ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (5081 of them)

Actually, no it doesn't, not properly - hasn't got a charter yet I think.

― Madchen, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 12:13 (nineteen years ago)

The capitalisation of things like "West of Scotland" is a pain in the arse. I think in this case I'd use "west of Scotland" when referring to a geographical area (i.e. discussing weather or something) and possibly caps when referring to a sort of cultural entity (it's often "West of Scotland" when referring to religion etc). The best bet with this kind of thing, though, it to avoid making a decision by just relying on consistency in the piece itself (most important) and with previous usage in the publication in question (if there has been inconsistent usage then who really cares if you add to that?).

― Eyeball Kicks, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 12:29 (nineteen years ago)

I have bigger worries, having just noticed the claim in our magazine that King James "wrote the enduring King James Bible and even designed the Union Jack flag".

― Madchen, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 12:35 (nineteen years ago)

Searching the websites of the Guardian and the Scotsman, it looks like both almost always use "west of Scotland" in all contexts.

― Eyeball Kicks, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 12:36 (nineteen years ago)

xpost haha

― Eyeball Kicks, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 12:37 (nineteen years ago)

There are some abstract geographic regions that I've always seen capitalized, like "the South" or "the West" in the U.S., but there are others, like "E/eastern Europe," or "S/southeast Asia," that are pretty much a matter of style: sometimes capitalized, sometimes not. I've never heard of "the west of Scotland" discussed as a distinct entity unified by culture or politics (which is what often leads one to capitalize), so my inclination would be to lowercase it, but I also don't live in the UK, so it's possible that people do use it in such a way.

― jaymc, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 14:58 (nineteen years ago)

I have a feeling people in the west of Scotland regard it as an geographic entity, but those in the east of Scotland don't :)

― Madchen, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 15:30 (nineteen years ago)

How about this?

I need to make this a possessive: "user(s)"

I need to maintain its bracketed S. The best I've come up with is to arrange the sentence so that I say something like "belonging to the user(s)." Any real way to do this?

― Will M., Wednesday, 28 March 2007 17:35 (nineteen years ago)

Clearly, it should be "user(')(s)(')."

― jaymc, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 17:47 (nineteen years ago)

J, wouldn't that be user(s)'(s)?

― nabisco, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 17:49 (nineteen years ago)

Or wait, same diff, except you can take the parens off your S, cause it'll be there either way.

― nabisco, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 17:50 (nineteen years ago)

Indeed.

― jaymc, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 17:52 (nineteen years ago)

wait why would the third S be there if the second one were there?

― 69, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 18:22 (nineteen years ago)

OH OH jaymc's S nvrmnd

― 69, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 18:23 (nineteen years ago)

re: a billion - some time in the 1980s?

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 18:46 (nineteen years ago)

semantics question:

what's the difference between a lodger and a tenant?

― CharlieNo4, Thursday, 29 March 2007 14:19 (nineteen years ago)

lodger gets a room; tenant gets the whole property (or subdivision)

― stet, Thursday, 29 March 2007 14:29 (nineteen years ago)

"lodger" implies you have a room in a house run by a doddering matron who always keeps a cut-glass bottle 1/3 full of brandy in the downstairs sitting room, as well as a breakfast table around which sit an entymologist, a bounder with a mysterious past, a fallen woman, and a retired colonel

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 29 March 2007 14:38 (nineteen years ago)

You're legally required to provide a lodger with breakfast (though most people don't bother).

― Madchen, Thursday, 29 March 2007 15:15 (nineteen years ago)

re: fewer/less

I was taught the rule about countable nouns and non-countable nouns being qualified by the words 'fewer ' and 'less' respectively when I worked alongside grammar fiends of the grimly type. Since then I have noticed when people don't follow the 'rule'. For instance, the other day I noticed John Humphers on the radio - after some politician had said something about 'less criminals in prison' - deliberately repeating the phrase back to the politician, but corrected. 'Blah blah ...fewer criminals in prison, ' he said, all smug.

Thing is: once you start picking up on this rule, you notice its breakage everywhere. 'Less people...less cakes...less flowers.....less books....less computers....less biscuits....' ...and I'm thinking NO! fewer fewer fewer! (But more biscuits, please, if you don't mind.)

I should really stop caring about this rule, no? It is torture to care.

― Zoe Espera, Friday, 30 March 2007 10:01 (nineteen years ago)

Yes, it's a rubbish invented distinction that never serves to clarify, but only as a show of plumage for grammar nerds. Flout it! Do not care what they think of you!

M&S has "five items or fewer" queues and it always seems a bit like they're trying too hard.

― Alba, Friday, 30 March 2007 10:16 (nineteen years ago)

Okay, I will drop it and also stop correcting the wife every time he gets it 'wrong'. After all, this business was turning me into John Humphers.

― Zoe Espera, Friday, 30 March 2007 10:23 (nineteen years ago)

using 'less' and 'fewer' the wrong ways just sounds stupid

no matter how much I hate john humphrys

― RJG, Friday, 30 March 2007 10:30 (nineteen years ago)

I have a Word question. I'm trying to write fractions into copy and while it's happily converting 1/2 and 1/4 into nice one-character thingies, it's refusing to afford me the same privilege for 1/3. Anyone?

Also, How do I do a "degrees" sign? As in 50(degrees)c?

Grrr.

― CharlieNo4, Friday, 30 March 2007 10:45 (nineteen years ago)

for the second question, isn't there some kind of "Insert --> Symbol..." command?

― Tracer Hand, Friday, 30 March 2007 10:51 (nineteen years ago)

Here's one to paste: ° or type alt+0174. There is a unicode character for 1/3 - try typing 2153 and then hitting alt-x - sounds bizarre but should work in Word. Don't know how to get it to auto-insert.

― ledge, Friday, 30 March 2007 10:58 (nineteen years ago)

start - run - (type the following word there) charmap

that's the character map where you can find all kinds of obscure stuff to paste into other programs.

― StanM, Friday, 30 March 2007 11:02 (nineteen years ago)

Long-winded way to make any fraction in Word (on Windows):

Type the numerator, hold down Alt and type 0164 on the number keypad. Let go of Alt. Type the denominator, apply the superscript style to the numerator, select the weird "currency" symbol between the numbers and change its font to Symbol (it turns into a virgule - a more slanty slash), and finally, mess about the with the point sizes of the numerator and denominator until you are happy.

If you're having trouble working out the Alt - keypad stuff, or you're not on Windows, go to somewhere like here and paste the currency symbol from there.

― Alba, Friday, 30 March 2007 11:15 (nineteen years ago)

brilliant! it all worked. i love ilx sometimes. thanks folks.

― CharlieNo4, Friday, 30 March 2007 11:19 (nineteen years ago)

Whenever I want to use unconventional characters or symbols, I always just do a Google search (e.g., for "degree symvol" or "acute accent E") and then copy and paste accordingly.

― jaymc, Friday, 30 March 2007 22:03 (nineteen years ago)

a rubbish invented distinction

We will not get very far with naturally occurring / divine distinctions! I always get less / fewer the wrong way round (which in the US just means saying "less" all the time and forgetting about fewer entirely), but it makes perfect sense to me any time I think of the meaning of "less." It carries the "less of a mass" connotation, to me, even if I'm misusing it.

Ha, I think there might be a corresponding social / psychological shift, actually, where we increasingly think of certain countable items (especially classes of people, like "criminals") as a mass anyway! We live in a mental universe of uncountable categorical masses -- I blame YouTube!

― nabisco, Friday, 30 March 2007 22:12 (nineteen years ago)

E.g., nobody would ever misuse it the other way -- "we need fewer crime!"

― nabisco, Friday, 30 March 2007 22:14 (nineteen years ago)

"there is plenty to see"

vs

"there are plenty of films to see"

why do both of these look right? one of them's wrong, no? argh!

― CharlieNo4, Thursday, 5 April 2007 09:56 (nineteen years ago)

what's the context?

― the next grozart, Thursday, 5 April 2007 10:01 (nineteen years ago)

yes they're both correct.

"There are plenty to see" sounds wrong unless you say "As for films, there are plenty to see".

― the next grozart, Thursday, 5 April 2007 10:02 (nineteen years ago)

Is it...

King James' Bible

or

King James's Bible

?

I'd go for the latter myself as "James" is a proper noun and not a plural, but many people argue that it is the rule wherever.

― the next grozart, Thursday, 5 April 2007 10:07 (nineteen years ago)

It's pronounced James not Jameses (and it's The K J B ain't it?)

― ledge, Thursday, 5 April 2007 10:12 (nineteen years ago)

It's The King James Bible. It doesn't belong to him, it's named after him.

― CharlieNo4, Thursday, 5 April 2007 10:14 (nineteen years ago)

and my context:

"There's plenty to see this Easter weekend"

"There are plenty of films to see this Easter weekend"

A writer submitted "There's plenty of films to see..." and it wrong-footed me!

― CharlieNo4, Thursday, 5 April 2007 10:15 (nineteen years ago)

"there's all kinds of things i'd like to talk about" - this sounds fine to me although i know it's wrong; i could make the argument that "all kinds of things i'd like to talk about" (or "plenty of films to see") constitute(s?) One Big Thing - a mushed-together agglomeration that is conceptually singular - "plenty of films to see" is something that's happening this easter weekend - the films themselves are something to know about, but the fact that there are so many films to see is also something to know about, and in fact that is the main point of the sentence

i COULD make that argument but i mean, that would faintly ridiculous?

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 5 April 2007 10:24 (nineteen years ago)

Pretend that (for this example) the King James Bible belongs to King James. Like Prince Charles(')(s) ears. What is correct?

― the next grozart, Friday, 6 April 2007 02:51 (nineteen years ago)

There's a long history of debate on this point. I'd go for Prince Charles's ears, following the simple rule that singular words ending in s take an apostrophe s, and plurals just take an apostrophe. I think that's the Chicago Manual style, as well as that of the publication I work for.

Some people say it depends on how you pronounce it. Some have other, complex rules.

― Alba, Friday, 6 April 2007 07:46 (nineteen years ago)

is king james a plural?

no.

there's your answer.

simple, efficient and correct. next!

― grimly fiendish, Friday, 6 April 2007 09:09 (nineteen years ago)

"The 14 animals will have two months to decide if any of the salt varieties are suitable for road use."

are suitable? is suitable? isn't "any" technically singular, being shorthand for "any one"? argh.

― CharlieNo4, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 11:26 (nineteen years ago)

"varieties" makes it "are", I'd say

― RJG, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 11:30 (nineteen years ago)

if any of the salt is suitable

if any of the salts are suitable

― RJG, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 11:33 (nineteen years ago)

b-b-but "none of us is insured for this car" is correct isn't it? so that makes no sense...

― CharlieNo4, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 11:35 (nineteen years ago)

I thought it was "is" but I might be wrong.

― Alba, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 11:36 (nineteen years ago)

none of us are insured

what an oversight

― RJG, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 11:37 (nineteen years ago)

but "none" is a contraction of "not one", therefore "is" is correct!

No? Why not? *shoots self*

― CharlieNo4, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 11:39 (nineteen years ago)

Skipping 4981 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.