ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

My usual template when I'm not required to use a specific house style is probably something like:

Heading 1: Calibri 18, bold, flush left, in dark teal (RGB 0 51 102), half-point bottom border (probably black but I might get fancy and make the line also that same dark teal)

Body text: TNR 12, black, single spaced, 6 pts space after paragraph

Heading 2: Calibri 14, bold, black, flush left

Heading 3 if needed is TNR 12 bold italic, black, flush left

First-level bullet is round and black, indented 0 but with a hanging indent of .13 in (sorry not sorry, I think in inches)

Second-level is an en dash, indented .13 and hanging indent of .13

I think the result is clean and unfussy and strikes the right balance of modern and dignified, but your document may vary

excellent! thank you!

I am surprised and impressed at anyone choosing to use TNR. I have a massive typecase full of 12-pt TNR and I printed something with it once. I had to throw it away. It's a classic and I do not like to look at it.

I have customers who require it!

Colm Tóibín, LRB 27.1.2022, p.23:

I know it didn't happen only because I once asked McGahern about it - who, with some satisfaction, assured me that it was pure fiction.

If writing it, I'd probably have written:

I know it didn't happen only because I once asked McGahern about it, and with some satisfaction he assured me that it was pure fiction.

It's a classic and I do not like to look at it.

― Tim, Thursday, February 10, 2022

Great sentence.

but to refer to "it" why wouldn't you select the relative pronoun "which"? otherwise -- by the same (i think incorrect) logic -- doesn't "he" in yr rewrite would also refer to "it"?

in fact "who" -- bcz as a relative pronoun it refers to a person not a thing -- *has* to refer to mcgahern

i don't think toibin's is an especially great sentence: the dash seems, well, slapdash -- but a comma (tho correct) wd make the whole thing a moutfhul…

better might be to turn it into two sentences:

I know it didn't happen only because I once asked McGahern about it. He, with some satisfaction, assured me that it was pure fiction.

Indeed, "who" can't refer to "it", and isn't supposed to. I'm not for a moment saying that CT means it to. I just suggest that the structure of his sentence is bad because it implies this logic.

"I once asked Mark S about his piano, who told me that he had written an article about it for The Wire".

No.

"I once asked Mark S about his piano, and he told me that he had written an article about it for The Wire".

no dash, bracket everything after dash, no commas in brackets

i wouldn't read the sentence you propose and assume the piano had thoughts to be honest pinefox

like surely there's a space for general inference?

i think pf's point is that this level of fine dining the structure shdn't even be giving readers reason to giggle unkindly -- it's less that the meaning can fairly be taken wrong (it can't), and more that unfair ppl have been given a very brief beat within the structure where they can imagine themselves poking fun, and a less slack writer wouldn't give them this leeway

I don't think this is quite correct as a sentence.

It depends on how one measures correctness. Tóibín employs more than one clue to guide his reader to the interpretation he wishes them to make.

First, the referent of "it" is not a person, but an event. A "who" is a much better fit for a person, while a "which" is a much better fit for an event. This is a very distinct fingerpost pointing toward McGahern as the intended "who". Next, he separates "it" from "who" with a dash, which is an informal method of punctuation in this situation, implying a greater implied distance between them, as if he were purposely telling the reader not to connect them. Lastly, his tone is informal and conversational, so the application of strict editorial formality is inapt.

lol yeah we got this aimless

That's uncalled for, is no-one else allowed to join in this discussion?

he was just broadcasting his merriment at... something

I once asked Mark S about his piano, who had written an article about it for The Wire.

I once asked Mark S about his sister, who had written an article about it for The Wire.

What could “it” refer to in the second sentence, or am I missing the point?

Anyway, I suppose I see sentence structure as a means to the end of comprehension, rather than a set of unbreakable Latin-like rules. It being a dash rather than a comma does make a difference, I think.

x-post: it me

Alba: in the 2nd sentence it would have to refer to an object previously named.

I admit that this, possibly, makes the two sentences less directly comparable than they might otherwise seem.

Nonetheless, I think that the two sentences together may do something to demonstrate how bad the first one is.

It is very often possible to decipher the intended meaning of a sentence, even if the sentence is bad, but this doesn't mean the sentence is good, or should be allowed into print by editors.

“Decipher” implies difficulty though. I don’t think there was any difficulty.

If there was for you, then I may have to reconsider my opinion, or at least put it to a focus group.

i think pinefox made a tactical error in his first citation, by not also including what the "it" refers to: which is not a piano* but an argument about northern ireland

it's possible that the sentence does feel more wrong -- or just uglier -- if you have this fact in mind as you say "it"; and that it feels less wrong when all that's present is just the little, easily emptied, easily jumped-over phrase "about it" (easily emptied bcz no referent is supplied as quoted above)

hard to say: pf arrived with the relevant info in mind, we (in responding) didn't have it until we went and looked it up (which i just did)

i still basically don't think the quoted sentence is *wrong* per se -- it's something you might easily speak (because the more formally correct way of writing it seems stilted when speaking) so it's can't entirely be wrong to write. but it is certainly non-ideal in the fancyschmancy context of the LRB, which is abt STANDARDS, and i wd certainly have wanted to rejig it (bcz i think the the more formally correct ways of writing it, pf's or preferably mine, with two sentences, hammer home better what the LRB is supposed to be about lol)

*a piano isn't a terrific substitute bcz it's too easy to imagine contexts where "who" *could* refer to a piano -- like a children's book for example, where a piano is maybe a character not just some furniture: i think this specific caveat is harder to apply to an argument about northern ireland, which remains stubbornly more thing-ish

(adding: when a.n.other ilxor and i were wondering off-board what the problem was that pf was getting at, we both miscued it totally, thinking it was about the difference in sense between when you cordon off "in some satisfaction" with commas vs when you don't)

when a.n.other ilxor and i were wondering off-board what the problem was that pf was getting at

technically it was a webinar

Yes. Exciting news.

I'm not certain that "If you might say it, then it's acceptable in writing" is true. I'm pretty certain that "If you might say it, then it's good enough for the LRB" is false - and Mark S seems to agree with that. But, further, I don't think I would say these things (the sentences that I find bad) aloud anyway.

It's true that the original LRB example is different from my then invented example about Mark S. But still:

I once asked Mark S about his piano, who had written an article about it for The Wire.

I would be amazed if the editor of a publication allowed this through - and indeed I would be disappointed if a writer submitted it. (People too often complain nowadays about a lack of editors: writers have responsibilities too.) I'm a bit surprised if Alba, who I believe has an extensive background in journalism, thinks it is OK - for a publication rather than a sentence uttered over your 4th pint.

Objectively, it may be said that Tóibín's piece met the editorial standards of the LRB, because an LRB editor passed on it.

I don't know about that. Surely an individual may fail to meet or enforce the standards of the institution that employs them?

Rare is the copy without error.

This is not America. This is not what America does.

I don't know about that. Surely an individual may fail to meet or enforce the standards of the institution that employs them?

Hey, hey, LRB, how many rules did you break, Tóibín?

are editors agents of fascism as a rule

I've realised I'm totally a pinefox when it comes to other things. Like, I can't stand to see something like "anti-money laundering measures" because the hyphen is only attached to one of the two words, so it reads like it means laundering operations against money. Even though normal people's brains will see "money laundering" as a unit and not make a problem of this. But I'd always rather "anti-money-laundering operations".

It’s been a hot minute since I did this, but isn’t an en-dash used where you have a multi-word construction that needs to be hyphenated? Or is that super–old school?

no school older

Hardcore, that is what I learned as well.

Possibly discussed before (and I wonder if I once read this in a Guardian Style Guide) ... but shouldn't "impacted" only be used about ... teeth??

Like most "should/shouldn't" formulations, it depends entirely on the circumstances. If you are writing an article or news story in the Guardian, then by all means, follow their Style Guide's guidance. In casual conversation or writing, not so much.

Thanks Aimless. It's not in the context of the Guardian ... it's just one of those words that has stuck in my head as "don't use it".

ftr, it's not weird that you thought that: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/yes-impact-is-a-verb

impact has been used as a verb for hundreds of years and it's totally fine to use it and not just of teeth

not only is it entirely normal on english for nouns to become verbs (and vice versa)*, it's also good (it's a root of english poetic effect)

*in this instance impact was a verb before it was a noun and that's also normal and good

Yes for me the only should/shouldn't opinion that matters is the opinion of the person approving my invoice, approving my timesheet, or signing my paycheck.

Like almost every professional word-using person I have aesthetic opinions about usage. They don't rise to normative or moral judgments. They are matters of taste; de gustibus etc.

When I work for people who have strong views on usage, I adhere to their views. Because that is how I pay my fricking mortgage.

Okay about “impact” as a verb but what about the knotweed that is “impactful”?

it has a decipherable meaning so it is a word. but some words cannot be admitted into polite company, such as the dictionary, or used in any form of writing, with the possible exception of emails sent by one marketer to another.

I don't see much problem with that adjective.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/impactful-is-a-real-word

there's nothing wrong with it at all obviously