ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

Wait, I don't think I really thought about this. If it were "Mr. Roberts's anniversary," then yes I would use it. I'm not sure about "Mr. and Mrs. Roberts's," though.

You wouldn't pronounce it in this case, would you? (xp)

i dunno! what are the rules for pronouncing the plural s?

I wouldn't have the extra S.

If it were the birthday of Mr Roberts, I'd say " Mr Roberts' Birthday "

So in this case, I'd say "Mr and Mrs Roberts' Anniversary"

No problem!

I'm not sure about "Mr. and Mrs. Roberts's," though.

Actually, I think my first instinct was right. This is like "Abbott and Costello's."

I hope they quarrel less than Abbott & Costello

Is "radio appearance" an oxymoron?

Technically perhaps but it does not leap out at me as wrong or horrendous and it seems fairly well accepted (618,000 on google v. 2 million for 'tv appearance'. What else could you say?

I don't think anyone would question "He appeared as a guest on 'The Howard Stern Show' on Tuesday."

But that doesn't really answer your question.

Yeah, I agree, just checking.

no other noun works

"Listeners all over the country were enthralled by Mr Throckmorton's recent radiogramme manifestation."

Appearances are sensate. Sound is sensed. A sound can appear. Although this is an unusual construction, it is not incorrect, in my view.

Hey, copyeditors!

Let's say I'm talking about gentrification. Let's forget the market & the state for a sec and focus on "us vs. them" --> the people living in a neighbourhood (typically minorities or working-class) since it was not hot-to-trot, and the people moving into it (typically wite, college-educated professionals).

1) the first group -- I think I read someone somewhere call them "incumbent residents." Is this stupid? I am using it in a paper, but if there's something less stupid, let me know and I'll replace the instances of it. My pal seems to think it's awful. I think it's kind of nice. Definitely beats saying minorities over and over (which was making me feel kind of racist).

2) the second group -- is it too douchey to call them "the gentry"? Is it too neologistic to call them "gentrifiers"? Is neologistic the worst thing I've ever said on ILX?

HELP ME ILX!

I don't like "incumbent" since it either refers to "currently holding an office" or "lying motionlessly". You wouldn't call Native Americans "incumbent" to the new continent.

any recommendations for a better turn of phrase? maybe it's the 26ish hours of awake in a row but it's really doing my head in. I just can't wrestle a good title out of my head.

"original residents" and "newcomers"?

newcomers feels a little vague -- since i am also talking about private firms and public figures "coming new" to the space (as well as various other actors) i want to differentiate btwn them and the actual people who think they're urban frontiersmen (bias is somewhat tongue-in-cheek).

i can probably get away w/ gentry & incumbent because urban studies from what i've read is THE MOST MELODRAMATIC FIELD OF ACADEMIA OF ALL TIME (except for melodramatic studies which probably exists somewhere) -- if you don't believe me you should read some of waht Mike Davis has to say about fortresses of fear in LA!

Oh, I remember a word for the newcomers -- in-migrants. Just need something for the... the... "displaced." God that's even worse.

indigenous?

newcomers feels a little vague -- since i am also talking about private firms and public figures "coming new" to the space (as well as various other actors) i want to differentiate btwn them and the actual people who think they're urban frontiersmen (bias is somewhat tongue-in-cheek)

are there people who think this, that they're "urban frontiersmen"? or are there just young people looking for a deal? i'd imagine the latter, more or less. which probably isn't too different from what's motivating the private firms etc so i think "newcomers" works. as for the people already there, "original" is perhaps misleading.. maybe "longtime residents"?

coign a new phrase like 'urboriginal' imo

yeah but nobody's really "original" which is why incumbent sort of works, because it's making no claims beyond the fact that they happen to be there now, and prior to the new wave.. "incumbent residents" might be ok but will get cumbersome quickly

surely can't use 'gentry' for the newcomers, that's a very specific class.

'current residents' and 'new arrivals' imo

PRINT IT

I have here a lengthy sentence: "The facts that (LONG CLAUSE) and that (LONG CLAUSE) make us hopeful that..."

My colleague change it to "fact" and left "make," which can't be right. The original is OK if clumsy, yes?

I would probably have done "the fact that... and that... makes us" etc — but that's just my gut instinct, I dunno if it's the most correct way to do it

Original certainly IS clumsy, but at least it's all in agreement. Not so for the "fix".

Does each [LONG CLAUSE] individually make us hopeful, or is the combination of/relationship between [LONG CLAUSE]s that does?

each individually

Yeah, in that case, I think you're right.

of course, the two facts in combination probably make them more hopeful.

The main argument I'm getting is "The facts that..." is too awkward.

Generally sentences with "the fact that" or "the fact is" or "the facts (whatever)" should be rewritten to exclude the "fact" bit. "The fact that these sentences are flawed means they should be rewritten" is less efficient than "These sentences are flawed and should be rewritten". Hope that helps.

Yeah, but it was an editorial by the editors of the journal, soooo....

show em who's boss imo

[LONG CLAUSE] and [LONG CLAUSE]; these facts make us hopeful that etc etc

Woah or Whoa?

I've always written the former, but someone was moaning about it the other day and since then I've seen it written as "whoa". Is this a US thing?

its whoa, woah is wrong

WH = wuh sound (where, when, why, etc.) + OA = dominant sound in OAts, OAr, etc.

Having it end in AH sounds more like something Al Pacino would say in a movie.

"Woah" is what Snowy says in the English-lang Tintin books. Seems ridic anywhere else.

Is it supposed to rhyme with "Noah"?

WH = wuh sound (where, when, why, etc.) + OA = dominant sound in OAts, OAr, etc

This doesn't make much sense in England ('wh' pronounced exactly the same as 'w', e.g. 'watt' and 'what') and 'oats' and 'oar' start with totally different vowel sounds.

This came up recently and in a moment of revelation I realised that I would always use 'Woah' for the exclamation of surprise, and 'Whoa' as an instruction, mainly for horses, but generically to indicate any sort of need to come to a halt. I have no idea if this is actually a thing other than in my brain.

Oh, free trial of online OED -

details here http://goo.gl/vUHcR

Go to http://www.oed.com/ then the sign in and password is trynewoed.

I'm going for Option 1 -

Dictionary
Browse the whole dictionary from A to Z.

Hurrah, they've revised their entry on "gaydar."

I hope it now says suzy invented it!

Earliest citation now:

1988 Philadelphia Inquirer 23 Mar. b7/1 Making use of what he called ‘gaydar’, Richard A. Friend moved to the center of a stage‥and scanned the audience of about 60 students and staff‥. Friend, an instructor in human sexuality at the University of Pennsylvania, told the crowd he would point out all the lesbians and gays in the audience and have them stand up.

Does Suzy know Richard A. Friend?

I've always written the former, but someone was moaning about it the other day and since then I've seen it written as "whoa". Is this a US thing?

Yeah, this was me in the irrationally angry thread. I'm afraid "woah" is going to be universally accepted usage within a few years, but it's total nails-on-blackboard to me.

I refuse to let that happen, not in the United States of America, at least.

I hate it too, mostly because it looks like it would rhyme with Noah. "WO-ah"