ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

i'm going to make all my posts in block quotes from now on

it'll like be my thing

Came across this at work: "non-EU-member Switzerland."

My initial thought was that it should be "non-EU member Switzerland" since no one would write "EU-member Switzerland" (i.e., with the hyphen).

But then it struck me that "non-EU member" is a really weird phrase. Because ordinarily you'd parse that as "What kind of a member is Switzerland? A non-EU member" -- when in fact Switzerland is not a member of anything at all. It's not a member of the non-EU, it's a nonmember of the EU. But "EU nonmember Switzerland" gets approximately 0.07% the number of Google hits as "non-EU member Switzerland."

So I sort of feel like I get why someone wrote "non-EU-member" was used -- to keep the "member" closer to "non." I'm still not sure it works, though.

Haha, ignore obvious fuck-up in my second-to-last sentence.

I would deploy an en-dash on this one

i.e., "non(1/N)EU member" handily indicates that what Switzerland is not is the full unit "EU member"

Oh shit, you're right. I don't know why that didn't occur to me.

*Seethes with envy once again at awesome en-dash convention the UK just doesn't have*

Should the slangy contraction "'em" be capitalized in a title? For example, should it be "Make 'em Say Ooh" or "Make 'Em Say Ooh"? I'm thinking the former.

Hang 'Em High looks better to me than Hang 'em High.

CMOS gives no advice on this that I can find, and I have no answer myself, although my inclination is that the apostrophe itself, since it represents dropped letters, might also represent the capitalization of non-included letters; capping the E seems weird to me because it's not the beginning of a word to be capitalized

(note: okay, sure, I would not follow that logic at the beginning of a title, but that's different)

That was my thinking, that the capitalized T in "them" is dropped, so the "e" isn't capitalized. I could go either way, though.

(btw I'm only posting with capitalization out of respect for this thread)

A quick survey suggests that my workplace capitalizes them:

George Gershwin's "When You Want 'Em You Can't Get 'Em (When You've Got 'Em You Don't Want 'Em)"
The film Give 'Em Hell, Harry!
The film Hang 'Em High
The film Keep 'Em Flying
The Singin' in the Rain song "Make 'Em Laugh"

Springsteen's "Bring 'Em Home"

'Er Indoors

Ok, will capitalize, thanks.

Although I guess I should point out that there's no style rule on the books and the capitalization on those may simply be a result of various copy editors independently saying "looks right to me."

Okay I am helping do some community newsletter. Submitters always find some amazing next level uses of passive voice. This is today's little riddle of a sentence:

A free-will donation will be received.

How can I rework this to have it make sense but still retain some of her desired timidity?

"attendees may feel free to make donations", or "we will be accepting donations" or something?

Donations are voluntary but greatly appreciated.

GIve us the fockin' money.

^ Keep the cap I for extra unhinged value, too.

"For a minute or two, a young couple - early twenties - were walking beside me."

Should that be "was walking"? I feel it should be, but it doesn't quite sound right...

economist style guide seems to make sense on this:

There is no firm rule about the number of a verb governed by a singular collective noun. It is best to go by the sense—that is, whether the collective noun stands for a single entity (The council was elected in March, The me generation has run its course, The staff is loyal) or for its constituents: (The council are at sixes and sevens, The preceding generation are all dead, The staff are at each other's throats). Do not, in any event, slavishly give all singular collective nouns singular verbs: The couple have a baby boy is preferable to The couple has a baby boy.Indeed, in general, treat both a pair and a couple as plural.

Thanks for that, joe, I think I'll keep the "were". (Although it's supposed to be American English and I have a feeling Americans are less inclined to pluralise collective nouns.)

Putting "Twenties" before it subliminally makes the reader expect "were".

uh i'd totally go w/ "was" there

How does ILX come down on "however" at the beginning of a sentence? Yea or nay?

Yeah, I would go with "was" there, too, although I get the impression the UK is more lenient about this.

How does ILX come down on "however" at the beginning of a sentence? Yea or nay?

I'm totally cool with it, and I'm not sure why some people tend to avoid it, unless it's just a sentence variety thing.

Depends. If it's something that should have been in the previous sentence: "I would have done that, however circumstances prevented me" then no.

If it's something that qualifies something in the sentence: "However bad things may get" then yes.

^ agreed (I think you meant to say "I would have done that. However, circumstances.." in your example)

My 10th-grade English teacher taught us to always bring "however" into the middle of the sentence, i.e. "Circumstances, however, prevented me from..."

"In this document we will examine bla bla bla" - should this be "shall"? Never been very clear on the difference.

(Yes, the whole construction is slightly icky. I don't think I can escape it altogether, but alternatives gratefully considered. I hate writing this kind of thing but someone told me to turn their bullet points into full sentences for the introductory waffle)

Thanks!

I'd use 'will' with 'we'.

But 'shall' with 'I'.

Not entirely sure why, though.

I don't think there's a set rule about "shall" vs. "will," but for me "shall" carries the connotation of "should AND will."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shall_and_will

From that Wikipedia article:

1653 Grammatica Linguae Anglicanae stated "The rule is... to express a future event without emotional overtones, one should say I shall, we shall, but you/he/she/they will; conversely, for emphasis, willfulness, or insistence, one should say I/we will, but you/he/she/they shall".

Oh Englishpaws! Thanks everyone.

I think starting a sentence with however is fine, especially if the previous statement is really long. It works well for emphasis. If it's short, like Andy's example, it makes more sense for it to be one sentence.

I've always used shall after I and we, and will after he, they and you. I have no idea where this came from, though. Am I the only one? If so, I may drop the charade.

think starting a sentence with however is fine,

Yeah, gotta be really. This from the more or less amusing King's English by Amis -

Custom has decreed that however should not come first in a sentence. When it does come it tends to throw an emphasis on the immediately preceding word or phrase which is very likely not wanted and may be a nuisance. If it is put first nothing much seems to go wrong, and surely one would rather write or read:

Tomorrow I go on holiday for a couple of weeks. However, I will telephone you as soon as I can after I get back,

than either:

Tomorrow ... weeks. I will, however, telephone you ...

or

Tomorrow ... weeks. I will telephone you as soon as I can after I get back, however.

To some tastes, however, advantageously placed (as here) or not, however will inevitably seem a little pompous. Why not go all the way in that direction and begin with a plonking nevertheless, or some way in the other and write anyway or still?

I was going to say that this addresses the issue, but actually, I haven't got a clue what he's on about - I've got a dreadful hangover, but that seems to read like some sort of verbal Escher painting. Or maybe I'm just in that state I sometimes get where simple popular detective stories and the like seem, on a stylistic level, insurmountably complex, meaning to be almost permanently deferred in even the most simple looking sentences.

Yet another self-defeating post, way to go Gamaliel.

Tomorrow ... weeks. I will, however, telephone you ...

confusing

Tomorrow ... weeks. I will telephone you as soon as I can after I get back, however.

not needed

I'm actually really partial to putting the "however" in that second spot -- "I will, however, phone you"

Whatever syntactical thing that relies on isn't that uncommon, to be honest -- I think plenty of people are fine with constructions like

They said they would. As it turns out, though, they didn't.

wordy

NB in the Saunders' English, it would be:

What I will do however is that I will phone you.

(that's a better description than confusing and refers to the Amis example, not yr example nabisco)

ha ha i was just talking about/thinking about saunders' syntax

Back to will and shall:

Is it just me, or is "will" stronger than "shall"? I use will a lot more in the I will do blah blah blah, but maybe that's partly a professional language thing.

yeah isnt that what whoever upthread said? "shall" seems to have a sort of dutiful connotation while "will" seems much more emotional

Help me think this one through:

"...pertains to students who have completed high school and are 18 years and over as of July 1"
vs.
"...pertains to students who have completed high school and are 18 years or over as of July 1"

My instinct is to go with "or" because the two requirements to be met are considered for each individual student, not en masse. Each student can be either 18 or over 18, but not both. But with "students" as a plural, it still feels awfully slippery.

Can you just say "over 18" and not worry about any students who are celebrating their 18th birthday on 1st July?

Or "...are over 18 as of July 2"?