ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

"As hyphens" Jesus I need more coffee

By default in Word, space hyphen space autocorrects to space en-dash space. Space hyphenhyphen space autocorrects to space em-dash space. Word hyphenhyphen word autocorrects to wordemdashword. Vastly prefer the last of these, but I will adapt to house preference when needed.

The latter is the only acceptable option in print - ilx is probably a little more laxworthy.

Dang *last

I'm so out of practice here

lol

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-correct-punctuation-of-donald-trump-jrs-name

The New Yorker is welcome to its conventions. They are ugly, but at least they are decipherable, so you may quickly put them behind you, like Satan.

I like the consonant-doubling rule.

You know, an easy way to avoid that particular punctuation traffic jam is to spell out "Junior."

donald trump fils

oh god, don't go there, because then the discussion moves to fils' vs fils's

basically this is the fault of anyone egotistical enough to name his son after himself

they should just print his name at half the point size

That would cause consistency problems. How, then, to style Henry VIII or John XXIII?

henry viii half the point size of his dad henry vii, john xxiii is unrelated to to john xxii (or any other pope except possibly the borgia popes, none of whom were called john, so the problem doesn't arise

a tremendously pedantic copyediting question: is it okay to have a citation broken up or is it 100% necessary for it to be all in one place? chicago style specifically here but maybe it's a more general thing. what i mean here is, could a note say:

"ned raggett says this. see _____ (london: routledge, 2006)"

or is it technically required to say:

"ned raggett says this. see ned raggett, _____ (london: routledge, 2006)"

the latter obviously seems redundant and repetitive, but what are style guides for if not messing up yr prose.

The latter. Inconsistency can confuse. Also because it's funny.

I think you could probably get away with

"According to Ned Raggett (London, Routledge, 2006), _________."

But that puts the boring information in between the salient bits, which would probably distract more than the repetition.

people put author-date references all over the place. you would only normally have "see [author]" in the end note/note cue rather than in the text itself, in which case it shouldn't be an issue.

I think I want to start a thread on the phenomenon of bulleted lists in correspondence. Why and how have they become so dominant? Is it really a better way of organizing thoughts and ideas? Is the threaded tweet an outgrowth of this, or a parallel evolution kind of thing? Should people start learning how and when to deploy the bulleted list as part of their normal language arts curriculum, as early as 7 or 8? Most importantly, does the use of bulleted lists produce better communication, leading to better choices, or is it part of the "cognitive style of powerpoint" as ridiculed and eviscerated by Edward Tufte?

Sorry let me try that again

I think I want to start a thread on the phenomenon of bulleted lists in correspondence.

• Why and how have they become so dominant?
• Is it really a better way of organizing thoughts and ideas?
• Is the threaded tweet an outgrowth of this, or a parallel evolution kind of thing?
• Should people start learning how and when to deploy the bulleted list as part of their normal language arts curriculum, as early as 7 or 8?
• Most importantly, does the use of bulleted lists produce better communication, leading to better choices, or is it part of the "cognitive style of powerpoint" as ridiculed and eviscerated by Edward Tufte?

As an ex-technical writer, I must say you have just illustrated a good use of a bulleted list in that:

• Each point pertained to the topic you introduced.
• Each point was relatively brief.
• Each point was cast as a question, giving them greater grammatical and logical coherence.
• The list itself was short, a mere five bullets, which also adds coherence.

I always knew we were family, somehow.

Oh jesus maybe we should just get on the horn and talk about it? People being paralyzed at the thought of making a quick call vs. spending 5x the time crafting the perfect bulleted list I mean come on my GOD.

Honestly, a person who can write a decent e-mail AND/OR text AND/OR can/WILL actually dial a phone number and talk to a person on the other end is becoming increasingly rare, IMO. Millennials or phone-talk-phobic others may think that's OK, but in 2017 there are plenty of professional situations in which talking on the goddamn phone is part of the job, DEAL.

that's kind of why I think this needs its own thread! Make one (or I will, just not right now).

Bulleted lists are my default method of written comms which is my default method of any comms tbh

Figured this was always a 4chan thing.

http://i.imgur.com/6XqjK1F.png

Why and how have they become so dominant?

1. hyper-mediated etc etc of teh innernet age levels all things to equal importance, destroys everyone's ability to assert or discern relative importances

2. proportion of total communications seeking to induce others to comply at all-time high, compliance generally requires actionable sequential task formulations

3. fear of being ignored

5 important questions YOU should be asking about bulleted lists

I think, write, and speak in paragraphs containing long convoluted sentences that (through no premeditation of mine) tend to include a lot of parenthetical digressions and dependent clauses that follow my (somewhat scattered) train of thought; this leads me to write things that are not clear to people who are not me, so even in a breezy and informal context (like ILX) I frequently have to remind myself to stop and break it up into manageable chunks before hitting "submit post."

See above. To me, bullets are not syntactically different from a series presented in sentence form. They may be overused in ppt but in a lot of situations they're easier to read at a glance, and use in practical ways.

Things like "Dear husband, please pick up bread, milk, cat food (not the smelly kind), the kind of orange juice that I like, both kinds of bagel, some broccoli, and lots of wine" are better as bulleted lists.

I reserve numbered lists for lists in which the sequence is important and you might have cause to refer to a step by number.

Why and how have they become so dominant?

1. hyper-mediated etc etc of teh innernet age levels all things to equal importance, destroys everyone's ability to assert or discern relative importances

2. proportion of total communications seeking to induce others to comply at all-time high, compliance generally requires actionable sequential task formulations

3. fear of being ignored

this is otm
take it from someone who is frequently ignored

also there is status involved:
if you think, write, and speak in paragraphs containing long convoluted sentences that (through no premeditation of mine) tend to include a lot of parenthetical digressions and dependent clauses that follow my (somewhat scattered) train of thought and you are me, you WILL be ignored
the only way to communicate effectively is through premeditated/edited stark clarity
you need to have a very high status level to be convoluted/impenetrable and still have people pay attention to what you're saying; i do not have this
i bullet list almost every written communication that matters, including emails to friends whose time is limited
imo it's also polite/respectful not to bury your main points in a paragraph of digressions

the only way to communicate effectively is through premeditated/edited stark clarity

imo it's also polite/respectful not to bury your main points in a paragraph of digressions

This is:

- otm

and also

- otmfm

The only thing I can't abide is when people attach sentence-style punctuation to bulleted lists like

* Thing;
* Thing, thingy, thing; and
* Thing

* you

* people

Come on. A properly deployed semicolon in a bulleted list is a joy.

I don't mind semicolons per se but:

* The hanging conjunction bothers me from a design perspective, and

* It causes me fleeting anxiety.

Is it wholly redundant to say "Taken in isolation and out of context..." or do the phrases have different shades of meaning?

If the purpose of the redundancy is to add emphasis, then it could be used legitimately for that reason. The difference in shades of meaning is so minimal as to be indistinguishable to all but the most discerning reader, meaning practically useless for any reason other than the one I just cited.

taken in isolation suggests there are other instances of the same type, e.g. yr looking at one work of plato not the others. there will be historical/social/philosophical etc. context beyond the other instances of the same type, so i think it could be a meaningful to say yr just looking at this one little bit of a big pie and w no pie context.

Someone used this sort of construction recently and I can't work out if it sounds familiar although rarely used, or just wrong:
"I wasn't planning on completing A-levels, ignore a degree, but I ended up graduating"

where 'ignore' is used to mean 'let alone'

that's bizarre and upsetting

also lol while I was looking at an online dictionary to check:
"Trending Words
Most popular in the world:

BF
translate
English
racism
pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis"

xp it's weird, right? I think I lumped it in with 'save' e.g. "I don't have any qualifications save a General Studies A-level" which is proper but I associate it with older people.

I haven't ever run across that use of 'ignore'. If it's gaining ground I've seen no evidence of that. I'd file it under 'highly idiosyncratic usages' and ignore it.

This week I also heard "The trains only run 6:00 while 11:00" but that's definitely a regional thing

Oh god kinder why would u even bring that ignore thing to us

ignore it

I see what you did there!

I don't think I've heard it but it does seem weirdly faintly familiar, which leaves me wondering if it's a regional thing or someone who's invented an exciting new backstory for "nor"

This week I also heard "The trains only run 6:00 while 11:00" but that's definitely a regional thing

― kinder, Monday, October 16, 2017 5:30 PM (ten minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

waht

I've never heard that version of "ignore," though I can kinda, kinda get where they're going with that.

However, the trains at 6:00 while 11:00 thing, what in the

That version of ignore sounds very like someone reaching for the thesaurus, or an AI translation mistake.

Today I saw on a news website that Bill Clinton is receiving an "honoury" degree from an Irish university. I hope I don't ever see that again.

That use of "while" is standard in Yorkshire iirc.