ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

Yeah.

also "have" and "admired" are different tenses

"I admired the mountain, from whose east-facing slopes five corries had been ripped"

i like this but it's a bit much

"I admired the mountain, whose east-facing slopes had been badly brutalized by having five corries ripped unceremoniously from their rocky shoulders"

I admired the mountain, whose east-facing slopes had been brutalized when five corries were ripped unceremoniously from their rocky shoulders.

OK YES YES FINE

wtf is a corrie

i still think the admired part should go

xpost exactly. that's the real question

Hahaha I have to find out if I'm alone in this: any time someone on this thread is like "you should just remove that part," I wind up feeling like someone has an exaggerated sense of the power/importance of copyeditors in the universe -- is this just me? Do you UK broadsheet folks really have that level of leeway? Even doing jobs where I've felt like I have some of that power, it's like ... the "re-write it entirely" or "leave that part out" suggestions are always funny, like: well, if I were writing this I'd probably be getting paid more.

hmmm i hear ya nabisco but i think the admired part should go in another sentence, since the most important part of the sentence seems to be about these mysterious corries.

Sorry, I wasn't looking for a rewrite. I can recast the sentence - I was just trying to pinpoint the root of the problem. As hinted at by Tracer, I think it's that the sentence has the corries being ripped from both the mountain and its east-facing slopes.

"I admired the mountain, from whose east-facing slopes"

I am never sure about whether "whose" is OK for non-humans.

Nabisco - I think the job of the UK subeditor and the US copy editor are rather different, not least when it comes to power. Yes, you can rewrite things. If you work a tabloid, subbing wire copy, then it all has to be rewritten to a tight house style anyway.

A lot of the time you're cutting stuff right back to fit anyway, so just chopping out unclear sections kills two birds with one stone.

We often check major changes/cuts with the desk editor concerned, or the writer.

so what's a corrie

It's this thing.

"I admired the mountain, from which five corries had been ripped out of its east-facing slopes."

This is the only edit I would make.

(at least without knowing context)

no actually I lied:

"I admired the mountain; five corries had been ripped out of its eastern slopes."

The fact that the mountain was able to withstand having five corries ripped out of its east-facing slops made me admire it all the more.

(btw this is a corrie)

"I admired the mountain; five corries had been ripped out of its eastern slopes."

Is that not implying too heavily that the corrie-ripping was why you admired the mountain?

"I admired the mountain, from the east-facing slopes of which five corries had been ripped out"

(replacing 'whose')

Is that not implying too heavily that the corrie-ripping was why you admired the mountain?

Possibly. I mean, the assumption is that the corrie-ripping is part of the reason why you're admiring the mountain in the first place, otherwise why mention it?

I am with Que; put the corries in another sentence.

That's interesting. I reguarly leave such asides in sentences, rather than make them into new ones.

if you're going to leave an "aside" like that in the sentence, it's probably not a good idea to begin the sentence with it.

"I admired the mountain, pockmarked with five corries on its eastern slopes."

Alba I have the same queasiness over using "who" for non-humans too.

Who the fuck admires a mountain is what I want to know.

LOL I was just about to post that! I mean, what the hell did the mountain ever do that's so admirable? Give up some corries? Well, la-di-fucking-da!

admired visually, guys

MF admirer "to marvel at"

Admirable Mountain:
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y95/pauldoyle/Mountain-TheBestOfMountain-1973.jpg

Admiration! The mountain! Five corries — GONE!

The sentence I posted wasn't the actual one I was dealing with. I changed some words and truncated it, to protect the innocent.

"I admired Alfie, from which five barely pubescent sperm have been ripped out of his just-dropping nuts."

Please leave the classroom.

yeah I deserve a lot of scorn for that one

Ok, this one always seemed clear to me, but apparently some others in my area disagree. Paraphrasing:

- Your cancer risk will be half that of your father.
- Your cancer risk will be half that of your father's.

It seemed obvious to me that the first one was right. "That of" is possessive. "Your cancer risk will be half (the cancer risk of) your father."

The second statement seems to me to have a double possessive -- making it say, non-sensically, that you're half as likely to get cancer as your father's chance of getting cancer is of getting cancer.

Some people seem to have the opposite preference -- am I missing something here? Can you detect the reasoning behind the second way?

Your cancer risk will be half that of your father's (cancer risk.)

??

hahaha maybe i shouldn't post on this thread but they both read equally clumsy and horrible to me?

I'm with PP here; the assumption you're making re: the first instance doesn't scan for me.

I'm with Nabisco -- although the first one may sound odd, it doesn't make sense any other way.

in the first one it sounds like "your cancer risk is half of your father," which makes zero sense

I'm late to the pockmarked mountain game, but strongly advocate ". . . ripped from its eastern slopes" (instead of "out of").

also Mr. Que OTM. Second is correct.

"that of" is possessive, Que -- "your cancer risk is half (the cancer risk) of your father" ... since "that" = "cancer risk"

the second version has two possessives, so it breaks down like "your cancer risk will be half (the cancer risk) of your father's (cancer risk)" -- and abstract likelihoods never get cancer

"Your cancer risk will be half that of your father's (cancer risk.)"

^^ this seems like where the writers must be coming from, but then what is "that of" doing in this sentence anyway? if that were your goal, you could just say "your cancer risk will be half your father's," and only have one possessive

the double possessive would only make sense to me if something else were possessed -- "your dog's cancer risk will be half that of your father's (dog)"

"that" shouldn't even be there

your cancer risk will be half of your father's cancer risk

it's still horrible phrasing and should be rewritten ;)

I think maybe why the first one sounds weird is that this construction is usually phrased as "The cancer risk of Bob is half that of his father." No one would bat an eye at that, I'm guessing, but since we don't say things like "the cancer risk of you," we have to phrase it as "Your cancer risk" and suddenly we expect the "your" to have an obvious parallel on the other side. But it doesn't need one, since "that of" is doing the same work.

Haha yes yes, Que, we are in agreement on that last post! Either you use "that of" as the possessive or you use apostrophe-S as the possessive, but not both!

And yes, Jaymc is looking at this exactly as I am

okay you know that everyone under the sun is going to read "your dog's cancer risk will be half that of your father's" as "your dog's cancer risk will be half that of your father's (cancer risk)"

haha well sure, nobody would leave a grammatically implied "dog" in that sentence, but the example should still make sense