ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (5080 of them)
yes, exactly. and although in the cold light of day i can see the difference between my two calculations (i was tired, and i'm also shit at sums) i am sure that an awful lot of people fuck this up in print. another one to watch out for.

grimly fiendish, Friday, 18 May 2007 12:18 (nineteen years ago)

Sorry, maybe I wasn't being clear. What I meant was that an n% increase is not the same as increasing something by n%. So we agree (I think).

Madchen, Friday, 18 May 2007 12:28 (nineteen years ago)

Wait it's not?? ...Augh. If you increase your profits by 100%, you've doubled them. If your profits see a 100% increase, then.. what?

Tracer Hand, Friday, 18 May 2007 12:35 (nineteen years ago)

They are the same!

ledge, Friday, 18 May 2007 12:43 (nineteen years ago)

Yes! But 2 is not 100% of 1. It's 200% of 1. Yes?

Tracer Hand, Friday, 18 May 2007 12:44 (nineteen years ago)

Yes. 200% of 1 is 2. 1 increased by 100% is 2. 1 saw a 100% increase to 2. The last two mean the same thing, just with different phrasing.

ledge, Friday, 18 May 2007 12:47 (nineteen years ago)

To add to the confusion,

percentage rises
probably our most common lapse into "mythematics": an increase from 3% to 5% is a 2 percentage point increase or a 2-point increase, not a 2% increase; any sentence saying "such and such rose or fell by x%" should be considered and checked carefully

http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/page/0,,184842,00.html

Madchen, Friday, 18 May 2007 12:50 (nineteen years ago)

Hmm I guess technically they're right. "Interest rates rose by 2%" would mean a rise from 3% to 3.06%. I think most people would figure out what they meant though. Not that that's an excuse for sloppiness.

ledge, Friday, 18 May 2007 12:55 (nineteen years ago)

If they wrote "Interest rates rose by 66%" you would hear the sound of fair trade coffee being splurted out all over the land.

ledge, Friday, 18 May 2007 13:05 (nineteen years ago)

xpost: yes, i know all about this one. i had a fight with an arsehole who called herself a personal finance editor once about that very thing.

still think there's room for SPECTACULAR confusion about +100% increases.

grimly fiendish, Friday, 18 May 2007 13:07 (nineteen years ago)

If they wrote "Interest rates rose by 66%" you would hear the sound of fair trade coffee being splurted out all over the land.

haha grimly you totally have to try that one time!

CharlieNo4, Friday, 18 May 2007 13:19 (nineteen years ago)

I may not be able to do line-end breaks, but percentage increases are my bread and butter (as I sub for a bit of the economist).

We're really strict about whether we're talking about percentage point increases or percentage increases, and quite rightly so.

The media in general are very sloppy about this, and it has real-world effects. Didn't loads of people come off the pill because it increased the risk of getting cancer by 300% or something? But the difference was actually between a 0.01% chance and a 0.03% chance - I'm making up the figures but you get the point.

With rises of more than 100%, the detail is usually not so important, so I'd often just say "more than doubled" for a 120% rise.

Jamie T Smith, Friday, 18 May 2007 14:37 (nineteen years ago)

Thinking about it, in my example, they weren't being sloppy, as the % increase was correct. However, it is just misleading to talk about percentage increases in things that can be expressed as percentages anyway, as you lose the sense of scale. There are two bits of information, the increase and the proportion of the whole in the first place, and you then only get one of them.

Jamie T Smith, Friday, 18 May 2007 14:54 (nineteen years ago)

The phantom option Tracer is looking for is something like "profits are now at 200% of last year's levels" -- i.e., we made $2 instead of $1.

nabisco, Friday, 18 May 2007 16:42 (nineteen years ago)

There's a key preposition involved in these, too -- increased by vs. increased to.

My $10 locker fee increased by 200% = $30.
My $10 locker fee increased to 200% (of previous fee) = $20.

nabisco, Friday, 18 May 2007 16:46 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, that's right. Again, in our house style the preposition is compulsory.

When I first started here I was always getting picked up on leaving out the "by".

Jamie T Smith, Friday, 18 May 2007 16:57 (nineteen years ago)

One of my big annoyances has been popping up more and more often around here -- constructions like:

As a cable subscriber, we'd like to invite you to watch channel 64.

I think I understand the thought processes that lead to them, but they're SO irritating, and sometimes take a bit of work to straighten out in any elegant way.

nabisco, Friday, 18 May 2007 17:57 (nineteen years ago)

Oh, I see those ALL the time. A misplaced something-or-other. Hate 'em.

Laurel, Friday, 18 May 2007 17:58 (nineteen years ago)

xpost (Not that one, though, obviously: "As a cable subscriber, YOU are invited to watch channel 64. WE can't do stuff as a cable subscriber, because there's more than one of us, and we're the cable COMPANY, and anyway this isn't about us.")

nabisco, Friday, 18 May 2007 18:00 (nineteen years ago)

lol at maths panic on this thread.

Alba, Friday, 18 May 2007 19:26 (nineteen years ago)

xpost It's a misplaced (or dangling) modifier.

jaymc, Friday, 18 May 2007 19:30 (nineteen years ago)

Should sentence starting with "Surely" end with a question mark?

Alba, Saturday, 19 May 2007 11:29 (nineteen years ago)

not unless it's a question or you want to use a question mark

RJG, Saturday, 19 May 2007 11:57 (nineteen years ago)

Surely sentences of this type usually act as rhetorical questions?

Alba, Saturday, 19 May 2007 12:40 (nineteen years ago)

Surely they do.

Curt1s Stephens, Saturday, 19 May 2007 14:38 (nineteen years ago)

Surely (ha) that depends on whether you mean "surely" as "certainly" or as "it should certainly be the case that..."?

ailsa, Saturday, 19 May 2007 15:24 (nineteen years ago)

Sorry, that last one should be "it should certainly be the case that...shouldn't it?", shouldn't it?

ailsa, Saturday, 19 May 2007 15:27 (nineteen years ago)

Yes, indeed. The latter is far more common, though. It's just that sometimes the sentence is long and by the time you get to the end, the question mark might surprise the reader.

Alba, Saturday, 19 May 2007 15:36 (nineteen years ago)

Though that could be the case with a real question, too.

Alba, Saturday, 19 May 2007 15:36 (nineteen years ago)

i think i read somewhere that questions can be divided into direct and indirect ones, the direct ones need a question mark and with the indirect ones its voluntary, "surely" is mostly used indirectly i would say and thus does not need a question mark.

as for the problem with "he or she", i use "its", works like a charm. "the tavern-keeper must spellbind its customers".

Jeb, Saturday, 19 May 2007 16:01 (nineteen years ago)

low income countries or low-income countries?

Cathy, Saturday, 19 May 2007 17:27 (nineteen years ago)

depends. are the countries low and ... no, sorry, i can't actually find any occasion when it wouldn't be low-income countries :)

grimly fiendish, Saturday, 19 May 2007 17:37 (nineteen years ago)

yeah, I thought so. I just keep seeing it without the hyphen.

Cathy, Saturday, 19 May 2007 17:42 (nineteen years ago)

yeh, you will. people be punctuation mooks :(

but as long as some of us keep flying the flag, there is hope for a better dawn.

(christ. that beer has gone straight to my head.)

grimly fiendish, Saturday, 19 May 2007 17:46 (nineteen years ago)

What part of speech is "low-income" in that case? It's not a compound adjective, is it, cause that's two adjectives together.

Should there be a question mark at the end of my previous sentence?

Alba, Saturday, 19 May 2007 17:47 (nineteen years ago)

The World Bank has two types of member countries: income and target. Income countries pay in, target countries take out. However, it's harder to get money down from the hilly high countries, so they prefer to use low income countries for their banking pleasures. or something

stet, Saturday, 19 May 2007 17:55 (nineteen years ago)

C-

Alba, Saturday, 19 May 2007 18:05 (nineteen years ago)

yeh but I cans ues a question mark so blah

?stet, Saturday, 19 May 2007 18:17 (nineteen years ago)

There are some people who would argue that precisely because few people would be confused about the meaning of "low income country" that the hyphen isn't necessary. I tend to err on the side of using it, though.

jaymc, Saturday, 19 May 2007 19:53 (nineteen years ago)

what about least developed countries? I don't think I've ever seen that with a hyphen. what is the actual rule here?

Cathy, Sunday, 20 May 2007 08:26 (nineteen years ago)

the rule is simply to only hyphenate whenever confusion is in the air, science fiction, science-fiction book, science-fiction book-club, peanuts.

Jeb, Sunday, 20 May 2007 09:47 (nineteen years ago)

Perhaps there is a different thread for just ranting, but I'd just like to make known my weeks-long annoyance at the huuuuuuuge plastic sign outside the Hounslow Asda that promises seasonal produce "at it's best".

And also the worst attempt at pun ever, which can be found on the wall of the waiting room at my local doc's surgery. It is an NHS poster for Hounslow Stop Smoking group.

"It's not easy to quit smoking, but with our help it's less of a fag."

I'd like to think that the money they saved by not making the poster good was added to the wage packets of the brilliant and overworked doctors and nurses there. But I suspect not.

Zoe Espera, Sunday, 20 May 2007 10:02 (nineteen years ago)

"drag"? is that really the pun?

Tracer Hand, Sunday, 20 May 2007 12:53 (nineteen years ago)

No. "It's a fag" is slang for "It's a pain". I like the slogan!

Alba, Sunday, 20 May 2007 13:02 (nineteen years ago)

Really? Fag = it's a pain? I have never heard fag used that way in my life. Drag would praps have been better.

Zoe Espera, Sunday, 20 May 2007 17:33 (nineteen years ago)

Lemme think. I have seen 'fagging' used as a term for the hazing that older form students at British public schools inficted upon the lower forms. I have also seen 'fagged out' as a synonym for 'tired'. Either of these useages might, with a bit of tweaking, be generalized into 'it's a fag' to denote that an activity is unpleasant or tiresome.

Still, I have never heard or seen that particular useage, yet.

Aimless, Sunday, 20 May 2007 17:46 (nineteen years ago)

"it's a fag" = "it's a hassle". that's totally normal colloquial english, i thought, along with "i can't be fagged" = "i can't be bothered".

CharlieNo4, Sunday, 20 May 2007 18:07 (nineteen years ago)

Signs at Gatwick signs after security yesterday:

ANYTHING YOU BUY HERE INCLUDING BOTTLES OF WATER ARE ALLOWED ON BOARD.

Madchen, Monday, 21 May 2007 09:52 (nineteen years ago)

Commas would've saved the day

mitya, Monday, 21 May 2007 14:17 (nineteen years ago)

not really!

Tracer Hand, Monday, 21 May 2007 14:34 (nineteen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.