ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

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"

Although singular is more logical, it looks odd, therefore I would go with plural.

both are acceptable go with the more widely used one

Is it true to say that an indeterminate number is always plural, even if there's a strong implication that the number is one?

happy enough with that, yeah, though context would help

i use this trick all the time when talking about previous lovers for instance

redknapp apparently willing to listen to offers for

wilson palacios.

now, he's not had a great few months but that's absolute madness.

can someone give me a percentages refresher? if someone says "we're 50% more popular now than we were last year" then that means that if, say, 8 people voted for them last year, 12 did this year? because 4 is 50% of 8 and then you add it to the total? so they're 50% MORE popular than they were last year but equally you could say their popularity is 150% of what it was last year? now that i'm saying it everything makes sense but i swear this stuff confuses the hell out of me sometimes

that all makes sense, unlike me posting spurs transfer rumours

your first reading is right I think ? 150% to me would mean 20 ppl voted

20 is 150% of 13.3

i think both tracer's readings are the same?

yep

50% more = 150% of

oh i remember now the confusing thing: when someone says "there's been a 50% increase in our support since last year". that means they had 8 last year and 12 this year. ok cool. but when someone says "there's been a 50% increase in our support for the last five years".... well that just doesn't mean anything, does it? it could mean 5 years ago they had 8 and now they have 12, or it could mean that each year there's been a 50% increase over the year before...

would mean taking the five years ago figure as the starting point i'd say

so yeah 5 years ago 8, now 12

oh i remember now the confusing thing: when someone says "there's been a 50% increase in our support since last year". that means they had 8 last year and 12 this year. ok cool. but when someone says "there's been a 50% increase in our support for the last five years".... well that just doesn't mean anything, does it? it could mean 5 years ago they had 8 and now they have 12, or it could mean that each year there's been a 50% increase over the year before...

― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Thursday, August 19, 2010 8:10 AM Bookmark Suggest

With the latter I would assume 50% total, not 50% per year, because it would be weird to talk about support in average increase per year.

your first reading is right I think ? 150% to me would mean 20 ppl voted

― ? (dyao), Thursday, August 19, 2010 7:05 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

oh doh I thought he was asking about what the difference between "50% more" and "150% more was" not "150% of"

fukken preps

it would be weird to talk about support in average increase per year.

would it though? in finance you get this kind of talk, like in a company's annual reports - "50% year on year growth" always confuses fukkk out of me

year on year is the compound growth, which is different, tbf

what's our growth going forward wrt marginal incomes on that though?

"Mel Gibson directed the movies The Man Without a Face and Braveheart, in both of which he starred."

^^sounds hella awkward, but is it wrong?

Haha maybe not in a technical sense but jeez.

"Mel Gibson directed the movies The Man Without a Face and Braveheart and starred in both."

"Mel Gibson directed and starred in The Man Without a Face and Braveheart."

Oh yeah, for sure those work better. The actual example I was dealing with, though -- not about Mel Gibson! -- was syntactically a little more complex. I ended up turning it into two sentences.

Cutting awkward sentences in two is my most valuable contribution to any editorial project in which I participate.

Q:

"Plaintiffs hereby request that defendant PRODUCE the following documents..." or "Plaintiffs hereby request that defendant PRODUCES the following documents..."

I think the former is correct but want to make sure.

Yeah - subjunctive, right?

"high quality standards" -- no hyphen, because you can speak of "high standards" OR "quality standards"? As opposed to a "high-quality car."

I wd say: correct, no hyphen.

New question: Just overheard someone at work being informed that the phrase "run the gauntlet" needs to be corrected to "run the gantlet". Now, I would have expected confusion between "gauntlet" and "gamut", along the lines of "stanch" and "staunch". But I have ever in all my life heard "run the gantlet".

Have you?

*never in all my life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_the_gauntlet

I have learned something new today. Thank you, this thread!

I knew I'd read "gantlet."

New = that gantlet is an acceptable alternative. I'm well aware of the phrase, but have always believed it to be gauntlet.

Well, apparently the original mis-translation of Swedish "gantlopp" into "gauntlet" via mishearing was around 400 years ago, during the Thirty Years' War. I don't feel too bad about a mistake with four centuries of precedent.

I might start using "run the gantelope" from now on.

Oh please do.

Next time the phrase is called for, I promise I will.

"high quality standards" and "high-quality standards" mean different things to me. The former seems more likely to be the intended one.

That's an excellent Wikipedia entry. I'm going to try to work "running the gantelope" into a conversation tomorrow.

Me too

Off the top of my head:

IIRC, running the gantlet is an ordeal, where the victim passes between two lines of their peers, who wallop him as he attempts to run through.

IIRC, throwing down the gauntlet is a challenge to a joust or similar duel, where the challenger removes his heavy, protective glove with long cuffs and hurls it at the feet of the one being challenged.

Running the gamut is to display a nearly-universal variety within some specific category, as in the fabled gamut of soup to nuts.

Running the gantelope is a rowdy, drunken, impromptu sporting event similar to the running of the bulls in Pamplona, Spain, except, of course,with gantelopes serving the place of the bulls.

ok, hyphens and modifiers again. "body-weight regulation" WITH a hyphen, right? compound modifier?