ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

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

I think the BBC decided that it's "An Hotel", weirdly.

― the next grozart, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 11:12 (nineteen years ago)

There was another recent thread all about ans and as (what is the best way to write that, by the way, "an"s and "a"s?) and aspirated hs, Charlie. Can't rememeber what it was called.

I think "an historical" etc is widely deprecated, yes, though it seems to be one of those hypercorrective things that people do to try to sound right. I can't believe you really want to write "an hotel". Why?

― Alba, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 11:39 (nineteen years ago)

in the same way an American might write "an herb" i suppose; or indeed in the same way i'd write "an honour".

― CharlieNo4, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 11:43 (nineteen years ago)

another one:

for goodness's sake

for goodness sake

for goodness' sake

argh. i'm leaning towards the first one.

― CharlieNo4, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:00 (nineteen years ago)

goodness's sake? nobody says that!

― the next grozart, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:02 (nineteen years ago)

they don't but it's the only correct one of the bunch. GAZUMPED BY GRAMMAR.

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:14 (nineteen years ago)

I don't see what's wrong with "for goodness' sake".

― ledge, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:20 (nineteen years ago)

I see we touched on this above where "if it's a plural, add an 's'" seemed to be the rule. Nonsense! If no extra 's' is pronounced, don't add one!

― ledge, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:24 (nineteen years ago)

I see we touched on this above where "if it's a plural, add an 's'" seemed to be the rule.

nono, if it's a plural, DON'T add another s - just the apostrophe will do. But goodness is single and this needs another s (i think), odd as it may look.

― CharlieNo4, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:27 (nineteen years ago)

Yes, meant "if it's singular...", d'oh. But why add another s? It's pronounced goodness not goodnesses.

Results 1 - 10 of about 551 for "goodness's sake" - no measure of accuracy I know but 551 is not very many.

― ledge, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:29 (nineteen years ago)

"If the singular possessive is difficult or awkward to pronounce with an added s sound, do not add an extra s; these exceptions are supported by University of Delaware, The Guardian, Emory University’s writing center, and The American Heritage Book of English Usage. Such sources permit possessive singulars like these: Socrates’ later suggestion; James’s house, or James’ house, depending on which pronunciation is intended."

― ledge, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:31 (nineteen years ago)

I recognize none of those institutions. *sniff*

― Ms Misery, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:32 (nineteen years ago)

since the phrase has passed so far into idiom i think choice #2 would actually work fine

ledge, AP style calls for ANY proper name ending with s to just get an apostrophe - so i think those examples are not in fact very illuminating

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:33 (nineteen years ago)

that's kind of cool that Emory is considered an authority on these things!

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:33 (nineteen years ago)

Considered an authority by - well I'll give you one guess as to where my uncited quotation was from.

― ledge, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:38 (nineteen years ago)

I just use "for fuck's sake". Problem solved.

― Ms Misery, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:38 (nineteen years ago)

Or "for the sake of goodness". Which flows really well.

― Zoe Espera, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:52 (nineteen years ago)

The sake of goodness:

http://www.shanghaiquartet.com/winelist_gfx/image.php?id=26_t

― ledge, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:55 (nineteen years ago)

i can't believe that took so long...

― CharlieNo4, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 15:45 (nineteen years ago)

what's the plural of Doberman (ie the type of dog)?

― CharlieNo4, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 11:47 (nineteen years ago)

Dobermany.

― Alba, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 11:59 (nineteen years ago)

*applause*

― CharlieNo4, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 12:00 (nineteen years ago)

chortleX0r

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 12:24 (nineteen years ago)

Style / usage / logic question:

If someone were to write, in a business context, something along the lines of "paper costs are expected to increase by 7%" ... would you consider that, by itself, a meaningful statistic? It feels kind of useless to me without some kind of time framework attached -- is there any kind of given in the business world that a statement like this defaults to meaning "for the next year?"

― nabisco, Monday, 7 May 2007 16:48 (nineteen years ago)

no it could mean for the next quarter, or it could be year-over-year, or month-over-month...really needs definition.

― tipsy mothra, Monday, 7 May 2007 16:54 (nineteen years ago)

Not...that I'm aware of, altho I don't specialize in paper buying. And I don't know about the wider world of business...

― Laurel, Monday, 7 May 2007 16:54 (nineteen years ago)

The paper was just a random example. I called this out on something last week, but they're declining to fix it -- I can't imagine what kind of thought process lies behind that, unless it's just "oh, whatever, who cares."

― nabisco, Monday, 7 May 2007 17:18 (nineteen years ago)

Or more likely "I don't know, and I'm sure as hell not tracking down the source of the statistic and figuring out the frame."

― nabisco, Monday, 7 May 2007 17:19 (nineteen years ago)

People don't care about statistics making sense. The other day I had something like "The survey found companies' paper costs had increased by an average of up to 7%" and I asked them whether it was an average or up to and they said "I don't know - that's what the press release said."

― Alba, Monday, 7 May 2007 17:24 (nineteen years ago)

Charlie, I would assume the plural is "Doberman Pinschers" or just "Dobermans." In the same sense that you wouldn't call several footrests "Ottomen." Doberman Pinschers is the 'most' correct, though.

― Will M., Monday, 7 May 2007 17:33 (nineteen years ago)

Here's a sample sentence (which I've obviously made up but which mirrors in its construction one I'm supposed to copy-edit):

"Under the guidance of Tom Ewing, ILM was founded in 2000 and ILE came on the scene in 2001."

So I've always been taught that complete subject-verb-object thoughts should be set off with commas when conjoined to other such complete thoughts. And so my instinct is to add a comma after 2000. But in this case, it seems like both events (the one in 2000 and the one in 2001) are relating back to the opening clause "under the guidance of Tom Ewing." In which case the comma might make it sound like ILM was founded under Tom's guidance, and then, later, separately, ILE came on the scene (having nothing to do with Tom).

I know that it's considered OK to omit the comma for conjoined sentences when they're super-short, like as in "He punched me and I collapsed" -- and one could make a case that the phrases here are short enough to do this, too -- but obviously sometimes they're longer, and I'm looking for a general rule, since I see this crop up quite a bit.

― jaymc, Thursday, 10 May 2007 17:16 (nineteen years ago)

n which case the comma might make it sound like ILM was founded under Tom's guidance, and then, later, separately, ILE came on the scene (having nothing to do with Tom)

exactly. gramatically, that's your answer.

― grimly fiendish, Thursday, 10 May 2007 18:59 (nineteen years ago)

You could always rewrite the sentence slightly rather than focus on just "comma or no comma," couldn't you? That's what I tend to do when following a rule might obscure the intended meaning.

― mitya, Friday, 11 May 2007 06:20 (nineteen years ago)

International style question! I know Brits say/write "different to," rather than "different from," but I can't imagine that they also say "X differs to Y in that blah blah etc." Is the UK just inconsistent on this point, saying "different to" but also "differs from?"

― nabisco, Friday, 11 May 2007 21:23 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&q=%22differs+to%22&btnG=Google+Search

^^ may provide some clues, but I dunno really

― Curt1s Stephens, Friday, 11 May 2007 21:30 (nineteen years ago)

Ha, weird. Follow-up question: at what point did the UK start using "to" as the preposition here? I don't recall ever seeing it in any older British lit. And it kinda relies on a modern break from the etymology of words like "different" and "differ." ("To carry away from," or similar, like physical separation; and Latin, too, so yr Fowlers and such were surely not advocating "to.")

― nabisco, Friday, 11 May 2007 21:47 (nineteen years ago)

<i>I know Brits say/write "different to," rather than "different from"</i>

hmm: it's not that simple. we use both. i can't actually qualify that difference right now but i've got a couple of books at work that might help. i'm back in on sunday so i'll check then.

let me think ... macs are different from PCs in that ... see, i'm trying not to think about this and just write what comes naturally, and i immediately go for "from". hmmm.

<i>but I can't imagine that they also say "X differs to Y in that blah blah etc." Is the UK just inconsistent on this point, saying "different to" but also "differs from?"</i>

it's inconsistent on the first point! but yeh, i've never heard anyone say "X differs to Y". which isn't to say that people don't :)

this is going to bug me, in a good way. i don't think it's a regional thing ... leave it with me.

― grimly fiendish, Friday, 11 May 2007 22:50 (nineteen years ago)

oh for FUCK'S SAKE. bbFUCKINGcode.

― grimly fiendish, Friday, 11 May 2007 22:50 (nineteen years ago)

Despite use, "different to" is incorrect, the same way "similar from" would be.

― Oblivious Lad, Saturday, 12 May 2007 00:31 (nineteen years ago)

Further to that, "different than" is often used incorrectly here in North America, but is correct under specific circumstances (ie, "My sister and I are both different from our mother, but I am more different than my sister is.").

― Oblivious Lad, Saturday, 12 May 2007 00:36 (nineteen years ago)

"different to" is correct

― braveclub, Saturday, 12 May 2007 01:42 (nineteen years ago)

That's not a "different than": it's a shortened form of "...but I am more different from my mother than my sister is", which is itself a shortened form of "...but I am more different from my mother than my sister is different from my mother." In this kind of context there is no word that couldn't be followed by "than".

― Eyeball Kicks, Saturday, 12 May 2007 01:44 (nineteen years ago)

Further to that,

aieeeeeeee you borke my brane

― Curt1s Stephens, Saturday, 12 May 2007 03:06 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah see I think of "different to" as just wrong, and the etymology mostly backs that up, but it seems to be in regular use in Brit speech, if not really high-level Brit writing (newspapers and stuff, though!), so I ain't gonna tell y'all not to standardize howsoever you please, k thnx bai.

― nabisco, Saturday, 12 May 2007 03:08 (nineteen years ago)

Other musicians are unable to spell their names right?not just rappers.
Suzzy Roche? Rhymes with "scuzzy?"

I realize this is ages old, but yes, it actually does rhyme with "scuzzy"

― Matos W.K., Saturday, 12 May 2007 06:17 (nineteen years ago)

and just to nitpick further: it should've been Rhymes with "scuzzy"?

― Matos W.K., Saturday, 12 May 2007 06:18 (nineteen years ago)

two major major pet peeves:

1) people who spell the "definite" "definate." in a sense the misspelling works because it looks like a cross between "definite" and "defecate," which seems just about right to me. nevertheless, anyone who thinks there's an "a" in "definite" is a fool.

2) people who use the word "purposefully" when they actually mean "purposely," "on purpose," or perhaps simplest and most useful of all, "deliberately." "purposefully" DOES NOT MEAN TO DO SOMETHING ON PURPOSE. it means determined or resolute. LEARN IT, KNOW IT, STOP FUCKING DOING IT ALREADY.

― Matos W.K., Saturday, 12 May 2007 06:30 (nineteen years ago)

TESTIFY

― Tracer Hand, Sunday, 13 May 2007 02:18 (nineteen years ago)

Deafenate.

― Beth Parker, Sunday, 13 May 2007 02:49 (nineteen years ago)

"deep-seeded"

― Tracer Hand, Monday, 14 May 2007 09:27 (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.