not saying that it can't ever be used, so
― ,,,,,,eeeeleon (darraghmac), Tuesday, 29 June 2010 13:32 (thirteen years ago) link
Beta-blockers and calcium channel blockers' effect on risk of stroke
Does "beta-blockers" need an apostrophe too?
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 29 June 2010 16:20 (thirteen years ago) link
(yes they are different effects)
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 29 June 2010 16:23 (thirteen years ago) link
Then does effect need to be plural?
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 29 June 2010 16:40 (thirteen years ago) link
how about "The effect[s] of beta blockers and calcium channel blockers on [the] risk of stroke"
It's a headline, I can't make it that much longer. I went with one apo & effects.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 29 June 2010 16:41 (thirteen years ago) link
i feel like beta-blockers needs its own apostrophe but i am not 100% sure
― Hans-Jörg Butt (harbl), Tuesday, 29 June 2010 16:53 (thirteen years ago) link
But it'll look uglier and besides, only doctors are reading it.
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 29 June 2010 16:59 (thirteen years ago) link
HUGE USED BABY AND CHILD CLOTHES AND ITEMS SALE
a week late, but for a second I read this as "we are selling a gigantic pre-owned baby, plus some other stuff"
― oɔsıqɐu (nabisco), Tuesday, 29 June 2010 17:44 (thirteen years ago) link
I think that's why it was posted?
― jaymc, Tuesday, 29 June 2010 18:04 (thirteen years ago) link
http://www.slate.com/id/2258669/
This is a tedious grammar question, but is Levin's "First, there need to be a load of top-notch free agents," grammatically correct? Presumably it should be "there needs," no? I hunted around for answer, but couldn't find anything -- anyone know?
― Mordy, Thursday, 1 July 2010 11:33 (thirteen years ago) link
the economist style guide has some sensible suggestions for dealing with collective nouns: basically, follow the sense rather than strict number, eg treat "a couple" and "a pair" as plural. "a load" to my ear implies combining into a single undifferentiated mass, so i'd go for "needs". (although you could justify it as written: "a load of" as just a colloquial adjectival phrase meaning "many".)
http://www.economist.com/research/styleguide/index.cfm?page=805687
― joe, Thursday, 1 July 2010 11:44 (thirteen years ago) link
yeah should be "there needs." but i'm thinking it's because it's "a load." is that the right reason why? i'm not sure the verb is supposed to agree with that or something else.
― the girl with the butt tattoo (harbl), Thursday, 1 July 2010 11:45 (thirteen years ago) link
yeah that's why i think- what joe said
― ,,,,,,eeeeleon (darraghmac), Thursday, 1 July 2010 11:45 (thirteen years ago) link
no i mean, when you are saying "there x"i'm thinking too hard and confusing myself though
― the girl with the butt tattoo (harbl), Thursday, 1 July 2010 11:46 (thirteen years ago) link
Hey guys, I know you're going to dispute me even using this word, but what do the grammarians here think about 'myriad' as noun vs adjective? I would always say 'a myriad of x' rather than 'a myriad x'. However, it seems that some people think the former is archaic.
― emil.y, Saturday, 10 July 2010 19:25 (thirteen years ago) link
i have never heard the latter?
― plax (ico), Saturday, 10 July 2010 19:29 (thirteen years ago) link
Was just thinking about this yesterday. My friend had her uni tutor tell her off for using "a myriad of x" which sounded right to me at the time but since then I've believed that "myriad x" (not "a myriad") is correct. Eg "there are myriad reasons for blah blah blah"
― Not the real Village People, Saturday, 10 July 2010 19:37 (thirteen years ago) link
^ otm
― congratulations (n/a), Saturday, 10 July 2010 19:39 (thirteen years ago) link
oh yeah, w/o the "a" works for me
― plax (ico), Saturday, 10 July 2010 19:41 (thirteen years ago) link
"A myriad" indicates an inexact number. The same applies to "a whole bunch", "a lot", or "a double handful". Their usage follows the same pattern. If you think that "a bunch people" sounds right, while "a bunch of people" sounds archaic, then you're barmy.
― Aimless, Saturday, 10 July 2010 19:44 (thirteen years ago) link
OED is happy with either "myriad ___s" or "a myriad ___s", and with its use as a noun. I would probably do one of the former in figurative use and avoid using it as a noun unless there are literally 10,000 of whatever it is, but neither OED nor Fowler's express any preference.
― atoms breaking heart (a passing spacecadet), Saturday, 10 July 2010 19:50 (thirteen years ago) link
"myriad x" (not "a myriad")
Yes, actually, that would be the alternative. The sentence I'm using it in definitely sounds better with 'a myriad of', so as long as it's a valid usage, even if not to some tastes, then I'll stick with it.
― emil.y, Saturday, 10 July 2010 20:08 (thirteen years ago) link
the noun usage is first in both of my dictionaries so that feels like the more correct one
― plax (ico), Sunday, 11 July 2010 15:33 (thirteen years ago) link
Can you use "whose" to refer to a thing rather than a person?
"T******r, a company whose employees seem to have their mental faculties fully intact..."
vs
"T******r, a company, employees of which seem to have their mental faculties fully intact..."
Ugh to both of 'em.
― Background Zombie (CharlieNo4), Monday, 12 July 2010 14:32 (thirteen years ago) link
Former is better. I think that grammatically companies are more often treated as living entities than not.
― emil.y, Monday, 12 July 2010 14:38 (thirteen years ago) link
Trouble is, our house style dictates that companies are always cold and clinical singular entities - "Apple has just released the iPhone 4", "the BBC has shelved plans to close 6Music" etc - which doesn't sit quite right with "whose" suddenly imbuing them with a soul!
― Background Zombie (CharlieNo4), Monday, 12 July 2010 14:57 (thirteen years ago) link
Wait a minute, why are you dragging singular/plural into this? 'Whose' and 'has' are both singular. And 'has' is not particularly impersonal - 'John has declared his undying love for Jane'.
― postcards from the (ledge), Monday, 12 July 2010 15:03 (thirteen years ago) link
Hmm. Had a quick google, and this seems to help with the problem a little: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/grammar-who-that.aspx
It gives an example that makes me think 'whose' is definitely right in this particular case:
That is the company whose managers fled the country.That is the table whose legs were damaged last week.
― emil.y, Monday, 12 July 2010 15:05 (thirteen years ago) link
With nonrestrictive clauses, you can also do this:
"That is my father's table, the legs of which were damaged last week."
― jaymc, Monday, 12 July 2010 15:24 (thirteen years ago) link
Yeah, I wasn't saying that was the only way to structure the sentence, just that it is a plausibly correct way, and thus supports the idea that one can do the same to companies without negating house style.
― emil.y, Monday, 12 July 2010 15:48 (thirteen years ago) link
Yes, you can use 'whose' with things as well as people.
― I Ain't Committing Suicide For No Crab (Nasty, Brutish & Short), Monday, 12 July 2010 16:06 (thirteen years ago) link
Consider:
"A pair of boots appears" vs "A pair of boots appear." Which is accepted? The latter sounds much less awful but the stupid former is probably right, right? Love you, copyeditors/grammar fiends. <3
― Quantic Dream, So Hard To Beat (Will M.), Friday, 16 July 2010 14:04 (thirteen years ago) link
Should specify: I am actually trying to say that they poof into existence, not "appear" like "...appears flattering," or something.
― Quantic Dream, So Hard To Beat (Will M.), Friday, 16 July 2010 14:16 (thirteen years ago) link
First one is right, sorry. You could go with "Two boots appear"
― embrace the flopping? no thanks (onimo), Friday, 16 July 2010 14:32 (thirteen years ago) link
So I would seriously say "A pair of boots appears on the man" (not that I'd ever say this, but, you know... you copyedit some weird shit sometimes)?
― Quantic Dream, So Hard To Beat (Will M.), Friday, 16 July 2010 14:51 (thirteen years ago) link
Looks that way to me. "A pair" = singular.
― embrace the flopping? no thanks (onimo), Friday, 16 July 2010 15:01 (thirteen years ago) link
Which is better to describe some men and some women: Individuals "of both sexes" or "of either sex"? Isn't "either sex" the one that makes it sound like I mean hermaphrodites?
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 26 July 2010 20:31 (thirteen years ago) link
yes
― call all destroyer, Monday, 26 July 2010 20:33 (thirteen years ago) link
well actually: either sex sounds like you mean one or the other in some kind of binary. i suppose "individuals of both sexes" could refer to a room full of hermaphrodites.
― call all destroyer, Monday, 26 July 2010 20:34 (thirteen years ago) link
but i think it would be clear if you used "both sexes"
good 'nuff
Italian doctorlolz: "either sexes"
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Monday, 26 July 2010 20:36 (thirteen years ago) link
"men and women" does the job
― I Ain't Committing Suicide For No Crab (Nasty, Brutish & Short), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 08:17 (thirteen years ago) link
itt grammarian intersex discrimination
― no, you're dead right, it's a macaroon (ledge), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 08:54 (thirteen years ago) link
Employees of T*******r seem to have their mental faculties fully intact, yet the company etc.
― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 27 July 2010 10:00 (thirteen years ago) link
Is there a San Francisco equivalent of 'Londoner' or 'Glaswegian'?
Like San Francisco-ite or something?
As in, "The project of Wooden Shjips guitarist/vocalist Erik “Ripley” Johnson and fellow San Francisco resident Sanae Yamada, Moon Duo..."
Just wondering...
― krakow, Thursday, 5 August 2010 10:34 (thirteen years ago) link
san fransciscan?
― "It's far from 'lol' you were reared, boy" (darraghmac), Thursday, 5 August 2010 10:49 (thirteen years ago) link
I'd say "San Franciscan" and Wikipedia also says "Demonym: San Franciscan", thus teaching me a new word (which it concedes is not in any dictionaries)
but as a pasty Britisher I'd defer to a real American on this, just thought I'd reply while we're still at a PDT-unfriendly time of day
(xp)
― rah rah rah wd smash the oiks (a passing spacecadet), Thursday, 5 August 2010 10:50 (thirteen years ago) link
Thanks very much.
I also like 'demonym', that's a new word for me too, and was the word I was wanting when trying to phrase the original question more elegantly.
― krakow, Thursday, 5 August 2010 10:56 (thirteen years ago) link
I think you're good to go:
"san franciscan" site:sfgate.com* About 11,000 results (0.25 seconds)
*Website of the San Francisco Chronicle
― jaymc, Thursday, 5 August 2010 12:48 (thirteen years ago) link