ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

yeh but I cans ues a question mark so blah

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.

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

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

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.

"drag"? is that really the pun?

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

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

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.

"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".

Signs at Gatwick signs after security yesterday:

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

Commas would've saved the day

not really!

if you set off "including bottles of water" with either emdashes or commas and then exclude it when reading the sentence aloud you will quickly see the other prob

I always wonder if I'm more aware of these things because I studied Mod Langs. A mistake like that in another language was more likely to get your work covered in red pen than one in Eng Lit at my school.

ANY THINGS would've saved the day, though it's not elegant. But Gatwick isn't really elegant. And I had a three hour delay too!

three-hour?

Boots loyalty cards advertised as: "No other loyalty card is more generous" (or words to that effect).

Can you have both 'other' and 'more' in this context?
Can we have a product blacklist where the label makes no sense or says "it's" instead of "its"? I swore at some Boots footcream today because of this.

What Boots would appear to be saying is that there are other cards which are precisely AS generous, but none that are MORE -- i.e., they are in a tie for first place.

Haha possibly they are referring to the individual card they are offering you: "Card #8134-9123's generosity is surpassed by no other card, but we must admit it's equalled by the generosity of all the other individual cards we've issued to other shoppers."

but it's still pretty clumsy when you look at it.

i don't like it. thumbs down.

Hm, but by saying "No other loyalty card is more generous" are they kind of saying "THIS loyalty card is more generous, but no OTHER card is"... but more generous than what?

It's the 'other' that I don't like.

Huh? The problem isn't with the "more" antecedent --

No other loyalty card is more generous (than our loyalty card).

It's still grammatical -- they've just included a clumsy "other" that makes it mean something other than what they want. They surely mean --

No loyalty card is more generous (than our loyalty card).

Or, if they really want to specify "other" --

No other loyalty card is as generous (as our loyalty card).

But because those parentheticals weren't there, they have overclarified and wound up saying something not quite as bold as they want:

No other loyalty card is more generous (than our loyalty card) (though some might be exactly AS generous as ours).

(OH WAIT okay I follow you -- yeah, the "other" construction makes it read like the equivalent of "no other card is GREEN" or "no other card is RECTANGULAR." As if it's saying "our card is MORE GENEROUS (than nothing in particular), and other cards aren't.")

Usage query: People now seem to use the construction "<ACTOR> vehicle" to mean just "movie featuring <ACTOR>." Isn't the original thrust/connotation of "vehicle" (in this context) that the film is mostly banking on the star's potential popularity -- that the film was constructed to advance the career of the star, more so than the star just winding up cast in it?

totally. but since all movies are like that now - you can't get a movie made without a "name" in the cast, even an indie - the difference between the two has collapsed, and this collapse is reflected in the relative meaninglessness of that phrase these days

I was being bothered by seeing that with Music and Lyrics -- that's not really a "vehicle" for Hugh Grant and Drew Barrymore, seeing as they've been parked in that kind of movie for over a decade now.

mmm parking with drew barrymore for ten years.

Surely that makes it an ideal vehicle for them, as it's the sort of movie they would both be very comfortable being in and, indeed, driving. By which I mean although your original use of vehicle as "it's to propel them forward" is a good metaphor, isn't "it's to house them comfortably and get them from A (start of movie) to B (end of movie) with ease" also a valid vehicle metaphor, Music and Lyrics being a great example because it's pretty much Hugh Grant *IS* Hugh Grant and Drew Barrymore *IS* Drew Barrymore.

I'm not sure how a genre movie that many people go to see just because of Hugh and Drew isn't a "vehicle" for them. Perhaps slightly different in intentions - ie., it could just as easily been a vehicle for John Cusack and Cameron Diaz, but once it's made it really does just become "new Hugh and Drew movie."

(OH WAIT okay I follow you -- yeah, the "other" construction makes it read like the equivalent of "no other card is GREEN" or "no other card is RECTANGULAR." As if it's saying "our card is MORE GENEROUS (than nothing in particular), and other cards aren't.")

maybe if you're most familiar with the construction from logic games, but i think the average consumer is more likely to encounter it in... advertising. add in the implied "than" phrase and ask whether "no card" or "no other card" sounds better.

I think it's the implication of two 'than's. "No other card (than Boots) is more generous (than Boots)."

But then your problem would be with the "no card" construction, regardless of whether it has an "other" in it, because if you take 'other' out, there remain two 'than's implicated - "No card (other than Boots) is more generous (than Boots)." So what's your alternative?

oh wait, you're right, aren't you?

http://www.wisopinion.com/blogs/uploaded_images/emily-719937.jpg

I've already got an Advantage card anyway. So I'm the real loser ...

Hey, copy editors..

When referring to a group of people as in Class of 2007, do you say "who" or "which"? I think "who" but not sure..

"The class which raised $1000"
or "The class who raised $1000"

That.

Sure? OK. I'm just trying to advocate for removing "which" which is.. awkward! :)

(or "which", if you've already specified which class you're talking about and the "which raised $1000" is just supplying extra information about that class, in which case there should probably be a comma before "which")

I don't think I'd use "who".

"which" is probably suitable, I think it sounds crappy though.

ok, here's one that has always annoyed me, but recently i've been having my doubts as to my right-ness:
dvds, cds, mp3s (etc.) vs. dvd's, cd's, mp3's (etc.).

i always thought the former was correct, but this incredibly smart writerly friend of mine always uses the latter. i really want to say something but i'm paranoid i'm wrong, and i don't want him to think i'm an ass. i'm 99.9999% i'm right, though.

[god, i'll be majorly bummed and humiliated if i'm wrong]

Posting on this thread sometimes is like when you read about posture or breathing, and you find yourself sort of semiconsciously straightening up

daria I think you'd need a comma after "class" in order for either of those to work? It wouldn't be "who" in any case because the class isn't a person.

or what Alba said!

i'd have used your original way rubyred, but then what would I know?

Daria, the two have different meanings/uses (restrictive vs. non-restrictive), which basically line up, meaning-wise, like this:

- The class, which incidentally just so happened to raise $1000, is awesome.
- The class that raised $1000 is awesome, whereas the class that raised $50 sucks.

A comma and a "which" for an incidental clause -- one that could be set off in dashes or parentheses, or even omitted. No comma and a "that" for something that's part of the subject: "The house that's on the left (as opposed to the house that's on the right)."

Haha you may or may not need a comma in $1,000.

OMG I am totally against using an apostrophe in CDs and DVDs, because the letters are capitalized and there's zero risk of anyone confusing the S with part of the designation there -- and yet the damned Greengrocer's Times New York Times even does CD's for plural!

ok, here's one that has always annoyed me, but recently i've been having my doubts as to my right-ness:
dvds, cds, mp3s (etc.) vs. dvd's, cd's, mp3's (etc.).

i always thought the former was correct, but this incredibly smart writerly friend of mine always uses the latter. i really want to say something but i'm paranoid i'm wrong, and i don't want him to think i'm an ass. i'm 99.9999% i'm right, though.

[god, i'll be majorly bummed and humiliated if i'm wrong]

x-post

My great apostrophe-to-sort-out-lowercase mind-breaker is do's and don'ts, which works, but is just ... extremely provisional.

Ha, we might actually need some new apostrophe-like mark to denote "this isn't a possessive, it's simply being used to separate the plural S from something it could make confusing." DO~S and DON'TS

dear lord. it's def. "which" but the whole sentence in question is a hideous mess, to be honest i'd rewrite the whole thing were i not already exhausted. (I didn't write it in the first place, I just seem to care too much about these things, when obv the writer didn't care)

YAY! I WAS RIGHT!
[i hope you peeps are right...]
now i can confidentally approach my man-friend with his mistake. it totally bugs me when i see signs at video/music stores saying: "CD's! DVD's! half-price!" wtf?