STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

we don't know but perhaps a fellow anorak will - ask them here
User avatar
humblebee
Posts: 10529
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 4:33 pm
Last.fm: http://www.last.fm/user/atomicbeatboy
Location: Sheffields
Contact:

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Post by humblebee » Wed Oct 07, 2009 1:57 pm

Colin wrote:It probably is a bit of a Grimsby thing (or maybe a northern thing. Does Grimsby count as the north, or is that a massive can of worms?).
Geographically and linguistically, yeah, just about.

(Psychologically, not really, because to conceive of 'the north', Grimbarians would first need to acquire a concept of anything at all outside Grimsby.)

User avatar
andyroo
Posts: 1831
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 12:15 pm
Last.fm: http://www.last.fm/user/
Location: Irlanda

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Post by andyroo » Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:50 pm

I've heard other people use that 'these', not only Grimbarians. Actually on reflection I think it's fairly widespread in Scotland and Norn Iron.
There ain't no-one gonna turn me round

User avatar
crystalball
Posts: 5197
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 6:04 pm
Last.fm: http://www.last.fm/user/felters
Location: That London
Contact:

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Post by crystalball » Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:52 am

Where do people stand on using initial caps for job titles? In the booklets I put together I use lower case for everything, including things like Technical Producer of Mastering and Restoration (argh!), but my boss keeps changing them back claiming that it's demeaning to the professionals in question and looks wrong. That's obviously rubbish seeing as we don't write Secretary or Cleaner or Receptionist and we don't really have a reason to capitalise anything when it's clear in its context. I am ready for a fight but it'd be good to know what other people do first.

a layer of chips
Posts: 18607
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 9:17 am
Last.fm: http://www.last.fm/user/
Location: Nottingham, UK
Contact:

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Post by a layer of chips » Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:54 am

We never capitalise job titles unless it's a Westminster governmental role. It's a ballache changing them when you're cutting and pasting, mind.

User avatar
humblebee
Posts: 10529
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 4:33 pm
Last.fm: http://www.last.fm/user/atomicbeatboy
Location: Sheffields
Contact:

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Post by humblebee » Fri Oct 23, 2009 2:27 pm

crystalball wrote:Where do people stand on using initial caps for job titles? In the booklets I put together I use lower case for everything, including things like Technical Producer of Mastering and Restoration (argh!), but my boss keeps changing them back claiming that it's demeaning to the professionals in question and looks wrong. That's obviously rubbish seeing as we don't write Secretary or Cleaner or Receptionist and we don't really have a reason to capitalise anything when it's clear in its context. I am ready for a fight but it'd be good to know what other people do first.
Demeaning! Oh, the poor little lambs. For fuck's sake. You are absolutely right in every way. Your boss is an elitist pig. Fight to the death. (And cite the Guardian style guide.)

User avatar
andyroo
Posts: 1831
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 12:15 pm
Last.fm: http://www.last.fm/user/
Location: Irlanda

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Post by andyroo » Fri Oct 23, 2009 4:43 pm

There are people who feel demeaned by their job title Not Having Capital Letters? I feel demeaned by quite probably not having a job this time next week.

What a bunch of Utter Cunts.
There ain't no-one gonna turn me round

Carys
Posts: 1386
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:27 pm
Last.fm: http://www.last.fm/user/

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Post by Carys » Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:02 pm

That's strange. I would always give names of jobs capital letters as if they were proper nouns - they sort of act as pronouns in lieu of somebody's name, don't they? Although in fairness, you wouldn't capitalise a pronoun unless you were talking about Jesus.

I agree with this: http://www.a-language-guide.com/Article ... h-190.html
Rules for Capitalizing Job Titles in English wrote:The main thing to remember is that jobs are capitalized when they act more like a name than a general word for a job category. You can see this in the following examples:

I want to see Doctor Harris.

You really should see a doctor.
The one that comes up more regularly for me is whether to capitalise subjects on a school timetable, i.e. My favourite subject is English. I always would.

User avatar
humblebee
Posts: 10529
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 4:33 pm
Last.fm: http://www.last.fm/user/atomicbeatboy
Location: Sheffields
Contact:

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Post by humblebee » Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Cherry Darling wrote:That's strange. I would always give names of jobs capital letters as if they were proper nouns - they sort of act as pronouns in lieu of somebody's name, don't they? Although in fairness, you wouldn't capitalise a pronoun unless you were talking about Jesus.
Well, exactly.

Are you consistent with it? Do you write "I was talking to this Shop Assistant about the new Receptionist at the Doctor's"?
The one that comes up more regularly for me is whether to capitalise subjects on a school timetable, i.e. My favourite subject is English. I always would.
I don't, and most major education publishers don't. It does happen in places though. I know a lot of teachers do it (cos I have to edit their copy!). The names of languages are the exception, for obvious reasons.

Carys
Posts: 1386
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:27 pm
Last.fm: http://www.last.fm/user/

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Post by Carys » Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:13 pm

I'm almost certainly doing it wrong then. It's something I do fairly instinctively, but that obviously doesn't make it right.

In regards to your question, I think what it is the deciding factor is the notion of it being a job role or a title. I don't think it's necessarily to do with bigging up someone's role. It would depend entirely on the context. Like, I wouldn't write "I'm a Teacher" but if when asked for my job title I would write "Teacher of English" in the same way that I'd capitalise the title of a book.

User avatar
indiehorse
Posts: 1939
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 10:50 am
Last.fm: http://www.last.fm/user/
Location: Nottingham
Contact:

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Post by indiehorse » Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:20 pm

Carry on with the capitalisation theme, I'd like to know where people stand on the Internet/internet debate...
Thanks.

User avatar
humblebee
Posts: 10529
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 4:33 pm
Last.fm: http://www.last.fm/user/atomicbeatboy
Location: Sheffields
Contact:

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Post by humblebee » Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:47 pm

indiehorse wrote:Carry on with the capitalisation theme, I'd like to know where people stand on the Internet/internet debate...
Thanks.
I haven't seen it with an initial cap since about 1998.

User avatar
indiehorse
Posts: 1939
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 10:50 am
Last.fm: http://www.last.fm/user/
Location: Nottingham
Contact:

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Post by indiehorse » Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:14 pm

humblebee wrote:I haven't seen it with an initial cap since about 1998.
Meh, well a lot of publications and sites still capitalise it. I am instinctively inconsistent with it* and this bother. I think you're right that lower-case is almost certainly the way to go.

*I have capitalized it approximately 53% of the time on this forum.

User avatar
crystalball
Posts: 5197
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 6:04 pm
Last.fm: http://www.last.fm/user/felters
Location: That London
Contact:

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Post by crystalball » Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:19 pm

Thing with words like internet or tannoy or, I dunno, googling, is that it's perfectly clear what they mean and they are now part of our everyday vocabulary, therefore there's absolutely no need to burden the flow of a text with unnecessary capitals. That's how I see it, anyway.

User avatar
humblebee
Posts: 10529
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 4:33 pm
Last.fm: http://www.last.fm/user/atomicbeatboy
Location: Sheffields
Contact:

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Post by humblebee » Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:23 pm

indiehorse wrote:Meh, well a lot of publications and sites still capitalise it. I am instinctively inconsistent with it* and this bother. I think you're right that lower-case is almost certainly the way to go.

*I have capitalized it approximately 53% of the time on this forum.
I can see an argument for capping it up (maybe cf. 'the Universe'), but I don't because it just looks weird.

By the by, I remember editing an article (in about 1998) which not only capped it up but weirdly omitted 'the' from before it, so it said things like "you may not have used Internet very much yet, but believe me, Internet is going to be huge. By the year 2004 all our schools will have closed because children will use Internet to learn instead."

User avatar
Final Loan
Posts: 656
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 4:00 pm
Last.fm: http://www.last.fm/user/
Location: Sheffields

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Post by Final Loan » Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:25 pm

Tannoy's not a word! It's a brand name! Like Hoover...

Bloody adaptable language... changing all the rules as it goes along...
I may be ugly and hate-filled but... wait, what was the third thing you said?

Pockets Filled With Matches are no more, but we still have copies of our e.p. 'If Time Heals You' for sale, if you'd like one

User avatar
nanski
Posts: 1072
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 10:53 am
Last.fm: http://www.last.fm/user/
Location: she lives by the castle

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Post by nanski » Thu Dec 24, 2009 8:58 am

I've been asked to edit something and I want to be sure about this sentence:
I've changed "OWECS comprised of lectures and a workshop" to "OWECS comprised lectures and a workshop"

hmm... it still seems wrong. suggestions? I always struggle with comprise.
big hole! big hole! big hole! big man! big man!

User avatar
humblebee
Posts: 10529
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 4:33 pm
Last.fm: http://www.last.fm/user/atomicbeatboy
Location: Sheffields
Contact:

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Post by humblebee » Thu Dec 24, 2009 11:24 am

nanski wrote:I've been asked to edit something and I want to be sure about this sentence:
I've changed "OWECS comprised of lectures and a workshop" to "OWECS comprised lectures and a workshop"

hmm... it still seems wrong. suggestions? I always struggle with comprise.
It's right. 'Comprise of' is always wrong. You did right.

User avatar
mutantchoux
Posts: 302
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 10:08 pm
Last.fm: http://www.last.fm/user/
Contact:

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Post by mutantchoux » Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:34 am

humblebee wrote:
nanski wrote:I've been asked to edit something and I want to be sure about this sentence:
I've changed "OWECS comprised of lectures and a workshop" to "OWECS comprised lectures and a workshop"

hmm... it still seems wrong. suggestions? I always struggle with comprise.
It's right. 'Comprise of' is always wrong. You did right.

Exactly right - except, there is a lot to be said for what reads right being right. Eliminating the "of" does not read right, so I would suggest leaving it in. I also support split infinitives, given their provenance. So you couldn't split them in Latin, what with them being fused with the subject. Why exactly should we be perpetuating this?

User avatar
humblebee
Posts: 10529
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 4:33 pm
Last.fm: http://www.last.fm/user/atomicbeatboy
Location: Sheffields
Contact:

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Post by humblebee » Thu Dec 31, 2009 11:00 am

mutantchoux wrote:
humblebee wrote:It's right. 'Comprise of' is always wrong. You did right.
Exactly right - except, there is a lot to be said for what reads right being right. Eliminating the "of" does not read right, so I would suggest leaving it in. I also support split infinitives, given their provenance. So you couldn't split them in Latin, what with them being fused with the subject. Why exactly should we be perpetuating this?
Yep - many modern style guides tell you to boldly go ahead and split infinitives with ne'er a care, or something. Same applies to finishing sentences with a preposition (a rule "up with which I will not put", as Winston Churchill put it, apparently). This is an odd one because a lot of people have got so used to constructing a sentence to avoid finishing it with a preposition (eg. "the universities to which you are applying" rather than "the universities you are applying to") that they'll just do the same thing in the middle of a sentence as well ("the universities to which you are applying and your preferred courses"). Kerrrazy.

Back on your "comprised of", what reads right can be very subjective, can't it? To me that reads perfectly OK without the "of". If someone were that bothered by it, I'd suggest using a different word rather than using this one wrongly. "OWECS consisted of lectures and a workshop" or "OWECS involved lectures and a workshop" or something.

User avatar
soft revolution
Posts: 2058
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 6:48 pm
Last.fm: http://www.last.fm/user/duncydunc
Location: somewhere in the bullring
Contact:

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Post by soft revolution » Wed Jan 13, 2010 11:07 am

Which of these sentance ends would be better in a document

...the organisation who you are delivering the workshop for.

or

...the organisation for whom you are delivering the workshop.

The first one is probably more like how I'd say it but there's debate over whether the second one would be preferable if it's written down.
And by me, I mean, Flexo.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest