ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

Unless it's academic writing, and it allows you to make a terrible pun somehow.

Proper, maybe. But it should be pointed out that if you're having to cram this into your sentence, you;re writing a clumsy sentence, and you should probably drop back and punt.

hyphens
Our style is to use one word wherever possible, including some instances where a word might be hyphenated by other publications. Hyphens tend to clutter up text (particularly when the computer breaks already hyphenated words at the end of lines)

Inventions, ideas and new concepts often begin life as two words, then become hyphenated, before finally becoming accepted as one word. Why wait? "Wire-less" and "down-stairs" were once hyphenated. In pursuit of this it is preferable to go further than Collins does in many cases: eg trenchcoat is two words in Collins but one under our style

Never use hyphens after adverbs, eg politically naive, wholly owned. But do use them to form compound adjectives, eg two-tonne vessel, three-year deal

Do use hyphens where not using one would be ambiguous, eg to distinguish "black-cab drivers come under attack" from "black cab-drivers come under attack"

Tracer, I read this as advocating the phrase "fact-checking" as a verb (sorry, should have made that clear) so thanks were in order!

assuming i only have one brother, would it be acceptable to write, "I went with my brother Isaac to the store" or do i have to write, "I went with my brother, Isaac, to the store" ?

for some reason i am under the impression that non-essential info can be stuck in without commas as long as it is only one or two words. but apparently, this is wrong?

(fun with nonessential elements)

'I went to the store with my brother Isaac.'

The evidence for “Americanization” of French culture is mixed, and its extent is impossible to measure, as culture is not easily definable, let alone quantifiable.

Please can you help me arrange it so it sounds better. Most importantly I need a more essay-register way of saying "let alone", but the whole sentence seems really clumsy still and I don't know how to fix it.

I hope there's someone around who can help. My head hurts.

Culture is not easily definable, much less quantifiable. Thus, not only is the evidence for "Americanization" of French culture mixed, but its actual extent is impossible to measure.

?

the "not only/but" thing is unnecessary

Thanks all.

I just finished my essay, wahey!!

I've decided to switch from a Jan 27, 1997 format to a 27 Jan 1997 format for dates because eliminating the extra comma helps the readability of some of my nastier sentences.

Here it is: "Although there are many different types of HLA proteins, each person has only a small, relatively unique set that is inherited from their parents."

Thanks much. And, uh, I'm on deadline, so hurry up!

Although there are many different types of HLA proteins, individuals inherit from their parents only a small and relatively unique subset.

etc.

"Although many different types of HLA proteins exist, each person inherits only a small, realtively unique set."

.. not sure if that meaning is accurate or not. You may want to clarify the sentence in that .. is only the inherited set small, or is the total set small?

You don't have to be a grammar/usage nazi to object to torture in all its forms, including wrt the language.

Also, I want to kill the person who prompted Andrew's initial post.

So, any thoughts on "relatively unique?" Oh shit I'm an idiot, I just realized that is a great pun! Maybe I should keep it, then.

It's grammatical enough, and "occasioned" is certainly an accepted word, so I'd say 'yes' to your question.

this usage is uncontroversially fine: if i was bored or being testy as an acitivist sub editor i might switch in "saw" or "led to" depending on context (context = nature of nearby sentences acc my picky sub self lol) viz "the publication of X saw the first use of some new word"/"the publication of X led to the first use of some new word"

gloss: if "occasioned" maybe possibly presents a micro-speedbump for a reader, i think "saw" presents none, while "led to" perhaps implies the fact you note, that the new word arrives a little later than X…

you might also use "prompted"

but your sentence is fine as is imo

Yeah, I think "occasioned" there is a little overwritten and that with a little bit of effort "led to" would be much more readable.

saw (a young person) referred to as a 'third-generation holocaust survivor'

obviously the topic is fraught, but it seems like there should be a better way to describe someone whose grandparents survived the camps

A completely uncontroversial way to say that would be "a grandchild of Holocaust survivors."

And while - as mòokieproof says - it is fraught, it does seem a bit much to imply that you "survived" an event that you did not personally experience.

I am not, personally, a survivor of the Visigothic Sack of Rome, the Protestant Reformation, the Irish Potato Famine, the Trail of Tears, the American Revolution, the Civil War, or school desegregation.

Maybe (stretching this quite a bit) I have experienced some personal effects from the Cold War and/or the Vietnam War due to my parents' participation in them, but calling myself a "survivor" seems more like stolen valor than empathy and solidarity.