ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

Right, cos I'm an employeree of the company I work for...

but you're not employered by them

Ah, bless our wonderful language. I'm not really sure why this is an argument - there is no such word as mentoree (cf. tutoree).

Wiki says Mentee. And Wiki is always right, obviously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentor#.22Mentee.22

You now have used the word "mentoree", therefore it exists, albeit tenuously. BTW, I have now used it, too. It burgeons apace.

(Hurrah! I legitimately squoze an "albeit" into a sentence. Time for a beer!)

I legitimately squoze an "albeit"

how is Thailand, anyway

I believe the correct word is "Mentos"

Haha WP: "The student of a mentor is called a protégé. More accurately, for the recondite, the protégé would be called the telemachus (pl. telemachuses or telemachi)."

I think that's weak-ass reconditeness though, should obv be telemakhos (pl. telemakhoi) for maximum pedantry.

All typos are not created equal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/apr/19/penguin-cook-book

that is fantastic

and probably not as spicy as it should be.

Can I get some suggestions for writing 'rock n roll' and its derivatives? (Rock and Roll feels pompous and unwieldy).

Rock'n'roll and thus r'n'r, is what I'm going for at the moment (no spaces, no caps). Rock 'n' roll looks stilted to my eye, even worse when it becomes r 'n' r.

Any takers for R'n'R, which presumably entails Rock'n'Roll? Dispense with the apostrophes entirely? That looks odd in abbreviation tho, I think.

God, I know it's a totally trivial thing, but it's really making my fingers itch.

rock and roll

^ agreed

in lowercase

Rock&Roll

Rock And Roll

Rock/Roll

Rocandrol.

The 'n' is part of the whole rock 'n' roll icongraphy. 'Rock and roll' might be at home in a textbook but not emblazoned on the back of a leather jacket.

rock-n-roll

Yep, ledge, that was my feeling as well.

I like the look of lower case rock and roll as relatively unobtrusive though.

There's a couple of added problems, I'm quoting a magazine article which has it as 'rock'n'roll'. Do I silently change that or just as silently ignore it when using the same phrase? I'm then quoting someone (recorded voice) who says 'rnr' and am not sure which way to do it.

Fuck it, knew I shd've been a popist. A phial of rocandrol looking v appealing at this point.

You interviewed someone who said "R and R" meaning rock and roll?? Jesus, who says this? "R & R" means "rest and relaxation". This person is a freako.

If it were me I would change any quoted text from another publication to house style. But I guess that depends on, er, house style.

'I still believe in the r'n'r dream, r'n'r as primal scream' is the actual quote, which will probably set off alarm bells for some. (For the others it's from 1978's Live at the Witch Trials by The Fall).

But yes, you're right about changing it to 'house' style, which in this case happens to be whichever style I want it to be.

Style guide
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_uB-0D-gV8mY/SduQwobgGxI/AAAAAAAAUo0/2cvmNcYXLa0/s400/ramones.jpg

therefore: ROCK N' ROLL

(see also Guns n' Roses, but not Sweet 'N Low)

Our style guide says rock'n'roll cf drum'n'bass (cf fish'n'chips).

-----------------------

Question: "There are less than two weeks to consider the policies, arguments and past performance of all the parties across the country and MPs in your constituency.

There is less than two weeks? There are fewer than two weeks? it's making my head hurt.

"There's less than two weeks" is probably more correct actually, as in "There's plenty more where that came from" ?

i.e. "There is" is describing a singular situation - the fact that fewer than 14 days remain until the election, not the 14 days (or two weeks) themselves

Right. Actually, I think "We have less than two weeks... ... our constituencies" sidesteps the issue neatly! Ta.

Yeah perfect.

My God, Merriam-Webster accepts "transition" as a verb.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transition

We've lost.

Wasn't aware that "transition"-as-verb was contentious in the way that "impact"-as-verb is.

hahah yeah it's a v. popular verb in my place of employment. i'm actually in the process of transitioning some projects right now.

hmm I would have written "there are less than two weeks left" or "less than two weeks are left"?

Yeah... "There's plenty more where that came from" would seem to work with a continuous substance e.g. paint, but say for apples, I would probably have said "there are plenty more..." and therefore "there are less than two weeks left".

but weeks are countable so you have to saw "fewer", yet saying "fewer" sounds arseholey

hahah yeah it's a v. popular verb in my place of employment.

No no, I'm saying that I wasn't aware that people were *bothered* by "transition" as a verb, whereas I'm fully aware that "impact" as a verb raises a lot of hackles.

yeah but it's an action statement like saying "we have two days left to do this project"

weeks are countable

Doesn't hold for periods of time tho. Less than two minutes/years/ etc, not fewer (if such things bother you, unfortunately they do me, as my mum, a stickler for such things used to ring out with 'FEWER' every time I got it wrong as a child. An infuriating and rather rude habit, and, even if you don't want to be too much of a stickler, means that you get a twinge of distaste if anyone ever uses it 'wrongly'.

The reason you use "less" there is because you are talking about duration, not a discrete number of items.

"How much time is left?" "Less than five minutes."
"How many minutes are left?" "Fewer than five."

hmm ok I GUESS

oh jaymc that was an xpost to morbs, but while we're at it i didn't know that impact as a verb bothered people.

it impacts them greatly

Dearest copyeditors/ grammar fiends:

Could one of you please assist me in making the following album title grammatically correct?

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41RWfPY7-EL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

"To whom who keeps a record" just doesn't sound right, and I don't know how to fix it."

With Much Appreciation,

(SM)

The number of people who use "whom" and "who" wrongly is appalling. The problem is a difficult one and it is complicated by the importance of tone, or taste. Take the common expression, "Whom are you, anyways?" That is of course, strictly speaking, correct - and yet how formal, how stilted! The usage to be preferred in ordinary speech and writing is "Who are you, anyways?" "Whom" should be used in the nominative case only when a note of dignity or austerity is desired. For example, if a writer is dealing with a meeting of, say, the British Cabinet, it would be better to have the Premier greet a new arrival, such as an under-secretary, with a "Whom are you, anyways?" rather than a "Who are you, anyways?" - always granted that the Premier is sincerely unaware of the man's identity. To address a person one knows by a "Whom are you?" is a mark either of incredible lapse of memory or inexcusable arrogance. "How are you?" is a much kindlier salutation.

The Buried Whom, as it is called, forms a special problem. That is where the word occurs deep in a sentence. For a ready example, take the common expression: "He did not know whether he knew her or not because he had not heard whom the other had said she was until too late to see her." The simplest way out of this is to abandon the "whom" altogether and substitute "where" (a reading of the sentence that way will show how much better it is). Unfortunately, it is only in rare cases that "where" can be used in place of "whom." Nothing could be more flagrantly bad, for instance, than to say "Where are you?" in demanding a person's identity. The only conceivable answer is "Here I am," which would give no hint at all as to whom the person was. Thus the conversation, or piece of writing, would, from being built upon a false foundation, fall of its own weight.

A common rule for determining whether "who" or "whom" is right is to substitute "she" for "who," and "her" for "whom," and see which sounds the better. Take the sentence, "He met a woman who they said was an actress." Now if "who" is correct then "she" can be used in its place. Let us try it. "He met a woman she they said was an actress." That instantly rings false. It can't be right. Hence the proper usage is "whom."

In certain cases grammatical correctness must often be subordinated to a consideration of taste. For instance, suppose that the same person had met a man whom they said was a street cleaner. The word "whom" is too austere to use in connection with a lowly worker, like a street-cleaner, and its use in this form is known as False Administration or Pathetic Fallacy.

You might say: "There is, then, no hard and fast rule?" ("was then" would be better, since "then" refers to what is past). You might better say (or have said): "There was then (or is now) no hard and fast rule?" Only this, that it is better to use "whom" when in doubt, and even better to re-word the statement, and leave out all the relative pronouns, except ad, ante, con, in , inter, ob, post, prae, pro, sub, and super.

(James Thurber: Ladies' and Gentlemen's Guide to Modern English Usage)

lol love the first two lines: "I can't believe the number of idiots who are using who/whom incorrectly! actually it's really difficult to know when to use one over the other!"

Is somebody's dead husband an "ex"? And is the surviving parter of a same-sex partnership a widow/er, pure and simple? Both terms seem a little... de trop (for very different reasons obviously).

parter = partner!

Late-husband. No idea what you call a surviving partner, though.

Yes, "late husband" is right of course. But are they also an ex? If Stephen Gately's widow marries again, he must surely technically have to be Stephen's "ex" before doing so - otherwise he's a bigamist, albeit one of the post-mortem variety...

i would not use ex in that context, it's misleading and you don't have to "end" the first marriage before marrying again in that case

maybe you could just say first or previous if you make it clear that person died?