 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / July 2010NY Times quiz on grammar
For your enjoyment: Notes from the NY Times newsroom on grammar, usage and style. http://topics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/red-pencils-ready-7/  SignatureWork is the curse of the drinking class. On 27 Jul 2010, Caesar Romano wrote > For your enjoyment: > > Notes from the NY Times newsroom on grammar, usage and style. > http://topics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/red-pencils-ready-7/ Always fun to do; thanks. I got most of them, although I disagreed with the need to correct some of the "errors". (Singular "they" in No. 3 is OK by me, as is the colloquial use of "like" in No. 6.) There were also some things I thought they ought to have corrected but didn't. In the first of the two No. 5s, the well didn't hold tight, the *cap* on the well held tight; No. 11 was just plain badly written with far too many commas -- like the second No. 5, described in the answers as "overstuffed". SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >On 27 Jul 2010, Caesar Romano wrote > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Always fun to do; thanks. You're welcome. I forgot to include the general url for that section. It's http://topics.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/after-deadline/ They'll be on vacation for the next two weeks. SignatureWork is the curse of the drinking class. > On 27 Jul 2010, Caesar Romano wrote > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I got most of them, although I disagreed with the need to correct some of the > "errors". (Singular "they" in No. 3 is OK by me, Yes, but I don't think they're quarrelling with singular "they" but with plural "everyone". > as is the colloquial use of > "like" in No. 6.) No. 7. But I agree with you. I wouldn't use "like" in a formal bit of writing, but in a posting to AUE (which I regard as having the same degree of formality as a blog post) I'd find it acceptable. > There were also some things I thought they ought to have corrected but > didn't. In the first of the two No. 5s, the well didn't hold tight, the > *cap* on the well held tight; No. 11 was just plain badly written with far > too many commas -- like the second No. 5, described in the answers as > "overstuffed". Although I agree that the "Adolph" in No. 10 is superfluous, I'm not sure it counts as a misspelling. In the past it was quite standard to translate foreign names (think of Lewis XIV) and we still do it for some: I think most people would write Charles V rather than Carlos Quinto. Accents frequently get dropped when the English equivalent is the same apart from the accent, as with Leopold II. Signatureathel --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net --- On 27 Jul 2010, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote > Although I agree that the "Adolph" in No. 10 is superfluous, I'm not > sure it counts as a misspelling. In the past it was quite standard to > translate foreign names (think of Lewis XIV) and we still do it for > some: I think most people would write Charles V rather than Carlos > Quinto. Accents frequently get dropped when the English equivalent is > the same apart from the accent, as with Leopold II. While we're being picky on this, I would have worded the comment about "We could have dropped 'Vladimir', too" a lot more strongly. I can think of no reason to use Lenin's first name in that context, other than to demonstrate that the writer knows what it is. After all, "Lenin" wasn't his family surname, and he's hardly going to be confused with somebody else. ("Oh: you mean *that* Mr Lenin. Why didn't you say so?") SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 27 Jul 2010, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > While we're being picky on this, I would have worded the comment about "We > could have dropped 'Vladimir', too" a lot more strongly. Indeed. Everybody knows what Hitler's first name was (even if they don't know how to spell it), but Lenin's is far less used. > I can think of no reason to use Lenin's first name in that context, other > than to demonstrate that the writer knows what it is. After all, "Lenin" > wasn't his family surname, and he's hardly going to be confused with somebody > else. ("Oh: you mean *that* Mr Lenin. Why didn't you say so?") Or, many years ago, isn't he the married Beatle? Signatureathel > On 27 Jul 2010, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > wasn't his family surname, and he's hardly going to be confused with somebody > else. ("Oh: you mean *that* Mr Lenin. Why didn't you say so?") I've read that Lenin used one common Russian form of names and called himself "N. Lenin," the "N" standing for the Russian equivalent of "Nobody," although I've also seen "Nikolai Lenin" (and have no idea where THAT came from). "Vladimir" was of course the name given him at birth, along with surmane and patronymic, all of which he abandoned in his "Lenin" guise. I don't think he ever went by "Vladamir Lenin," which may not be literally macaronic but strikes me as the same sort of mash-up and contrary to the whole idea of changing one's name. SignatureB. Lieblich Unable to afford a pseudonym >> On 27 Jul 2010, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > birth, along with surmane and patronymic, all of which he abandoned in > his "Lenin" guise. I don't think he ever went by "Vladamir Lenin," though he probably did go by Vladilir Ilyich Lenin at times, or V. I. Lenin. The only time I was ever in Russia was in 1960, so I'm not sure how much to trust my memory, but my recollection is that things named after him (like the Moscow Metro, I think) were adorned with plaques that referred to him as V. I. Lenin, but definitely not V. Lenin. > which may not be literally macaronic but strikes me as the same sort > of mash-up and contrary to the whole idea of changing one's name. Signatureathel > On 27 Jul 2010, Caesar Romano wrote > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > too many commas -- like the second No. 5, described in the answers as > "overstuffed". These quizzes are fairly straightforward exercises, so long as "no mistake" is not an allowed answer. Absent this, you just go through the list of shibboleths until you find one which might apply. The only hard part is when there is more than one possibility. I guessed wrong in #2, thinking they wanted a serial comma. I also had trouble with #7. The use of "like" as a conjunction is such utterly bog standard English (or at least American English: I don't know about other forms) that I have trouble spotting it. I guessed they wanted "press secretary" to be capitalized. I am actually quite charmed by their belief that "like" as a conjunction is "ungrammatical". It makes me feel young again. It would have been more interesting if the exercise had not been to look for errors, real or imagined, but to re-write the sentences into something, well, well written. Richard R. Hershberger > For your enjoyment: > > Notes from the NY Times newsroom on grammar, usage and style. > http://topics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/red-pencils-ready-7/ "1. Stu Loeser, a mayoral spokesman, emphasized that the internships awarded to relatives of insiders was a tiny fraction of the almost 1,500 that have been awarded since Mr. Bloomberg took office." I don't agree with the quiz that "was" should be changed to "were". It isn't "internships" that "were a tiny fraction", but "the number of internships" that "was a tiny fraction". Bill in Kentucky > > For your enjoyment: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Bill in Kentucky The phrase "the number of internships" would, of course, require a singular verb if it had occurred in the sentence. However, it didn't occur in the sentence. What did occur was the phrase "the internships", which is plural and therefore requires a plural verb. "The number of internships" is clearly what the author intended to write, and why they used a singular verb. But it isn't what they actually did write. It's very cooperative of you to supply the missing head noun, but in general, editors discourage writers from leaving them out in the first place, since not all readers can be counted on to be so cooperative. -John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler "Overrated, anyway, those complete sentences." -- Chris Waigl |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.