My father-in-law, a copy curmudgeon of a higher order than I, and a sports fan of a higher or-- ... wait, I need only say "a sports fan" because I'm not a sports fan of any order -- requested that I address an apparently common phrase among sportswriters: "back-to-back-to-back" (as in "back-to-back-to-back games" or "back-to-back-to-back victories").
I correctly guessed that this means "three consecutive," but you don't need to be a word nerd to realize that the phrase does not make sense, if you really think about it. If the first two things are back to back, there's no back for the third thing to back up to. As my father-in-law says, "There's no figure in that figure of speech."
Another remark -- this one from a sportscaster my husband heard on the radio -- that smacks of too many knocks to the head on the gridiron: "one-game winning streak." I'm without words.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Party at the Conklins'!
No, we're not really having a party. Not anytime soon, anyway. But I got your attention, right?
I promised a post on using both the plural and the possessive with surnames. And you've waited with bated breath. So here it is. Now, why does the title of this post have s' at the end?
First of all, it's plural. Hence the "s." There are three of us Conklins (four if you include the dog). One Conklin; four Conklins. (Please see my previous post for more on this.)
Second, it's possessive. Hence the apostrophe. "How is it possessive?" you might ask. "There's nothing after Conklins' to show what they possess." True. But what is implied is that the party is at the Conklins' house, which they in fact possess (or possess in part, anyway -- the bank that owns the majority of it rarely holds parties there. Having too much fun crunching numbers, I guess. Or counting their (our) money.).
So, are we clear? The only time you need an apostrophe with your surname is to show possession, as above. Although, come to think of it, you could also use an apostrophe to make a surname a contraction: That Conklin's a genius. In which case the apostrophe comes before the "s" because you're talking about only one of the Conklins (the dog, of course). Let's just not use that one too often, OK?
I promised a post on using both the plural and the possessive with surnames. And you've waited with bated breath. So here it is. Now, why does the title of this post have s' at the end?
First of all, it's plural. Hence the "s." There are three of us Conklins (four if you include the dog). One Conklin; four Conklins. (Please see my previous post for more on this.)
Second, it's possessive. Hence the apostrophe. "How is it possessive?" you might ask. "There's nothing after Conklins' to show what they possess." True. But what is implied is that the party is at the Conklins' house, which they in fact possess (or possess in part, anyway -- the bank that owns the majority of it rarely holds parties there. Having too much fun crunching numbers, I guess. Or counting their (our) money.).
So, are we clear? The only time you need an apostrophe with your surname is to show possession, as above. Although, come to think of it, you could also use an apostrophe to make a surname a contraction: That Conklin's a genius. In which case the apostrophe comes before the "s" because you're talking about only one of the Conklins (the dog, of course). Let's just not use that one too often, OK?
Monday, January 2, 2012
Happy holidays from the Jones'? Jone's? Joneses?
I realize I'm a little late in having this be a timely post, but I was reminded several times during the season that the plural form of family names is still a sticking point for most people (even if they don't know it).
Much like the grocer's apostrophe (seen in signs like "Apple's on sale!"), the plural-surname apostrophe often makes an appearance when it should not. Since we're simply talking plural here (not possessive or contraction), there's no need for an apostrophe.
If you have a name like Conklin, it's easy: you simply add an "s" to make it plural, just as you would with apple, chair or dog. Happy holidays from the Conklins. No apostrophe needed.
But what if your name is Morris or Jones? These already end in "s." Well, what would you do with the word glass to make it plural? Add "es," right? Same here. Happy holidays* from the Morrises and Joneses. Look funny? You'll get used to it.
Of course, you could avoid this issue altogether by printing "... from the Jones family." There's always a way out.
Up next: What to do if you want to make it plural and possessive.
* I have intentionally left "holidays" lowercase. Unless the second word is a proper noun (as in "Merry Christmas"), I don't see a reason for capping it. Same with "Happy birthday." Just my two cents.
Much like the grocer's apostrophe (seen in signs like "Apple's on sale!"), the plural-surname apostrophe often makes an appearance when it should not. Since we're simply talking plural here (not possessive or contraction), there's no need for an apostrophe.
If you have a name like Conklin, it's easy: you simply add an "s" to make it plural, just as you would with apple, chair or dog. Happy holidays from the Conklins. No apostrophe needed.
But what if your name is Morris or Jones? These already end in "s." Well, what would you do with the word glass to make it plural? Add "es," right? Same here. Happy holidays* from the Morrises and Joneses. Look funny? You'll get used to it.
Of course, you could avoid this issue altogether by printing "... from the Jones family." There's always a way out.
Up next: What to do if you want to make it plural and possessive.
* I have intentionally left "holidays" lowercase. Unless the second word is a proper noun (as in "Merry Christmas"), I don't see a reason for capping it. Same with "Happy birthday." Just my two cents.
Friday, December 16, 2011
We will not be replaced, AP ...
Anytime I see something about automated editing of any kind (including spelling and grammar checkers), I bristle. These tools may be helpful to a point, but they will never replace the keen eye and mind of a person experienced in editing. And, no, I'm not saying this because I need a job; I'm saying it because it's true. Take a look. Would you have confidence in this product? (Red markings and bold mine.) New AP StyleGuard offers automated style checking in Word |
 |
AP StyleGuard, powered by Equiom Linquistic Labs, is a powerful yet easy solution that integrates with Microsoft Word and provides automatic checking of your documents for AP style. Using defined structure and rules similar to Word's spelling and grammar checking, AP StyleGuard helps ensure the consistency of your writing style. It saves the time of manually referring to the AP Stylebook and offers recommendations on items you might not have realized are covered by AP style. No matter what type of writing you do, you can rest assured that AP StyleGuard helps you stay on top of all the current spelling, grammar, punctuation and usage guidelines from the journalist's bible. So this "spelling, grammar, punctuation and usage" tool wasn't able to help with spelling Linguistic It's always good to be reminded that there is no substitute for a real live copy editor. Thank you, AP. |
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
"Unstopable" nonsense
As Joe Jackson would say, "You can read it in the Sunday paper ..." Yes, I'm dating myself by both quoting Joe Jackson and admitting that I still read the newspaper, but look at the fodder I get.
The coupon inserts from a couple of weeks ago (the only part of the ads I look at) included this gem:
OK, so where do I begin? The oxymoron? The assignment of a new part of speech? The missing -- no, wait, it's there in one place, so let's make that inconsistent -- hyphenation?
Well, let's start at the beginning. The name of the product: "Unstopables." No, not Unstoppables, which itself isn't even a word but at least makes more sense in the spelling department. (Unstoppable is a word, yes -- an adjective. By adding an "s" it becomes a made-up noun. See more on this below.)
I read "Unstopables" as un-STOPE-ah-bulls, because, as we all know, the double consonant following the vowel makes the vowel short (the AH sound), whereas just the one consonant makes the vowel long (the OH sound). What? You didn't know that? Well, shame on your English teacher.
Anyway, not only does the spelling not make sense, but also the name doesn't make sense. To me, anyway. This is a product that you add to your wash to "boost scent." In other words, to stop odor. But wait — this is called Unstopables. What is it unstoppable at? Boosting scent? Meaning it doesn't stop even after you remove the clothes from the washer? Is that even possible? (Or desirable?)
Whatever. Let's move on. "New & improved." Well, which is it? Is it new? Or is it just the original with some improvements? Can't be both. This is called an oxymoron. Like "controlled chaos" or "rap music."
Next: "Get a fresh too feisty to quit." A fresh. So now fresh is a noun? Oka-a-y... But a feisty fresh? Come on.
Underneath that: "An in wash scent booster ..." That should be "in-wash" -- and it is hyphenated on the actual product. Inconsistency. Real turn-off.
And to top it off ... why the French? At least this product also includes Spanish, which makes sense since probably the majority of Americans speak Spanish at this point. But French? So many products (especially in the personal-care category) include only the French translation, as if that makes them more desirable. "Oh, so the French use this moisturizer ... it must be really good!" And one of these days, when I learn French, it'll be fun to see how accurate the translation is.
Just what you wanted: A copy editor of multiple languages!
The coupon inserts from a couple of weeks ago (the only part of the ads I look at) included this gem:
OK, so where do I begin? The oxymoron? The assignment of a new part of speech? The missing -- no, wait, it's there in one place, so let's make that inconsistent -- hyphenation?
Well, let's start at the beginning. The name of the product: "Unstopables." No, not Unstoppables, which itself isn't even a word but at least makes more sense in the spelling department. (Unstoppable is a word, yes -- an adjective. By adding an "s" it becomes a made-up noun. See more on this below.)
I read "Unstopables" as un-STOPE-ah-bulls, because, as we all know, the double consonant following the vowel makes the vowel short (the AH sound), whereas just the one consonant makes the vowel long (the OH sound). What? You didn't know that? Well, shame on your English teacher.
Anyway, not only does the spelling not make sense, but also the name doesn't make sense. To me, anyway. This is a product that you add to your wash to "boost scent." In other words, to stop odor. But wait — this is called Unstopables. What is it unstoppable at? Boosting scent? Meaning it doesn't stop even after you remove the clothes from the washer? Is that even possible? (Or desirable?)
Whatever. Let's move on. "New & improved." Well, which is it? Is it new? Or is it just the original with some improvements? Can't be both. This is called an oxymoron. Like "controlled chaos" or "rap music."
Next: "Get a fresh too feisty to quit." A fresh. So now fresh is a noun? Oka-a-y... But a feisty fresh? Come on.
Underneath that: "An in wash scent booster ..." That should be "in-wash" -- and it is hyphenated on the actual product. Inconsistency. Real turn-off.
And to top it off ... why the French? At least this product also includes Spanish, which makes sense since probably the majority of Americans speak Spanish at this point. But French? So many products (especially in the personal-care category) include only the French translation, as if that makes them more desirable. "Oh, so the French use this moisturizer ... it must be really good!" And one of these days, when I learn French, it'll be fun to see how accurate the translation is.
Just what you wanted: A copy editor of multiple languages!
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Can we have a word? (Or better, TWO words?)
I'm not much into the smushing of two words together to make one.
I suppose there are good semantic reasons for doing so -- sometimes.
And -- say it with me now -- language is always changing.
But. Do we really need foodservice? And caselaw? Would you also then write drinkservice and statutorylaw?
Now, foodservice is an industry term for those in the business of serving food to others, usually in large numbers, like a restaurant or a corporate cafeteria. So there might be reason to make it its own term. Except, if you kept it two words, what would happen? Would people confuse this kind of food service with any other kind of food service? I don't think so.
And with words like caselaw, it just looks like it's pronounced CASS-eh-law.
Which brings me to the most hotly contested issue among copy editors (or is that copyeditors?). That's right: Mavens in this field have an ongoing debate about how to write copy editor/copy edit/copy editing.
The two-word style is the original, but lately some want to make them each one word, including the foremost publication on the subject: Copyediting, a newsletter that changed its name just a couple of years ago to the one-word style, as well as its spellings of copyedit and copyeditor.
One opponent of this change, Bill Walsh, copy chief at The Washington Post, says copyeditor looks like it would be pronounced cop-yeditor, and I have to say I agree. I tend to treat each differently: copy edit and copy editor, but copyediting. Some would argue that this looks inconsistent, but it makes sense to me.
What doesn't make sense to me:
So, please, before you start smushing, consult a dictionary. It may be one word, but it may not be. Yet. Let's not rush the smush.
I suppose there are good semantic reasons for doing so -- sometimes.
And -- say it with me now -- language is always changing.
But. Do we really need foodservice? And caselaw? Would you also then write drinkservice and statutorylaw?
Now, foodservice is an industry term for those in the business of serving food to others, usually in large numbers, like a restaurant or a corporate cafeteria. So there might be reason to make it its own term. Except, if you kept it two words, what would happen? Would people confuse this kind of food service with any other kind of food service? I don't think so.
And with words like caselaw, it just looks like it's pronounced CASS-eh-law.
Which brings me to the most hotly contested issue among copy editors (or is that copyeditors?). That's right: Mavens in this field have an ongoing debate about how to write copy editor/copy edit/copy editing.
The two-word style is the original, but lately some want to make them each one word, including the foremost publication on the subject: Copyediting, a newsletter that changed its name just a couple of years ago to the one-word style, as well as its spellings of copyedit and copyeditor.
One opponent of this change, Bill Walsh, copy chief at The Washington Post, says copyeditor looks like it would be pronounced cop-yeditor, and I have to say I agree. I tend to treat each differently: copy edit and copy editor, but copyediting. Some would argue that this looks inconsistent, but it makes sense to me.
What doesn't make sense to me:
- Healthcare
- Childcare/Daycare
- Backyard (except as an adjective, e.g., backyard barbecue)
- Cellphone
- Homepage (Spelling this as one word makes sense to me, but it still looks odd. Or it looks French -- oh-mah-PAZH.)
So, please, before you start smushing, consult a dictionary. It may be one word, but it may not be. Yet. Let's not rush the smush.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Don't fear the hyphen
So we got a dog recently. And along with dog comes the obligatory trip to Petco, the animal equivalent to the Baby SuperStore: a warehouse full of everything for the new dog owner. Many dollars later, we walked out with collars, leashes, and treats, treats and more treats.
Several days later, we returned to the store for our first training session, where we learned that we need four levels of treats, ranging from everyday kibble to such prime people-food as leftover steak, in order to get our dogs to perform certain tricks and commands. Based on this information, I went home armed with even more new treats, including this bag:
Now, when I first looked at this, I sighed as I recognized another example of the apparently hyphen-phobic marketers out there -- the same ones who sell Tall Kitchen Garbage Bags. My husband and I have joked about this for years: Are they bags for tall kitchen garbage? Or garbage bags for tall kitchens? Or tall bags for kitchen garbage? As written, it's ambiguous and could mean any of those things -- except, of course, that none of those make sense.
But in the case of Small Dog Training Treats, without a hyphen there is true ambiguity about what exactly is contained inside. I thought about this briefly as I picked it off the shelf. "Well, it must be dog-training treats that are small," I thought (and, yes, I include hyphens when I think). "But aren't all dog-training treats small? It couldn't mean dog-training treats for small dogs -- unless they're smaller for their smaller mouths?" I decided it was just another case of redundancy and tossed them in the basket.
When I got home, I opened the package, and in doing so noticed that on the back of the bag was a picture and text indicating that these treats were indeed made for small dogs. We have a large dog, so I was not intending to buy small-dog training treats but rather small dog-training treats.
So I reached into the bag to see how these treats were different, and the kicker is, they're exactly the same size as all of our other training treats, which don't indicate what size dog they're for. Color me confused.
Anyway, our large dog eats the small-dog treats just as eagerly as she does the others, so it's not a big deal. But please do your part and use the hyphen to eliminate any confusion for your readers. Or, if you yourself are confused by this entire post, just use this as your take-away: Don't try marketing anything tall or small.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)