant responding to the complaint?

that's the present perfect, btw

that's what i said

Okay.

q:

should the 'a' in "fuckin' a" be capitalized in a normal orthographical context?

i think not, but i don't have a chicago manual handy to try to figure out what sort of rule they would slot it under.

btw, this thread has lots of "fucking"s in it. most seem to be of scottish provenance if i am not mistaken. fuckin' a.

kinda feel like it should be capitalized

Just like someone would say he's fitted to a T, I too would think A is capitalized.

You could say, Fuckin' "A," but c'mon, that looks ridiculous.

I say capitalized.

The convention would be the same as that used for referencing the letter A within a sentence, so that I favor capitalizing it as well. I would also be certain to cite this phrase only within a direct quotation attributed to a person or a fictional character, rather than as an integral part of a body of unquoted text.

shit, what, dudes can't use "fuckin' a", only mention it or attribute its use to others?

dudes who toss a fuckin' A into the midst of whatever they are writing should never require the assistance or reassurances of a grammar fiend on the proprieties of its orthographic presentation. they just fuckin' well toss it is and say fuck you if you don't like how it looks. or at least that is my best understanding of such dudes and their proclivities.

fuckin a, dude.

you see the justice in my contentions then?

this is probably covered in the 3909 messages above, but where do we stand on fuckin' vs. fucken vs. fucking etc.

nuances of expression, context is king

actually, for the same reason, aimless, i think you are wrong. there are always right and wrong ways to say things!

getting dainty now, are we?

there's a time and a place

(he dabs the corners of his mouth with a crisp linen napkin and places it down next to his plate, smiles warmly and speaks)

You can say what you like, Your Royal Highness, but fuckin' A that was a prime bit of tucker and no mistake.

wtf is fucken?

it's a fuck inside of a chicken

cankles-speak iirc

i'm actually with aimless on fuckin a, i wouldn't messageboard capitalize it because too much work but if i were to use it formally (...) i would

objet fuckin' a

aimless otm

fucken, eh?

I know, I know, STYLES, but:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/4-copy-editors-killed-in-ongoing-ap-style-chicago,30806/

Also, orthography game:

http://type.method.ac/

"...many of whom are displaced refugees who risk imprisonment to travel for even the most basic care."

that second "who"...it's who, not whom, right? they are traveling, who = subject, care = object?

I would say so. Whom usually only used after a preposition - if at all - these days.

plus a double-whom would make that a really strange-sounding sentence

could just say "risking"

yes, "who" because it's the subject of the relative clause

(though the direct object is "imprisonment" and I guess "care" is some kind of indirect object but that's where my grammar runs out - not that it makes any difference to the who/whom question here)

ha no yeah you're right about the object

thx!

If I wanted to file Dr. John alphabetically, would he go under D or J? Wikipedia lists him under J, but to argue against that, the title is part of his stage name, so D, no?

Yeah D. A possibly more interesting question is whether he goes with the Do's or the Dr's. I would say Do on the basis that Dr. is an abbreviation.

Good question, though I would lean the other way, just because you have to go by the letters you actually see, and not infer them ( though we pronounce them that way).

Excel imo