ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

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

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)

except none is singular

crosspost

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

guess it depends whether you predict only one or more than one of your salt varieties may be suitable!

― RJG, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 11:42 (nineteen years ago)

i guess they could all be ok...oh bollocks.

― CharlieNo4, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 11:44 (nineteen years ago)

'none of us is' is correct

― braveclub, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 11:53 (nineteen years ago)

Cuz "none" is "not one," right?
I don't know about the road salt thing. It would seem that the "is" or "are" would be referring to (modifying?) the "any" and not the "varieties," thus making "is" correct, but it sticks in my craw. Perhaps moving away from this hyper-correctness in conjugating the "to be" verb is an area where the language is evolving.
Also fading into extinction, most probably, is the word "whom," use of which I can never figure out on the fly, that is, when speaking.

― Beth Parker, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 12:21 (nineteen years ago)

I saw Amazing Grace last night and Wilberforce saying "to who" about three times in the space of a minute really grated! Also, he kept saying "bored of" instead of "bored with". Slack git.

― Alba, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 12:39 (nineteen years ago)

AP style says that proper names ending in "s" just get an apostrophe to show possession, and that's it - I like it cause it's more efficient innit

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 14:02 (nineteen years ago)

I'd have gone with Prince Charles' ears on instinct.

― Madchen, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 18:10 (nineteen years ago)

"All," "any," "most," "none," and "some" can be either singular or plural, depending on what they're referring to.

"All of the milk is gone" vs. "All of the candy bars are gone."

"None of the crowd was left" vs. "None of the fans were left."

― jaymc, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 18:14 (nineteen years ago)

not one of the fans was left

vs

none of the fans were left

― CharlieNo4, Thursday, 12 April 2007 09:18 (nineteen years ago)

Madchen you tart!

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 12 April 2007 10:15 (nineteen years ago)

i wish 'imaginary' could mean 'pertaining to imagery'.

― That one guy that quit, Friday, 13 April 2007 12:36 (nineteen years ago)

make it so!

― CharlieNo4, Friday, 13 April 2007 12:36 (nineteen years ago)

I suspect there's nothing wrong with "This information is believed accurate," but why does it bother me without "to be"?

― Dr Morbius, Friday, 13 April 2007 13:58 (nineteen years ago)

I think dropping the "to be" is a Scottishism. They're fond of saying things like "These shirts need washed" instead of "...to be washed" or "...washing".

― ledge, Friday, 13 April 2007 14:04 (nineteen years ago)

well, some MD from Wilkes-Barre likes to do it too.

― Dr Morbius, Friday, 13 April 2007 14:08 (nineteen years ago)

I think the original phrase is "all information believed accurate at time of printing", ie, headline style abbreviation with articles and auxiliary verbs removed. I'm not sure "believed accurate" really is grammatical outside that convention.

― underpants of the gods, Friday, 13 April 2007 14:12 (nineteen years ago)

I mean, I can't think offhand think of any other instance where you can have believed + adjective. "The woman is believed to be blonde" - you couldn't say "The woman is believed blonde".

― underpants of the gods, Friday, 13 April 2007 14:15 (nineteen years ago)

thanks, that's what I was feeling.

― Dr Morbius, Friday, 13 April 2007 14:18 (nineteen years ago)

You hear "believed missing" or "presumed dead" a lot too.

― NickB, Friday, 13 April 2007 14:19 (nineteen years ago)

Hmmm, that's true...

― underpants of the gods, Friday, 13 April 2007 14:21 (nineteen years ago)

Both most common at police press conferences though, so I blame the goddamn fuzz.

― NickB, Friday, 13 April 2007 14:26 (nineteen years ago)

"shitties are presumed whipped"

― Tracer Hand, Friday, 13 April 2007 14:31 (nineteen years ago)

"Found guilty" or "found dead" are also the same thing aren't they?

― NickB, Friday, 13 April 2007 14:33 (nineteen years ago)

meh, I'll query it at most. Fortunately it's in a loose line that can use extra words.

― Dr Morbius, Friday, 13 April 2007 14:38 (nineteen years ago)

"illnesses for which more than one treatment method exist"

I understand the conecpt of "two or more," but still ugly.

― Dr Morbius, Monday, 16 April 2007 17:19 (nineteen years ago)

It looks ugly because of the numerical weirdness, surely -- plural illnesses usually have more than one treatment, because there are more than one of them. Technically that clause could be referring to two medicines that both treat a whole group of related illnesses, rather than various illnesses each with multiple treatments.

Also, "exists."

― nabisco, Monday, 16 April 2007 17:23 (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.