ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

Good question, though I would lean the other way, just because you have to go by the letters you actually see, and not infer them ( though we pronounce them that way).

Excel imo

Hope he doesn't get filed in the wrong place at the wrong time.

You should not file music alphabetically imo.

Yes, file it by tempo instead.

http://i1142.photobucket.com/albums/n601/gamalielratsey/2013-03-09095803_zps2648a64c.jpg

wealth-blessing plz.

haha

Fighting shy of colons-stupid or beyond stupid?

Colons are not just for Sunday.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22403731
What kind of lunatic complains about the phrase 'too much, too young'?

After a childhood avid for the praise generated by my schoolwork's demonstration of correct spelling and punctuation I have slowly turned traitor to the whole notion that minor aberrations in either category are worth paying attention to. I accept them in informal writing without demur, unless they somehow obscure the meaning or introduce an unwanted ambiguity.

I especially condemn those who become hissy over perfectly good split infinitives.

xp http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4606

^ I can't open that link, caek

try now?

http://nowealth.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-goveites-behind-bad-grammar-awards.html

Ah, so *that* kind of lunatic

Funny thing about the "bad grammar awards" is that there's actually only one award, so they can't even get the basics right.

Writing report cards...I think I know the answer to this, but I want to double-check: "Moses's" or "Moses'"? (Has to do with his best piece of art, not his commandments.)

The standard construction I was taught would be Moses', but as an adult I find that the visual clue provided by the apostrophe alone is quite easy to miss, so that I've come to prefer the non-standard construction Moses's, due to its superior clarity of meaning.

P.S. There's no reason why one would be pronounced any differently than the other, in that an extra s added to the final s equals the sound: ss.

As a teacher writing a report card, I'd say go with the standard construction, so you don't get (unjustly) criticized as illiterate.

I can't remember when or where, but at some point I internalized this distinction: if the names ends in an 's,' but you can say it when apostrophized normally, go with the extra 's'. I can say "Moses's" just fine, so I'd rather go with that. (As opposed to "Flanders's," which is very difficult, maybe even impossible to say.) But I know what you mean--also, the person proofreading them will likely have an inflexible view that "Moses'" is correct.

"Moses's" actually is standard because "Moses" is not plural

Speaking of proofreading, "if the name..."

Different style guides say different things, so in this case, go with what you think will be the clearest construction.

in AP style you add the extra "s" if the next word doesn't begin with "s."

Thanks, all...The sentence reads "Moses's best piece of work this term...", so I guess AP would have me go with the one 's'. I'm going to go with "Moses's," though, which just feels right to me (hoping I don't get questioned on it, because I can sometimes get my back up over stuff like that).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tciT9bmCMq8

cheat, write two sentences so that you can say 'moses' in the first and 'his' in the second. they'll love all the extra attention you will have lavished on their lad.

iirc OUP style guide and fowler's says moses' (and jesus', odysseus', etc.) for "classical" names, but 's for modern names.

that's a ridiculous rule

The way I learned it was that you always put 's on the end, even if you have a name ending in 's'. It's definitely the more logical way to do it, although it's a bit awkward.

The Moses in my class is a good guy, but I'm not sure if he's ready yet to share a rule with Jesus and Odysseus.

Perhaps all people with names ending in "s" should just get the spanish possessive -- "Whose ball is this?" "Es de Jesus"

if the names ends in an 's,' but you can say it when apostrophized normally, go with the extra 's'.

Along those lines, I've heard that if the sound of the word ends with an S sound, don't put on an extra S. But if the word ends with an S, but doesn't sound like S (Arkansas, Des Moines, debris) all can have an 's.

Which is ridiculous. Our style where I work is no word with S on the end gets an 's.

ok i may have been misremembering. fowler's MEU says we wrote things like moses' "formerly" (i.e. before 1913) but it is now (ca. 1913) only retained in verse, which is why i probably associated it with "classical" names.

jesus and moses are basically an unknown first names in the uk. i do enjoy emailing my collaborator in tenerife, and beginning with "dear jesus".

iirc chicago style gives the same rule, or at least makes it permissible.

last night I saw the Seinfeld where Elaine trips over the possessive of "Onassis"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKlub5vB9z8

Should I use a conjunction or a disjunction when comparing a city to Sodom and Gomorrah?

While:

I’ve never been, but from my near-Puritanical Bostonian perspective, it’s Sodom and Gomorrah.

sounds correct. Sodom and Gomorrah were two separate cities. Therefore, isn’t:

I’ve never been, but from my near-Puritanical Bostonian perspective, it’s Sodom or Gomorrah.

correct?

Second one is correct, but you could get away with the first one. Sodom and Gomorrah are practically just like Winston-Salem or Raleigh-Durham.

I would go with the first one, for the reason pplains states - they are always quoted together.

Awesome. Thank you. :)

This is more of a grammar nerd, but is there a term for those clauses you always see in newspaper writing preceded by commas or en-dashes and starting with "who" or "which" -- "Johnson, who founded CreatiVest with two college friends in his Seattle Loft Apartment"? And also, if it omits the "who" or "which" is it still the same thing? "Skaarsgen, a massage therapist and artisinal donut maker" etc.?

iirc the first kind of clause is a relative clause, while the latter is an appositive

appositive is only if it's a nonrestrictive clause
if it's a restrictive clause that still omits the rel pronoun, i think it's called a dropped pronoun relative clause? something like that. they perform the same function, but one has a ghost function word/subordinator.

"[film] is a spin-off of [other film]" or "[film] is a spin-off from [other film]"?

first one seems correct but horribly clumsy

yeah I know ideally formulate it "[other film] spin-off [film]" but that won't work in this sentence

Of. Something can be "spun off from" but it can only be a spin-off OF.

Never had this mental image of an All In the Family carousel spinning out of control with Maude and the Jeffersons flying off out of its orbit.

agree with in orbit

film in "off of" foofaraw

i went with "spin-off of" in the end yeah