ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (5060 of them)
Hey, we circ PW in that fashion!

Laurel (Laurel), Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:15 (eighteen years ago) link

No wait, Webster's has it hyphenated, regardless of how or where it appears in the sentence.

Although this is weird: I was convinced that "old-school" was hip-hop slang that somehow wormed its way into mainstream usage within the last ten years or so! Webster's marks its first usage as 1803!

jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:17 (eighteen years ago) link

Hip-hoppers be revivin' antiquated phrases.

The Milkmaid (82375538-A) (The Milkmaid), Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:18 (eighteen years ago) link

Important question: why would Chuck suspect he was the only one in that position w/r/t reggaeton? As far as critics go, my suspicion is that everyone feels that way.

Important statement: I've never worked anywhere that didn't route something or other in cross-it-off fashion.

More important question: where would one acquire classics of copyeditor porn, such as Sorority House Style, Cap that Ass, Stet Me Hard, Big Black Bullet Lists, and Little Non-Hyphenated Adverb/Adjective Modifiers with Big Hard Hyphens?

nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:18 (eighteen years ago) link

Actually I think I meant Stet and Messy.

nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:19 (eighteen years ago) link

some vp dude just asked me what was proper, "in route" or "in-route," and seemed offended when i said "en route"

mookieproof (mookieproof), Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:27 (eighteen years ago) link

mookie that made me laugh!

quincie, Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:31 (eighteen years ago) link

I am taking an editing certification exam in, like, ten days. Thus I must go home tonight and read the painfully written Copyright chapter of Chicago. I wanna kill the guy who wrote that chapter--does anyone have a better suggestion for a quick-and-dirty way to brush up on copyright and permissions and whatnot?

quincie, Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:33 (eighteen years ago) link

Shell out for the info-cube and have it downloaded directly into yr brain. Saves LOADS of time!

Laurel (Laurel), Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:51 (eighteen years ago) link

Once our managing editor and her admin asked me to settle a spelling question: "baserk" or "bazerk"?

To my credit, I did not go berserk.

Stephen X (Stephen X), Thursday, 9 March 2006 22:08 (eighteen years ago) link

My experience in the jewelry industry came in handy today regarding "carat" versus "karat." It's too bad that making the correction did not involve using a caret.

nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 9 March 2006 22:36 (eighteen years ago) link

Guess what I had for lunch?

nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 9 March 2006 22:37 (eighteen years ago) link

I'm not guessing. Is there an actual difference betw. "carat" and "karat"?

jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 9 March 2006 22:38 (eighteen years ago) link

Haha. Nice save! (XXP)

Laurel (Laurel), Thursday, 9 March 2006 22:42 (eighteen years ago) link

I was going to post this as a reply to Nabisco on the "words you've never heared" thread, but it belongs here:

>Elaine: People go to South America.
>Jerry: Yeah, and they come back with things taped to their large intestine.

I suppose Jerry gets a free pass, since Elaine used the plural subject "people," not him, but note that damned numerical disagreement that keeps bugging me lately!

-- nabisco (--...), March 9th, 2006 4:40 PM. (nabisco) (later) (link)

Srsly. I keep fixing that now that you've alerted me to it.

I also keep running into a similar agreement issue that's less egregious but still bothers me:

"Lemurs have a tail that allows them to swing through branches."

I don't like the implication that many lemurs have only one tail among them, but the alternative ("lemurs have tails") makes it less clear as to how many tails each lemur has. I change this sometimes and leave it as is when the pluralization sounds clunky, as it often does. And about a third of the time that I change it, it comes back to me stetted, anyway.

jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 9 March 2006 22:54 (eighteen years ago) link

Arf, that's a strange one. Actually I think part of the problem there is that we no longer use the kind of Platonic structure that used to go with that sort of statement: "The lemur has a tail that allows it to swing through branches."

That structure is actually really weird, politically speaking -- it's very rationalist and essentialist! To the point where it sounds really musty and Victorian plus smacks of the kinds of essentialism that now creeps us out ("The female of the species is XXX" / "The Negro is XXX" / etc.) But then we start talking about something where essentialism is exactly what we want -- lemurs have tails! -- and the right construction has been somewhat diminished.

nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 10 March 2006 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link

Actually, half the time the articles I'm editing do use that old-fashioned structure! Which of course makes it a lot easier. But I'm guessing that's more common given the nature of my work than it would be for other people.

jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 10 March 2006 00:14 (eighteen years ago) link

Guess what I had for lunch?

http://www.moresaltplease.com/images/salt%20shaker.gif

phil d. (Phil D.), Friday, 10 March 2006 00:28 (eighteen years ago) link

big grains of it.

AaronK (AaronK), Friday, 10 March 2006 03:40 (eighteen years ago) link

I love that "The lemur has..." construction and use it all the time. I guess I should watch my back. But essentialism is the basis for all the nice non-proper nouns that allow us to talk about classes of entities. I'm loosely reminded of the joke:

An astronomer, a physicist and a mathematician were holidaying in Scotland. Glancing from a train window, they observed a black sheep in the middle of a field. "How interesting," observed the astronomer, "all Scottish sheep are black!"

To which the physicist responded, "No, no! Some Scottish sheep are black!"

The mathematician gazed heavenward in supplication, and then intoned, "In Scotland there exists at least one field, containing at least one sheep, at least one side of which is black."

Paul Eater (eater), Friday, 10 March 2006 04:47 (eighteen years ago) link

"Lemurs have a tail that allows them to swing through branches."

i'd suggest: "a/the lemur's [adjective] tail allows it to swing through branches". the adjective is important here: what's so great about this tail? i mean, badgers have tails but they can't swing through branches.

at least, i don't think they can.

i've never read the first post in this thread before. it makes me want to rip out people's eyes and eat them. there really is no fucking hope for (english-speaking) humankind.

grimly fiendish (grimlord), Friday, 10 March 2006 13:52 (eighteen years ago) link

Prehensile.
Do you mean eat the eyes or the people?

beanz (beanz), Friday, 10 March 2006 14:00 (eighteen years ago) link

both. the eyes would make a tasty starter.

grimly fiendish (grimlord), Friday, 10 March 2006 14:03 (eighteen years ago) link

in black and white, that looks much more sinister than i thought. i've offended myself :o

grimly fiendish (grimlord), Friday, 10 March 2006 14:03 (eighteen years ago) link

I get annoyed by rogue apostrophes, too

if it genuinely arouses markelbyesque levels of intense, pointless rage, though, maybe you should re-examine things, a little

RJG (RJG), Friday, 10 March 2006 14:15 (eighteen years ago) link

Rogue commas, that's what really gets on my... :snore:

beanz (beanz), Friday, 10 March 2006 14:17 (eighteen years ago) link

"terror suspect's still held at US camp, four year's later"


BASTARDSSSSSS

RJG (RJG), Friday, 10 March 2006 14:18 (eighteen years ago) link

Singular verbs with plural subjects, that's what really gets on my... :snore:

With apostrophes, it's cos it makes you expect a different progression

beanz (beanz), Friday, 10 March 2006 14:19 (eighteen years ago) link

maybe you should re-examine things, a little

RJG, i'm a subeditor! futile rage against tiny grammatical transgressions is my raison d'etre. without it, i am lost.

grimly fiendish (grimlord), Friday, 10 March 2006 14:47 (eighteen years ago) link

I have a question. As an Irisher (and therefore, spellastically at least, closer to the Britishers), I seem to remember we always spelled colorful as colorful. Now I am being accused of creeping Americanism because I do not spell it colourful. I do not think that I ever spelled it this way.

Oh spelling masters of ILE, can you settle this dispute?

accentmonkey (accentmonkey), Friday, 10 March 2006 18:02 (eighteen years ago) link

Colourful is English, colorful American.

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Friday, 10 March 2006 20:16 (eighteen years ago) link

and what is irish?

pssst - badass revolutionary art! (plsmith), Friday, 10 March 2006 20:19 (eighteen years ago) link

i've never read the first post in this thread before. it makes me want to rip out people's eyes and eat them. there really is no fucking hope for (english-speaking) humankind.

-- grimly fiendish (simonmai...), March 10th, 2006 7:52 AM. (later)

See one Language Log post about "word rage."

The Milkmaid (82375538-A) (The Milkmaid), Friday, 10 March 2006 20:36 (eighteen years ago) link

callerfool

nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 10 March 2006 21:10 (eighteen years ago) link

Perhaps we should cut out manager's tongues. Then we wouldn't have to put up with their hideous mutilation of the language?

Bad moment to misplace an apostrophe.

nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 10 March 2006 21:14 (eighteen years ago) link

"Building and maintaining a vital membership [is/are] critical to X's success."

is feels better but i can't explain why

mookieproof (mookieproof), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 20:20 (eighteen years ago) link

er, it basically depends on whether you mean "building [ie first] and then maintaining [as an entirely separate action]", or "building and maintaining [ie as one continued action]". given that you'd almost always mean the latter, especially in this context, "is" is correct.

basically: how closely linked are the two concepts?

"shopping and fucking are important to me."

"drinking and fighting is important to me."

also, the phrase "a vital membership" is common to both participles/gerunds/whatever they are, which suggests that "building and maintaining" is a single ... christ, what? gerundive noun phrase, i guess. apologies if my terminology's wrong: it's a long time since i've dealt with this sort of stuff academically, as opposed to just shouting and rewriting.

(this is a pragmatic approach, rather than a structuralist one, but i think it works. next!)

grimly fiendish (grimlord), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 23:34 (eighteen years ago) link

also: what exactly is a "vital membership"?

out of context, i'd suggest: "building and maintaining membership is vital to X's success." you could also use "the" or "our" membership. perhaps.

grimly fiendish (grimlord), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 23:36 (eighteen years ago) link

"vital membership" possibly lingo for "members who keep giving money" rather than "people who sign up once and are never heard from again"

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 23:42 (eighteen years ago) link

thanks.

i'd have rewritten the whole sentence, but i lack the authority. don't ask about "vital membership"--you'll just be told about "solutions"

xp tracer, as ever, otm

mookieproof (mookieproof), Tuesday, 14 March 2006 23:42 (eighteen years ago) link

one month passes...
disaffected with? disaffected by? disaffected from?

Gravel Puzzleworth (Gregory Henry), Monday, 24 April 2006 17:58 (eighteen years ago) link

I think it's just an adjective?

Jordan (Jordan), Monday, 24 April 2006 18:03 (eighteen years ago) link

context?

Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Monday, 24 April 2006 18:18 (eighteen years ago) link

"the brightest children and those who felt most disaffected, for various reasons, with/from/by their own school environment."

Gravel Puzzleworth (Gregory Henry), Monday, 24 April 2006 18:24 (eighteen years ago) link

I feel like it almost has to be "about" or "with regard to" or etc.

Laurel (Laurel), Monday, 24 April 2006 18:26 (eighteen years ago) link

"as a result of"

ailsa (ailsa), Monday, 24 April 2006 18:27 (eighteen years ago) link

"disaffected with" is perfectly fine and normal usage. You can use "by" but it has a different meaning, putting the focus not on the disaffection with a particular thing but stating that it is caused by that thing. Don't use "from".

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Monday, 24 April 2006 18:31 (eighteen years ago) link

Or use "distanced from."

Paul in Santa Cruz (Paul in Santa Cruz), Monday, 24 April 2006 18:49 (eighteen years ago) link

Yeah, "as a result of" = "by", but that's not necessarily what you mean. Need MORE context, I think. I can't actually tell whether or not "disaffected" is the word you are really looking for.

ailsa (ailsa), Monday, 24 April 2006 19:07 (eighteen years ago) link

two weeks pass...
Plural of "smiley," which is becoming increasingly common as a noun?

In other words: smileys vs. smilies.

For no particular reason, I prefer the former.

jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 11 May 2006 20:00 (seventeen years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.