ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

post wins vs. posting i'd think

I don't like blog as a verb, myself, but I'm not sure what else to use

You'd have to add words, basically, so that "he blogs about the election" becomes "he maintains a blog about the election" or "he covers the election on his blog" or similar ...

I think the issue with this isn't linguistic so much as, like, philosophical -- i.e., do you really think of blogging as a form of writing that just happens to be done on a blog, or do you think of blogging as a distinct activity that is functionally different from, e.g., "she writes about the issue on her blog." I like blogging as a verb because I think it really is a distinct activity in a distinct context, and it's nice to have a word that captures that.

Considering 'blog' is a recently made-up word, it probably doesn't matter.

Cf. "journal" as a verb.

do you really think of blogging as a form of writing

no.

which is right?

The ___ project was conceived in the late 1980s as a “multimedia-based ___ experience,”

or

The ___ project was conceived of in the late 1980s as a “multimedia-based ___ experience,”

the latter seems correct but also awkward, i guess because it's in passive voice? i can't just say it was conceived, right, because it means baby-makin'?

____s are specific details i took out for no particular reason

Whether you can conceive an idea is perhaps debatable, although I would argue that #1 is totally legit.

#2, however, is a big NO NO NONO BOXCAR to me.

why not rephrase it?

there isn't really a group or person listed as having created the project, so can't really shift it into active tense

transpose to: 'proposed', or perhaps 'initiated'

yeah that'll work fine. i typed "intitiated" at first

I don't see that second one as quite the calamity Laurel does -- it was conceived of in the late 80s, no big. (There's nothing particularly wrong or unusual about winding UP WITH two prepositions in a row, and I'm not sure who'd balk at, say, "the project was dreamed UP IN the late 80s" or whatever) -- in any case the easier rewriting route for avoiding it would be just changing the verb

xpost AND THAT WAS DONE, HOORAY

xp Is what you're objecting to the two prepositions next to each other ("of in")? I wouldn't say that's wrong per se, just not totally elegant.

yeah, it just read awkwardly, then i got confused about whether "conceived" was ok instead of "conceived of" or if i was saying something dirty by accident

Weren't we just talking a while ago about how the double prepositions thing is so American, that it sounds really weird to British-Englishers?

What about Churchill's famous retort "This is the kind of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put"? Or are you going to claim it's because his mom was American?

That is kind of a problematic example, though, obviously.

But I can't say I've ever noticed British writers avoiding any of the many, many situations in which that comes up quite normally.

(Okay how is this the one time on ILX where we don't have British people rushing in to go on about their linguistic habits?)

It's 10:30 their time; give people a chance to get back from the pub!

I don't know, I just remember people saying it was crazy, it must be American.

Wait, inadvertent proof there: Brits would totally say "go on about"

Ha, I assumed "in to go on about" was intentional.

("in to" was, "on about" was, as they say, accident-gravy)

aren't you that nabisco off of the internet?

(this was incredibly common in the north-west of england, where i grew up; so much so that i remember arguing with a friend who swore blind it was the correct usage, eg "that fuckin' twat off of the telly -- what a fuckin' twat!"

for mildly comedic riffing on the theme, check out any issue of Viz comic; the current one has something about "so-and-so off of out of something-or-other". of course, it's arguable that "off" isn't prepositional here but adjectival ... anyway.)

(Okay how is this the one time on ILX where we don't have British people rushing in to go on about their linguistic habits?)

― nabisco, Friday, 26 September 2008 07:27 (18 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Americans are the weird ones in the English-speaking world. What you call 'British' rules are in fact followed by every country outside north America where English is the primary language.

... he said, proving my point

lol, you have failed the .xls test

oh shit, right

aren't you that nabisco off of the internet?

Actually, this one bugs me to no end. The "of" here is strictly unnecessary.

Haha, I should've read the rest of your post!

the population of the United States and Canada is four times larger than the population of the UK and Australia, and the primary english-speaking population of the US is about twice as large as the primary english-speaking population of the rest of the world, thanks for playing, next

FIN

All superfluous prepositions get up my arse, e.g.: 'His artificial leg prevented him from jumping.'What the FUCK is the word 'from' doing there??

xp Thanks for the shallow elitism gabbneb, much appreciated.

"Out of" is a Britishism, right? As in "so-and-so out of EastEnders"?

It's slang, though. I doubt any language reference anywhere would submit that as correct usage.

'His artificial leg prevented him from jumping.'What the FUCK is the word 'from' doing there??

this is the same shit that prevents y'all from understanding that "different to" is simply rong.

Umm I really don't think this argument is necessary, the only thing that quoted bit of mine asserted is that when we start talking about Brit vs. American usage there kinda tend to be British people around and it tends to become a 600-post long thing, which I'm not sure anyone here would dispute and seems to be happening anyway even despite the absence of a bunch of British folk

xpost "His artificial leg prevented HIS jumping" is how we would phrase that if we wanted to excise the "from," since "his jumping" can function as a noun and "him jumping" does not function that way for us. Doesn't much matter, I suppose. Although I think we preserve the preposition in that role because, umm, in a great deal of cases it quite clearly matters, as British usage recognizes in the cases where its used: i.e., we'll both say cheese is different FROM/TO milk, because it means something else to say "it's different milk." (Permit me a moment of American snark in noting that at least we have decided on which preposition goes with "different.")

But so I actually think a lot of US/UK usage divides come down to something along those lines -- e.g., if something OFTEN has a function we will include it in a logical system and use it, whereas the UK seems more likely to omit something except when its function is significant. Like serial commas, which the UK uses WHEN they're important, and we use BECAUSE they're important, if that makes sense. Like we'll ADOPT a rule, and the UK will APPLY a rule when needed.

what nabisco said

Although I think we preserve the preposition in that role because, umm, in a great deal of cases it quite clearly matters

I think in this specific situation, it depends on whether you want to emphasize "him" or "jumping" as the object of "prevented."

Well it prevented HIM from jumping, it didn't prevent jumping in the abstract. But you see that omission in Brit English plenty and it's fairly clear and strikes my American ears as a nice bit of regional color, so I don't much care about it...

You just don't know the power of that artificial leg.

those are some sensitive muggers

Well it prevented HIM from jumping, it didn't prevent jumping in the abstract.

It's more like whether it prevented HIM from jumping vs. it prevented him from JUMPING (i.e., "his jumping").

To respond to your point, nabisco: What you're calling 'UK usage' and 'Brit English' is in fact what most of the world uses. That's the point I was making. Anyway, carry on.

What you're calling 'UK usage' and 'Brit English' is in fact what most of the world uses

RONG

1. That is such a tiresomely pedantic point that I'm tempted to respond to it by pointing out that "most of the world" does not use English at all

2. Part of what makes it tiresomely pedantic is that I'm fairly sure you will never in your life refer to British usage as "British / Australian / New Zealand / some Indian / Nigerian / Falklands / ... and on and on and on" usage because IT'D TAKE FOREVER (and anyway each of those places have their own variances)

3. The main part of what makes it tiresomely pedantic is that it's called British usage because this alleged "most of the world" that uses it was colonized by Britain, in about the same way that Americans like me use the "English" language despite totally not living in England

Haha I honestly don't know if they use serial commas in Liberia or the Phillippines

It's not tiresomely pedantic at all, but you make good points.

Speaking of pedantry, by 'most of the world' obviously I mean most of the world in which English is the primary language. Various countries that were protected/invaded/colonised by the US use US English, e.g. The Philippines, but generally English takes a back seat in such places anyway.

This will all be meaningless within a few generations, really -- I'm sure by then we'll be talking about British usage, American usage, and Indian usage

Ahahahahaha. I love how Indian English has created new words that make perfect grammatical sense (e.g. upgradation) but sound enormously out of place to us.