ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

Chris, I would say that the use of 'their' implies a lack of knowledge of the sex of the person(s) being discussed, which is untrue, so I do think it is bad.

Days after I took my current job, I was offered another writing clear English summaries of new scientific patents. I should have mentioned that earlier - it almost makes me a professional at this stuff!

gypsy get ready to laugh becuse that's the kind of thread this is!

xpost

I admit that English doesn't offer a good solution to the genderless singular third-person pronoun ("one" is pretentious and affected in English in a way that "on" isn't in French). But of the not-good solutions, I don't think "their" is the best. I usually try to write around it, or go with some kind of his/her construction.

Whereas I think it implies that the person in question is not specific. Using "their" underscores that we are not talking about some man in partiuclar. ("Bob Jones jerks off their own penis" would be weird.)

I mean, either "their" or "his" is fine there, I'd argue. But I don't think that "their" is at all "wrong", and it's something that I, as a native speaker, have produced on numerous occasions.

please tell me it was a copyeditors' convention! i know there's an argument here about adjectival phrasing, but really: it's a facile one usually propounded by people on the losing side in "sense v typography" arguments.

still, heheheh, a convention of subs. jesus christ, what a depressing thought. i love my job dearly, but ... the idea of that makes me want to hang myself from the nearest misrelated participle.

i'll come back with a more rounded argument in favour of the possessive when i have more time (ie when i'm not on deadline!) i had the same fight with one of my colleagues yesterday, and i ain't budging :)

except ... "childrens" isn't a word. if it was attributive usage, surely it'd be "children ITV". but woah, who'd say that?

i think the argument i'm getting at here is that when someone says "childrens ITV" or "copyeditors conference" they're actually thinking in the possessive. try it with other irregular plurals and you'll see what i mean.

right. i have a magazine to get to the printers. but hang on: there's only one printer. so: printer's; ie the establishment belonging to the printer. how many people actually think that through?

jesus christ, look at the time.

and then i started to ponder about Casuistry's point about whether the convention belonged to the copywriters.. well it's certainly there FOR the copywriters, would that be enough?

Afterall say in a restaurant you'd have gentlemen's and ladies' toilets right? They're all really the restaurant's toilet for the gentlemen and ladies.

and now I'm all confused when people say things like "Alright gents???" When "Gent" can really be an abbreviation for both gentleman and gentlemen. Were they actually asking "Alright gent's" to find out whether the men's toilets are okay??

i love the smell of pedantry in the morning.

Unless it's a very small business, there's probably more than one printer that works there. So, I'd say "i have a magazine to get to the printers'."

(I mean, if I was the editor of a magazine, I would)

which means i've sent the mag to the printer ... or the printer's.

or, more simply: "i've sent the mag, despite the best efforts of our advertising server, and now i'd really like some fucking lunch."

i'm glad this thread was revived because i'm reading eats, shoots and leaves right now! i only wish i had time to read the whole thread instead of going to work :-(

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/1861976127.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

ZERO-TOLERANCE IS A COMPOUND ADJECTIVE! IT'S FUCKING HYPHENATED!

as, er, i often point out to my subs.

and, umm, wrong. i mean, words such as "childrens" or "womens" might be "acting more like adjectives" but the fact remains that they don't actually exist as lexical items. children's ITV, women's issues. i'd argue that the key - as with so many grammatical issues - is the way it's said.

anyway. have any UK pedants seen the standfirst on page two of today's guardian G2 section? four literals in five decks. there but for the grace of god ...

I'm gonna use this thread to complain about people that OVERUSE it, though. The example that always raises my hackles is using a hyphen before an adjective but after an adverb ending in "-ly." Like "your regularly-scheduled program." No. DELETE. I've noticed certain people on ILX -- not naming names -- do that a lot.

But that's a different objection, innit? You could use an apostrophe with those words on that basis and still leave it off elsewhere. The whole language doesn't have to be hostage to a handful of weird plurals.

gypsy mothra ... no, you're still not convincing me at all :)

mind you, what kind of pedant am i when i can't even be bothered to use the shift key?

Wouldn't that seem ridiculous though? "We were discussing women's issues outside the butchers shop today, just as the crew for children's BBC appeared, in girls outfits"

(also, my use there of "since" in the sense of "because" was another topic -- some style guides disallow it, others say it's fine)

what's next? anyone fancy a good-humoured fight about semicolons?

no, thought not.

– — ... hey, courier doesn't display a difference. i assume times does ...

[posts to check]

casuistry: that's a good point, although i'd like to investigate further. if you do remember the specific term, could you post it here?

Also, I think it's Help! ;-)

I apply Morbius's rule when it comes to, for instance, periodicals, in which the title is enclosed in italics, and you have the difference between The New York Times and Chicago Tribune based on what's actually on the masthead.

The reasoning behind using the cap tends to be that something like "The Beatles" is a proper title, in much the same way that The Stranger is the title of a book.

The reasoning behind not using the cap tends to be that it makes your text smoother, allowing you to elide the difference between your definite article and the thing itself's. Just as you would write "a recent Newsweek article," you're able to write "a recent Believer article," even though you'd otherwise notate that publication as The Believer. Nobody wants to write "did you read the The Believer article about Virgil." And it's even more important when you want to use a different type of article: neither does anyone want to say "I really like this The Beatles song called 'Julia.'"

There are all kinds of slippages here on all kinds of related issues. Sometimes it's unclear how much the entity itself considers the article to be a part of its name. If the letterhead for an organization reads "The Socialist Brotherhood," you don't know if they're capitalizing "The" as part of the title or just because it's the first word of the heading -- the text below may well say "due to lack of funds, the Socialist Brotherhood is closing its office." There's also a text called Oxford English Dictionary -- no "the" -- but we wouldn't refer to it like normal books; we say "check in the Oxford English Dictionary," even though we wouldn't say "have you read the Gravity's Rainbow." (The formulation we want is obviously "check in THE ... DICTIONARY.") Sometimes the subjects specify -- Ohio State University let everyone know a while back that they're not Ohio Statue University, but rather "The Ohio State University," capital "The," no matter where in the sentence you're using it.

I prefer being really flexible about eliding it, especially in spots where it's going to come up a lot, like when talking about bands.

And there are some publications where this is still flexy, like the kind of magazine things I was talking about ("I saw this great Nation article about..."), or with classic floating-the texts, like Homer's (the Iliad? The Iliad?).

xpost of course