ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

AND

In a situation where there is but one opportunity to hit, then hit-or-miss would appear to be most appropriate. Where there are many opportunities, but no certainty about any single result, then hit-and-miss would seem more applicable.

I always thought it was hit-or-miss. Altman was very hit-or-miss in the '70s; some great films, some wild misfires. If it were a perfectly alternating pattern--great one always followed by a misfire--I guess hit-and-miss would work.

Collins gives both:

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/hit-and-miss

My old NYT boss on the death (and/or dearth) of copy editing: http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/01/opinion/perlman-romney-needs-editor/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120601011023-perlman-cnn-horizontal-gallery.jpg

this is the greatest

In part, it is her expression.

also BREAKIN NEWS

Am I Reaganing, or am I reaganing?

As this neologism is entirely of your own devising, I believe you need only consult your own notion of its ideal platonic form to know the answer to this question.

So why is "fun" a word that doesn't follow standard English suffixes for the comparative & superlative? How can you tell when you say "more ____" v "____-er"?

I am totally messed up forever on "funner" because some friends of mine wrote a great and catchy song with the chorus of
I'm not a runner
Jumping is funner
I just jump
I said it in front of my student teaching supervisor once, "funner," and of course she corrected me. People fucking hate being corrected, don't they. I do. Today my students told me their teacher would yell at them if they used the word "weirder," they tried to tell me it wasn't a word, afict it totally is.

my oed says weirder is a word

yeah it totally is!
I know the teacher they're talking about, she likes to yell and humiliate people.
Right after they told me I couldn't say "weirder" because she said it wasn't a word, I opened the door, and she was outside walking by. She's haunting my language usage!

You should have corrected her in front of the children.

So why is "fun" a word that doesn't follow standard English suffixes for the comparative & superlative? How can you tell when you say "more ____" v "____-er"?

― Word of Wisdom Robots (Abbbottt), Tuesday, June 12, 2012 1:31 AM (22 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

"fun" isn't an adjective, it's an abstract noun, so there is no comparative or superlative. you're describing quantities of an abstraction, like you could have "more love" but something can't be "love-er" in that sense. though "fun" is a word in transition, i think, because people see the noun adjunct construction so often - e.g. "a fun thing" - that they want to treat it as a real adjective: i'm pretty sure i've seen some published examples of "fun" as adjective in US english recently, which was what made me check why they were so jarring.

Ok, confusing, maybe it's a young ppl thing but I feel like fun is used as an adj all the time

hang on, this is more controversial than i thought! just trying to work out why "words are fun" would be OK in my theory, because it obviously sounds fine. OED has it as noun and archaic verb only.

I'm having a fun time reading this thread.

It's definitely an adjective! Just one where the comparative should be "more fun" rather than the (funner) "funner". I mean, you'd say "it's rather fun" and stuff, right?

So, yeah, why is the comparative different?

We'll there are plenty of adjectives where the comparative is "more x" rather then "x-er". Pleasant, awful etc.

I think my iP'ad added that apostrophe, grammar fans.

Oh, I see, you mean how do you know when an adjective takes -er. I dunno. I guess it's just a case of checking the dictionary. As for why it happens in the first place, it probably comes down to which ones sound not too awkward. "Funner" sounds OK, but I guess because fun evolved from being a noun it's not standard. Maybe it will be one day.

I clearly have no ear for this, because apparently "pleasanter" is indeed the comparative. Definitely no "awfuler" though.

It's definitely an adjective! Just one where the comparative should be "more fun" rather than the (funner) "funner". I mean, you'd say "it's rather fun" and stuff, right?

― Alba, Wednesday, June 13, 2012 12:37 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

but would you say, "so fun" (common in US, but not really accepted formally) or would you say it had to be "so much fun"?

"rather fun" is interesting, because the OED cites punch magazine saying something is "rather fun" even while denying it can be an adjective. i can't square that one, it's definitely used as an adjective there.

are there any other adjectives that take exactly the same form as the noun? i wonder if that's why the transition is incomplete and why "funner" and "funnest" sound so bad. (normal rule is supposedly one syllable adjective takes "er", two can go either way, more than two takes "more".)

shit.....

yeah, but we have shitty and shittier as alternatives if you don't want the ambiguity/awkwardness of "shitter". funny got co-opted by the comedians before "fun" started being commonly used as an adjective.

names that end in -s - always pluralize by adding -es? joneses, thomases, strausses...?

Yes.

And that also goes to Mannixes, Martinezes, etc.

yes. this construction seems awkward as hell to me, but it is s.o.p. because what can you do?

How do I make a plural out of dumplin'?

Sorry, that doesn't show up well, try this one:

dumplin'

DUMPLINGS!!

But if I want to drop the "g"?

dumplins?

You spell it with the 'g', but then you don't pronounce the 'g'.

dumplins

dumplin's 'n' potato's

is it not grammatically correct to use "or" in place of "i.e."?

for example:

These programs are required to be part of [jargon], or [things that explain that jargon]

These programs are required to be part of turtles, or those things in the sea that float.
These programs are required to be part of turtles, i.e., those things in the sea that float.

I thought it was OK usage, but my boss keeps changing it, and google is not being my friend.

Looks strange to me - it seems as if you're saying there's a choice rather than giving clarification.

(also programs can't be part of turtles)

Doesn't answer your question, but what about using "such as" instead of "or"?

i.e. = "id est" = "that is," meaning "that is to say" or "in other words..." So it wouldn't be correct to use it in place of "or."

(xp) But then that's giving an example of one of many rather than explaining all

A nice mnemonic for i.e. and e.g.:
i.e. = id est = in ether words...
e.g. = exempli gratia = For egsample...

hmm ok. i am placated for now but i may come back with more examples later if they arise. thansk!

You can use use "or" to mean "also referred to as," but that doesn't correspond exactly with "i.e."

ok, yeah, i think that might be what i was thinking of...