ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

I don't know where else to put this:

http://www.elezea.com/2014/02/lorem-ipsum-gone-wrong/

here here herey herey herey

♥

blah blah blah blah blah blahb
albvh alvhbahv albvha blah,
says Lungani Zama

i would have lay
vs
i would have lain

"to lie" being the infinitive

THIRD CONDITIONAL LAIN

lain

lain--lay is a transitive verb

c1380 Wyclif Wks. (1880) 286 Þei han so longe leyen in so gret cursinge.

Apparently "have lay" is attested up to the 17th century or so.

yes, third conditional, thanks

Larger Q is why you would use a verb w/so many frikken rules

look

i understand that this isnt going to stop now.

but 'speak to' is horrific. it's fucking horrific.

prepositions often get warped when describing abstract relationships. nature of the beast.

A Utah language-school employee was reported to have been fired for blogging about homophones.

is there a recognized supplement to the apa manual on questions of style? i am way more used to chicago and i keep finding that every time i have a question i can expect chicago to answer, the apa manual is a useless piece of garbage

what's a good word for "approachability" -- i.e. referring to someone who is accomplished but not intimidating

In what sort of a sentence would this good word be employed?

Would modest or humble work in the context?

i went with "affable". "modest" seemed insufficiently...reverent for someone so accomplished

approachable

You can be affable without being accomplished

I can at least! Haha.

you may be asking one word to do too much work

You can be affable without being accomplished

― groundless round (La Lechera), Thursday, February 26, 2015 4:30 PM (9 minutes ago)

no i know, the word wasn't supposed to cover both

new verb in a medical research context: "trialing"

jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesus

this is new?

hadn't seen it

that is terrible

the relentless drive to save syllables will eventually lead to American English becoming a tonal language of monosyllables, hums and clicks

do any grammatical authorities still condemn the singular they?

Chicago says it's still unacceptable in formal writing.

if Chicago said you should jump off a cliff

Tangential question: could anything written expressly for the internet be considered formal writing?

Absolutely!

I mean, journalists need to follow the same rules as their print counterparts. I would assume that any online professors out there would also tote the academic line of their on-campus colleagues.

presumably they would toe the line

OK vs o.k. vs O.K. vs ok

i say the first one

I only use "okay" basically.

ha! why that didn't occur to me i don't know. i would use that for a verb, i.e. "did he okay it?" but not for the affirmation

xposts tote that line on down the road

pplains there are a few rules i've seen bandied for online specifically, i.e. jakob neilsen's contention that online writing should always use digits for all numbers

I just think "Okay!" looks more cheerful somehow.

Using "okay" allows this expression which is used as a single word to be written as a single recognizable word, whereas ok and OK, although very common, are more ambiguous (if you tried to pronounce them, they'd resemble "awk") and using O.K. is just asking for trouble.

A.P. style is OK.

And I hate it.

I mostly agree with Neilsen. I can't bring myself to begin a sentence with a number though, but I do usually try to weasel myself out of that situation anyway.

pretty tired of working around '18-year-old ______ did ______' tbh

i mean at least give me captions, headers

Tangential question: could anything written expressly for the internet be considered formal writing?

I've recently heard a prof. web writer/editor say web writing is informal writing by default. Of course if you're a journalist writing for an online publication it might be a different story, but you're going to have a house style or w/e that will address these questions, hopefully?

Writing anything on paper by default is usually informal too!

You should see my grocery list. It's nothing but sentence fragments.

formality is a function of venue, audience, purpose, etc.

not medium

I was reading the Jezebel piece on CVS/church burnings and noticed that the author uses the phrase "on accident," which I've heard spoken but had assumed was not accepted grammar. So I looked online and found this study: http://www.inst.at/trans/16Nr/01_4/barratt16.htm which found that "by accident" is vastly preferred by people over the age of 35, while "on accident" is preferred by those under 35. No one seems to know what precipitated the shift.