ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

yeah that's why i think- what joe said

no i mean, when you are saying "there x"
i'm thinking too hard and confusing myself though

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.

i have never heard the latter?

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"

^ otm

oh yeah, w/o the "a" works for me

"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.

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.

"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.

the noun usage is first in both of my dictionaries so that feels like the more correct one

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.

Former is better. I think that grammatically companies are more often treated as living entities than not.

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!

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'.

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.

With nonrestrictive clauses, you can also do this:

"That is my father's table, the legs of which were damaged last week."

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.

Yes, you can use 'whose' with things as well as people.

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

Should specify: I am actually trying to say that they poof into existence, not "appear" like "...appears flattering," or something.

First one is right, sorry. You could go with "Two boots appear"

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)?

Looks that way to me. "A pair" = singular.

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?

yes

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.

but i think it would be clear if you used "both sexes"

good 'nuff

Italian doctorlolz: "either sexes"

"men and women" does the job

itt grammarian intersex discrimination

Employees of T*******r seem to have their mental faculties fully intact, yet the company etc.

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...

san fransciscan?

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)

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.

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

Dark and Stormy (the drink) – is the plural:
Dark & Stormies
or
Dark & Stormys
?

Abbott! Have you been surreptitiously reading the Chicago thread?

I just pluralized this drink in a post YESTERDAY. I went with Dark and Stormies. BUT I did briefly hesitate about it, not just the pluralization but whether cocktails should even be capitalized.

I have been so thrown on uncommon pluralization after I heard people on "Coast to Coast AM" call a number of Bigfoot organisms "Bigfoots," not "Bigfeet."

haha i'd probably lean toward the former myself - surely "bigfoot" is an individual lil dude, not a species?

"In Canada, for every Rush, there are at least three Gordon Lightfeet."

Someone please spot-check my numerical logic here, because something is making me feel crazy. I'm going to change the content, but I'm looking at a stat being used in the following way:

43% of teenage boys are more likely than the average person to drink Teenage Boy Soda!

This strikes me as a terrible statistic -- doesn't it actually mean that a majority (57%) of teenage boys are LESS (or just equally) likely than the average person to enjoy the soda? That fewer than half of them are on the above-average side of the distribution? And yet the stat is presented with such confidence and glee that it's making me question myself: am I missing some trick of medians or deviations that somehow makes this stat a good thing?

pretty sure that's just a terrible statistic. sounds like it's derived from some sort of iffy "how likely are you to do x in the next week" survey results.

Always sad to see the NY Times screw it up:

"Growing up in rural Montana, Jere was drawn to the paintings in seed catalogs the way other kids poured over Mad magazine."

It may not have been evident from the context, but the other kids were pouring imitation maple syrup over those Mad magazines.

"nearly one in five americans believe" or "nearly one in five americans believes"

The former.

"nearly one in five americans believe" = 16,800 google hits
"nearly one in five americans believes" = googlewhack

"the same number of people have had a ghostly experience" or "the same number of people has had a ghostly experience"