textualdeviance: (Default)
textualdeviance ([personal profile] textualdeviance) wrote2007-04-19 11:31 pm
Entry tags:

Random

I have decided to form G.U.C.E: The Guerilla Union of Copy Editors.

Our motto: "An apostrophe is a terrible thing to waste."

We will roam the English-speaking world with our red pens, correcting flyers, ads and other printed evidence of ugly grammar, spelling and punctuation.

Fear us, ye foes of proper language!*

I'm back home. Well, I was back home last night, then got up to go do class and production today, and now I'm back home again, for three beautiful nights. Ahhhhhhh. Of course, both of my free days will be spent parked in front of my machine, doing research and other shit for my two big class projects.

Seminar today was interesting. I couldn't keep from running off at the mouth. I probably irritated everyone else in the class. But I couldn't help it. The prof started talking about objectivity and the role of journalism in promoting democracy and I just... spewed. He can get a little annoying, and I'm sure most of the class is ready to smack him, but the stuff he talks about is really mind-blowing, because it's the same sort of stuff I've been thinking about myself for years. I'm just so glad this stuff is being specifically taught, now. It's like waking up from a 20-year nightmare of hordes of heartless carrion eaters passing themselves off as journalists.

More developments in the two recent personal filter topics. Will post on those tomorrow. One situation has become *headdesk*-inspiring and the other is at a truce for now. Meh.

Also lots more on my mind about the conference, but I'm going to put a bunch of that in my weekly report for my seminar class, so I'll paste that stuff over here when I'm done with that.

*This random message was brought to you by a flyer from our department that used the phrase "over $10,000."

*facepalm*

[identity profile] fenchurche.livejournal.com 2007-04-20 06:54 am (UTC)(link)
Our motto: "An apostrophe is a terrible thing to waste."

Heh! Well, you probably already know my favorite slogan: An apostrophe is not just a way of saying "Look out! Here comes an S!"

[identity profile] textualdeviance.livejournal.com 2007-04-20 06:12 pm (UTC)(link)
I've heard that! I've also used that when smacking people around for misusing the poor things.

[identity profile] iolanthe-rosa.livejournal.com 2007-04-20 02:12 pm (UTC)(link)
Uh oh. What's wrong with the phrase "over $10,000"?

*winces at own ignorance*

[identity profile] textualdeviance.livejournal.com 2007-04-20 06:11 pm (UTC)(link)
"Over" or "under" are used for physical relationships.

Likewise, "above" and "below" are used to indicate positioning.

"Fewer" is used to indicate amounts of things that are counted individually.

"More" and "less" are used to indicate amounts of things that are counted in bulk, including money (unless you're referring to individual coins or bills.)

When referring to ages, use "younger" and "older."

Examples:

"The cow jumped over the moon."

"The city is 4,500 miles above sea level."

"Albert had fewer grapes than Janet."

"Less than 30 percent of Americans vote regularly."

"Stacy is four years younger than Willa."

[identity profile] iolanthe-rosa.livejournal.com 2007-04-20 07:37 pm (UTC)(link)
I'd argue that the use of "more than" versus "over" in that context is more a cultural/regional distinction than a grammatical one, like saying "take" a decision in England versus "make" a decision in the U.S.

[identity profile] textualdeviance.livejournal.com 2007-04-20 08:19 pm (UTC)(link)
In practice, it's become common to use "over" instead of "more than," but it's still technically incorrect, according to my AP Stylebook.

There is some debate among grammarians on this, though. Some point to historical and literary use of "over" as evidence that it's still correct. Apparently, it's impossible for Thoreau to have used incorrect grammar. ;)

[identity profile] iolanthe-rosa.livejournal.com 2007-04-23 03:57 pm (UTC)(link)
Well, the key is that you have a style book. There's no excuse for not complying with it if you have one.

On a different topic, I thought of you when I read this article, and wondered if you agreed with the premise that it takes obnoxious reporters to get real news.

[identity profile] tomte.livejournal.com 2007-04-30 05:51 am (UTC)(link)
The one that gives me fits is the use of "speak to" as a catch-all synonym for "address." You can't "speak to" an issue or other intangible idea; certainly you can speak about it, but you can't speak to it. Whenever I hear or read "speak to" used this way, I experience a sensation akin to chewing tinfoil.