FOT Forum
FOT Community => Links => Topic started by: Josh on January 18, 2007, 07:33:37 PM
-
For Sarah and other fellow language sticklers (http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/57865).
-
Oh, my. I'll need to ration my reading, though; otherwise it will depress me more than it amuses me.
You might enjoy the Chicago Manual's site (http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/.), arcu, particularly this (http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/CMS_FAQ/new/new_questions01.html) page. I get a monthly e-mail alerting me to the latest round of questions and answers and promptly visit to bask in the company of my brethren and sistren.
What's sad is that even university presses are losing their grip on grammar (or at least their interest in enforcing its rules). I foresee a time when I will not be able to find work because I insist on correcting too many mistakes.
-
This is good, too, for kicking everyday word-choice errata:
http://wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html
~EmD
-
I just got a similarly inclined friend that illustrated edition (http://www.mairakalman.com/elements.html) of The Elements of Style. Jesse Thorn interviewed the illustrator, Maira Kalman, last March. It can be heard here (http://www.maximumfun.org/blog/2006/03/podcast-elements-of-style.html).
-
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/internet/01/22/grammar.girl/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/internet/01/22/grammar.girl/index.html)
"'Grammar Girl' a quick and dirty success" - cnn article.
I listened to the podcast, but I didn't like it.
Sarah - maybe you can start your own grammar gal podcast.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/internet/01/22/grammar.girl/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/internet/01/22/grammar.girl/index.html)
"'Grammar Girl' a quick and dirty success" - cnn article.
I listened to the podcast, but I didn't like it.
Sarah - maybe you can start your own grammar gal podcast.
I can imagine that her audience is 50% students trying to suck up to a high school English teacher and 50% students forced by a high school English teacher. Sarah, you would totally filet this woman, whose name is Mignon Fogarty.
Subscribe to my PUN A DAY podcast, soon to be the toast of CNN.
-
Jesus fucking Christ (as we grammarians often say), the possessive of "Thomas" is "Thomas's"!
I despair.
-
Is it?
I'm sure Cromer Road Primary School taught me it was proper to drop the second S and a quick search seems to back that up although I am steeling myself for a stern upbraiding.
"Singular possessive
The possessive form of a singular noun is an apostrophe followed by the letter "s."
Kramer's hair
Daphne's patience
the car's engine
Words ending with s, z or x generally omit the "s."
Dr. Seuss' sense of humor"
http://www.meredith.edu/grammar/plural.htm#Possessive
-
from The Elements of Style
Form the possessive singular of nouns by adding 's.
Follow this rule whatever the final consonant. Thus write,
Charles's friend
Burns's poems
the witch's malice
Exceptions are the possessives of ancient proper names ending -es and -is, the possessive Jesus', and such forms as for conscience' sake, for righteousness' sake. But such forms as Moses' Laws, Isis' temple are commonly replaced by
the laws of Moses
the temple of Isis
-
I think this clarifies it further. It all comes down to whether your a journalist or not.
5.26 Possessives of titles and names
The possessive of a title or name is formed by adding ’s {Lloyd’s of London’s records} {National Geographic Society’s headquarters} {Dun & Bradstreet’s rating}. This is so even when the word ends in a sibilant {Dickens’s novels} {Dow Jones’s money report}, unless the word itself is formed from a plural {General Motors’ current production rate} {Applied Materials’ financial statements}. But if a word ends in a sibilant, it is acceptable (especially in journalism) to use a final apostrophe without the additional s {Bill Gates’ testimony}.
http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/ch05/ch05_sec026.html
-
I'm a Chicago gal all the way. But, yes, it is more ambiguous than I had claimed, though I don't respect the alternatives, and they make me cringe.
-
Do you put a comma before "and" in a list or not (ex: lions, tigers, and bears OR lions, tigers and bears)? Once and for all.
-
Sadly, there is no hard-and-fast answer to this one, either. That said, however, in the US, serial commas (i.e., lions, tigers, and bears) are favored, whereas the Brits tend to leave them out. As far me, since omitting the serial comma can cause confusion, even if Chicago didn't favor them, I would.
For my next trick, if you like, I could explain the difference between restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses (the thorny "that vs. which" debate).
And, in conclusion, a little nicety that has always pleased me: "a lantern is hung from a tree," but "Saddam Hussein was hanged." (Apologies for the passive voice, of course.)
Thank you, thank you very much.
-
"For my next trick, if you like, I could explain the difference between restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses (the thorny "that vs. which" debate)."
Please do! I need to know why Word always underlines "which" in grammar check tells me to replace it with "that". I prefer to use 'which' over 'that', but usually end up changing it.
Thanks!
-
Okay, let's see if I can explain this. A restrictive clause is essential to the meaning of the sentence and is neither preceded nor followed by a comma; a nonrestrictive clause can be omitted from a sentence without fundamentally changing the meaning of the sentence and is both preceded and followed by a comma (unless of course it ends the sentence). Sticklers such as myself never use "which" restrictively. Consider the different flavors of the following: (1) "The Best Show podcast, which bookem_dan-o prepares, celebrated its first anniversary last week." (2) "The Best Show podcast that bookem_dan-o prepares is vastly superior to the one I put together, which does not exist." The thing to remember is that if a clause can be dropped without losing the information the sentence is meant to communicate, it is nonrestrictive, surrounded by commas, and introduced by "which." If the clause is vital to the meaning of the sentence, use "that" and no commas.
When you're the writer, you know what's restrictive and what isn't. When you're editing someone else's work, things can get tricky. For example, in "The Best Show podcast, which bookem_dan-o prepares, celebrated its first anniversary last week," the main message is that the podcast is a year old, and the fact that bookem_dan-o is responsible for it is secondary. If the sentence read instead, "The Best Show podcast that bookem_dan-o prepares celebrated its first anniversary last week," it would mean that another Best Show podcast, one not prepared by bookem_dan-o did not celebrate its first anniversary. If I came across ""The Best Show podcast which bookem_dan-o prepares celebrated its first anniversary last week," I would not be sure whether the second meaning was intended or the writer had simply omitted the all-important commas.
To complicate matters further, "which" may be used restrictively (this is more common in England). Thus, when you use "which" instead of "that," emily, you're not really making a mistake; you're just not following a usage that many people prefer. If I can tell that a writer is using "which" deliberately, as a matter of style, I will leave it or at least ask before changing it. In straightforward writing, however, I will always insist on the "that"/"which" distinction, because doing so makes for less ambiguity.
More than you bargained for?
-
You'll find a lot of superfluous nonrestrictive clauses in mid-century New Yorker pieces. If it's done too much, it creates what Tom Wolfe called a "whichy thicket."
This should really be a porn thread by now.
~EmD
-
Okay, let's see if I can explain this. A restrictive clause is essential to the meaning of the sentence and is neither preceded nor followed by a comma; a nonrestrictive clause can be omitted from a sentence without fundamentally changing the meaning of the sentence and is both preceded and followed by a comma (unless of course it ends the sentence). Sticklers such as myself never use "which" restrictively. Consider the different flavors of the following: (1) "The Best Show podcast, which bookem_dan-o prepares, celebrated its first anniversary last week." (2) "The Best Show podcast that bookem_dan-o prepares is vastly superior to the one I put together, which does not exist." The thing to remember is that if a clause can be dropped without losing the information the sentence is meant to communicate, it is nonrestrictive, surrounded by commas, and introduced by "which." If the clause is vital to the meaning of the sentence, use "that" and no commas.
When you're the writer, you know what's restrictive and what isn't. When you're editing someone else's work, things can get tricky. For example, in "The Best Show podcast, which bookem_dan-o prepares, celebrated its first anniversary last week," the main message is that the podcast is a year old, and the fact that bookem_dan-o is responsible for it is secondary. If the sentence read instead, "The Best Show podcast that bookem_dan-o prepares celebrated its first anniversary last week," it would mean that another Best Show podcast, one not prepared by bookem_dan-o did not celebrate its first anniversary. If I came across ""The Best Show podcast which bookem_dan-o prepares celebrated its first anniversary last week," I would not be sure whether the second meaning was intended or the writer had simply omitted the all-important commas.
To complicate matters further, "which" may be used restrictively (this is more common in England). Thus, when you use "which" instead of "that," emily, you're not really making a mistake; you're just not following a usage that many people prefer. If I can tell that a writer is using "which" deliberately, as a matter of style, I will leave it or at least ask before changing it. In straightforward writing, however, I will always insist on the "that"/"which" distinction, because doing so makes for less ambiguity.
More than you bargained for?
It's official. This is the greatest forum on the interweb.
-
This should really be a porn thread by now.
It is, in a way.
-
This should really be a porn thread by now.
It is, in a way.
Damn it, you beat me to it!
-
Thanks Sarah.
It took me a few reads, but I finally get it.
You have an impressive skill.
-
Small correction: I omitted a comma, now inserted in bold and red below.
"If the sentence read instead, 'The Best Show podcast that bookem_dan-o prepares celebrated its first anniversary last week,' it would mean that another Best Show podcast, one not prepared by bookem_dan-o, did not celebrate its first anniversary."
Emily, not so much--just years and years of practice.
Stan, you are either a very strange man or a very snide one. Or both, I suppose.
-
Sarah,
Would you please review capitalization rules for (book, song, etc.) titles? Specifically, are the words "from" and "with" capitalized in titles?
Bloke on Bloke: More From the William Bloke Sessions
or
Bloke on Bloke: More from the William Bloke Sessions
Brewing Up With Billy Bragg
or
Brewing Up with Billy Bragg
-
Billy Bragg! Funny you should use him in your examples. Near the end of a movie I watched last night (the somewhat entertaining Children of the Revolution), "Tender Comrade" turned up. Not one of my BB faves, but I'm always glad to hear him regardless.
On capping: Capitalize nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, and conjunctions other than "and," "but, "for," "or," and "nor." Lowercase articles, definite and indefinite, and prepositions except when they are stressed or, if you're working for Columbia, if they're two or more syllables long. Also lowercase "to" and "as" even when they're not acting as prepositions.
Thus Bloke on Bloke: More from the William Bloke Sessions and Brewing Up with Billy Bragg are correct.
Ta-da!
-
Is there an exception for short titles? I seem to remember that all words are capitalized if the title is only three words long. Thus, "Dancing With Myself" but "Living without Your Love". Correct?
-
Yes, there can be, depending on who's doing the capping. Sometimes a title just looks funny if something that is normally lowercased appears that way. And aesthetics also explain why Columbia caps two-syllable and longer prepositions.
-
Greetings Sarah!
I have a grammar question for you, if you don't mind.
Is it grammatically incorrect (or frowned upon) to end a sentence with "is", "in", or "to"?
For example, "That's where he said it is." or "Better to spend the time looking for something you'd be more interested in."
If it is incorrect, is there a name for this type of error?
Thanks a ton!
from,
emily
-
Is there a smoke-filled room where a secret cabal of grammarians devise new rules and throw old ones out the window? There is, isn't there? I know I've eschewed the whole ending-a-sentence-with-a-preposition ban for some years, and it looks like I've been vindicated (http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/words/prepositions.html) by this secret cabal of grammarians. Still, that doesn't stop text book manufacturers from including this absurd and arcane rule in English grammar lessons.
As for "is," I'm not sure. I'll let Sarah get back to you on that one.
-
It's perfectly okay to end a sentence with "is." The rule against dangling prepositions still exists, however, and purists enforce it religiously. It has relaxed a lot in recent years, though, and nowadays my choices are guided by the tone of whatever book I'm working on (or, as I should say, "on which I'm working"). If the style is very formal, no prepositions are allowed to dangle; more often, though, some will dangle and some won't, depending on the flow of the writing at that point in the text.
Bonus (unrequested) response: Though recently more and more people split infinitives, this is one rule I hardly ever transgress. Usually, if push comes to shove, I will rewrite rather than allow an infinitive to be split.
-
ok, cool. good to know. thanks laurie & sarah!
-
I wrote a short satiric speech for school about how the butchering of the English language is good. I even quoted Marky Ramone's use of the many negatives.
-
ha. that's cool. sounds like a fun read.
-
Bonus (unrequested) response: Though recently more and more people split infinitives, this is one rule I hardly ever transgress. Usually, if push comes to shove, I will rewrite rather than allow an infinitive to be split.
Yes, Sarah. However, at times, there can be a certain accoustically satisfying resonance to a negative adverb of frequency inserted into an infinitive. For example, when saying to a lying and cheating ex:
"I thought I told you to NEVER CALL me again."
-
Of course, jane. Rhythm and intent will sometimes demand that the infinitive be split. But mostly it's unnecessary. I, for example, think that "I thought I told you NEVER to call me again" works just fine. It's a matter of personal style.
-
Of course, jane. Rhythm and intent will sometimes demand that the infinitive be split. But mostly it's unnecessary. I, for example, think that "I thought I told you NEVER to call me again" works just fine. It's a matter of personal style.
And a matter of how much it hurts.
Also, http://www.d-e-f-i-n-i-t-e-l-y.com/
Finally, on the matter of acronyms, where do you land on the use of punctuation and capitalization?
N.F.L. or NFL or Nfl?
U.N.I.C.E.F. or UNICEF or Unicef?
-
Different stylesheets say different things.
Usually, UNICEF is preferred. U.N.I.C.E.F. is acceptable. U.N.I.C.E.F isn't, nor is UNICEF's if you're talking about more than one UNICEF.
Also, it's the '00s, not the 00's.
~EmD
-
In the latest Chicago Style Q&A (http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/home.html)--a fun and informative read to which I look forward every month--there was a link to a nice rant (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-schmich_16_jan16,0,5507465.column) on a subject dear to my heart. The author's grief struck even more of a chord than it normally would because I had just received an e-mail from an author who told me to feel free to use my "digression" when inputting his changes to my edits and because the author of my current project is a great fan of the yob's comma, the name for which I learned from Jason's fine Christmas present, Eats, Shoots and Leaves.
In a world where even so-called scholars/professionals have such a loose grasp of grammar, what place will there be for me? I'm a-scared.
-
Doesn't anybody want to be in my "Math is Cool!" club?
-
Hey dave. I used to be quite the mathlete, myself, back in high school.
See, that's how you have to sell it: mathletics. Watch the kids come running!
-
the author of my current project is a great fan of the yob's comma, the name for which I learned from Jason's fine Christmas present, Eats, Shoots and Leaves.
Yeah, it seems everyone and their dog ran out to buy Lynne Truss's book. It's seen as the last word on punctuation by so many people... except, maybe, this guy:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/06/28/040628crbo_books1
I think he makes some good points, namely, that she doesn't take her own advice when punctuating her writing, and that her own use of punctuation isn't consistent .
-
Yeah, I've noticed she often doesn't practice what she preaches. And I disagree with her on several points. But her book is a good bathtub read when I want something small and light. It gives me a chance to recover when my arthritic thumbs rebel against holding whatever 700-page tome I'm reading for pleasure at the moment. (I don't know why so many of the books I choose to read are so godawful long, though I think it may be because I dread having to choose the next one.)
P.S. Just read the article. I certainly agree that English punctuation tends to be more quixotic than its U.S. counterpart. There's a kind of laissez-faire attitude to punctuation and citation all over Europe, in fact. In Italy, for example, I was accused of having no soul because I want notes to refer to books that actually exist and just generally wanted things to make sense and be reasonably consistent, and there was a widespread feeling that the reason Americans cared so much about consistency is that they have no creativity and so focus their energies on the most basic building blocks.. And, more recently, I had to battle with a German author at some length about using a consistent format in citations. It was only when I explained that it was so readers wouldn't have to struggle to figure out where they could go to check sources, not because I'm a stubborn bitch who just wants her own way at all costs, that a light bulb clicked on above his head and he began to answer my questions.