bummer
― 69, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 20:45 (fifteen years ago) link
From my company's blog, which is written by a number of guest contributors:
"In my last blog, I concluded that Fred Thompson was the logical candidate for Republicans to turn to this year."
― jaymc, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 20:47 (fifteen years ago) link
^^ wording is the least of the problems there
― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 20:54 (fifteen years ago) link
Ha.
― jaymc, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 20:55 (fifteen years ago) link
(To be fair, that post is from Jan. 2, but still.)
But umm seriously is it possible that the bad style here is based on trying to make "blog" function more along the lines of the "log" that's part of it? I would still use "(web) log entry," but I can get slightly closer to imagining someone using "log" in that singular way.
― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 20:56 (fifteen years ago) link
You know what else I hate? When there is one store/restarant called "store/restaurant X" and then they open ANOTHER store called "store/restaurant X TOO. Why do they do that???
Also this sort of thing can lead to some funny constructions. Maybe not the best example but the suburb where I am from had a ladies clothing store called "Not Quite New" (used clothing, get it?) which then opened a sister (brother?) store called "Not Quite New For Men"!
― admrl, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 21:06 (fifteen years ago) link
It clearly should have been called "Not Quite New TOO (For Men)"
― admrl, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 21:07 (fifteen years ago) link
xxp I'd actually think the opposite -- that if people were to think about the term's origins, they'd realize that it doesn't make sense to call a blog post a blog any more than it would make sense to call an entry in a log a log. A log is always a log of component parts.
― jaymc, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 21:07 (fifteen years ago) link
Adam, there's a clothing store in Chicago called Shirts on Sheffield, located, unsurprisingly enough, on Sheffield Avenue. When they opened up another location, this time on Broadway, they called it Shirts Off Sheffield.
― jaymc, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 21:10 (fifteen years ago) link
haha
― admrl, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 21:13 (fifteen years ago) link
Aww, Shirts on Sheffield spawned?
― nabisco, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 21:27 (fifteen years ago) link
an elegy for copy editors
― tipsy mothra, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 21:31 (fifteen years ago) link
Do you blog "on" something or "about" something?
Once you turn that noun into a verb, everything that follows is a disaster.
― Autumn Almanac, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 21:43 (fifteen years ago) link
yesterday i couldn't even blog on, it was so frustrating
― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 19 June 2008 00:45 (fifteen years ago) link
This week's New Yorker has a shockingly obvious misspelling/typo in the Seabrook article! I was QUITE taken aback. Is this the first sign of the copyediting apocalypse?
― quincie, Thursday, 19 June 2008 13:31 (fifteen years ago) link
yeah, i've seen a few typos in the new yorker lately.
Is this the first sign of the copyediting apocalypse?
the first sign was all those misplaced apostrophes on storefront marquees. this is probably more like the seventh sign.
― tipsy mothra, Thursday, 19 June 2008 15:05 (fifteen years ago) link
When the Times of London reported in 1837 on two University of Paris law profs dueling with swords, the dispute wasn't over the fine points of the Napoleonic Code. It was over the point-virgule: the semicolon. "The one who contended that the passage in question ought to be concluded by a semicolon was wounded in the arm," noted the Times. "His adversary maintained that it should be a colon."
^^ REAL men
― nabisco, Friday, 20 June 2008 21:54 (fifteen years ago) link
Would you say
"A and B correspond to X and Y respectively"
or
"A and B correspond respectively to X and Y"?
I am in the middle of a fight about this with my supervisor. One of them sounds just plain weird to me. My supervisor is French Canadian, so I don't trust him (about anything, not just English usage).
― caek, Tuesday, 1 July 2008 18:05 (fifteen years ago) link
I would use the first one.
― HI DERE, Tuesday, 1 July 2008 18:07 (fifteen years ago) link
I'd go with the first one. I don't think I've even come across the seond usage.
― ailsa, Tuesday, 1 July 2008 18:09 (fifteen years ago) link
one of my math professors was pretty intense in his belief that saying "respectively" is redundant. aside from that, both of those are correct, but you may need a comma before "respectively" in the first example.
― 69, Tuesday, 1 July 2008 18:10 (fifteen years ago) link
I have also come across anti-"respectively" editors; I can go either way on that one. But yeah, I prefer the first example with a comma before "respectively" (at least in U.S. usage).
― quincie, Tuesday, 1 July 2008 18:50 (fifteen years ago) link
"The strength and weakness of the book are in its dream-like quality."
Why does the "are" in this sentence jar with me?
― Alba, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 11:40 (fifteen years ago) link
"My bat and my cap are in the car" sounds fine. I don't know.
I guess I'd write:
"The book's dream-like quality is its strength and its weakness." instead
― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 11:46 (fifteen years ago) link
The "in" is superfluous.
― Jarlrmai, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 11:55 (fifteen years ago) link
Two things "are" one thing, though?
― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 12:01 (fifteen years ago) link
yes, but one thing, in this case, is two things! tracer, i was about to post your exact alternative sentence.
― CharlieNo4, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 12:24 (fifteen years ago) link
It implies the strength is the weakness? I dunno.
― Autumn Almanac, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 22:53 (fifteen years ago) link
The 1930s were a time of racism division.
The 1930s was a time of racism division.
?
― Alba, Thursday, 3 July 2008 15:23 (fifteen years ago) link
Neither???
― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 3 July 2008 15:23 (fifteen years ago) link
The 1930s WERE a time of RACIAL division.
― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 3 July 2008 15:24 (fifteen years ago) link
Though probably not in Sweden.
The 1930s were a time of racism and division.
― CharlieNo4, Thursday, 3 July 2008 15:26 (fifteen years ago) link
Sorry - was slotting in other words to replace the real ones and cocked up.
― Alba, Thursday, 3 July 2008 15:27 (fifteen years ago) link
(ie forget about racial and racism. It's just the was/were thing.)
1930s = plural decade = singular
this happens a lot. it's ok.
― CharlieNo4, Thursday, 3 July 2008 15:31 (fifteen years ago) link
While I do consider myself a Grammar Fiend, I am a little bit confused over the usage of "its" and "it's".
o_O
― jhøshea, Thursday, 3 July 2008 16:47 (fifteen years ago) link
haha yeah i know, that's like the #1 question in the Are You a Grammar Fiend pass/fail test
― rrrobyn, Thursday, 3 July 2008 17:19 (fifteen years ago) link
That's because its a stupid test.
― Autumn Almanac, Thursday, 3 July 2008 22:44 (fifteen years ago) link
HAH I typed 'it's' correctly by habit and had to go back and change it.
― Autumn Almanac, Thursday, 3 July 2008 22:45 (fifteen years ago) link
Another disagreement with my French Canadian supervisor. Please pick one:
"The odds are against us demonstrating..."
"The odds are against us to demonstrate..."
― caek, Saturday, 5 July 2008 16:07 (fifteen years ago) link
numba one
― G00blar, Saturday, 5 July 2008 16:35 (fifteen years ago) link
I don't think the odds are actually against 'us'. They're against our having success in demonstrating something.
― G00blar, Saturday, 5 July 2008 16:36 (fifteen years ago) link
the odds against OUR demonstrating
― Zelda Zonk, Saturday, 5 July 2008 16:45 (fifteen years ago) link
The odds are against us in demonstrating?
― Autumn Almanac, Saturday, 5 July 2008 21:14 (fifteen years ago) link
Zelda OTM.
― jaymc, Sunday, 6 July 2008 02:17 (fifteen years ago) link
From the NYTimes Estelle Getty obit:
In the show, Sophia was the mother of Dorothy Zbornak, played by Bea Arthur who, in real life, was older than Ms. Getty.
Not exactly a copyeditor and grammar fiend question, but: am I wrong to think that the phrase 'in real life' is one of those casual, almost childish, expressions that shouldn't see their way into print?
― G00blar, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 16:32 (fifteen years ago) link
Iit's certainly redundant there. Was that writer paid by the word?
― Autumn Almanac, Thursday, 24 July 2008 03:00 (fifteen years ago) link
i don't know, i think it helps keep things clear. but i guess you could shorten it and lose a clause by just writing "who was actually older than ms. getty."
― tipsy mothra, Thursday, 24 July 2008 04:03 (fifteen years ago) link