Oops, needed a hyphen here

This from a recent ad:

“Join Dell, Microsoft and a guest expert for an in depth look at how OS migration can enhance security and end user productivity.”

That's either Freudian,  or "end user" should be "end-user." ("In depth" can use a hyphen too.)

HT to WorldWideWords, a fantastic newsletter you should get in your email each week.

Corporate grammar follies

It's always interesting to get on the road and see how corporate America can mangle punctuation, usage and grammar in its signs.

A recent road trip to Arkansas to see the grandkids produced its usual bumper crop of grocer's apostrophes, misspellings and funky usage.

But one that especially struck me was at a McDonald's in Olive Branch, Miss.. On both the door and the large sign out front, the signs loudly proclaimed:

We accept competitor's coupons

Uh, can we get a bit more specific there, Mickey D's? What competitor would it be - the Burger King next door? The Zaxby's across the street? The Wendy's down the road?

What the restaurant more likely meant to say was that it accepted competitors' coupons.

Then I got back here and while waiting at the DMV today was watching the ads roll by on the DMV TV network (who knew - you can't get away from it anywhere). One helpfully noted that a local body shop was "besides" a local auto dealer.

Now, you might want to go to the body shop instead of the auto dealer for your repair, but I suspect the shop wanted to say it was beside that auto dealer.

Beside = next to

Besides = in addition to or apart from

Sigh. And a pox on the next business person who, when I say I teach in a journalism school, starts going on about how "kids" can't spell, etc., these days.

(Unfortunately, I didn't have a camera handy for either one.)

Hold that apostrophe

So, should one worry when the athletics department at one's university can't use punctuation properly in forming a plural?  (As in there shouldn't be an apostrophe.)

Now that it's in the banner, it probably will be repeated every year. Sigh.

The hyphen is not evil

In both cases here, the headline writers needed a hyphen. And the first one compounds it with "small businessperson."

Commentary on my Tumbleblog.

USAGE: Am I wrong on this adverse vs. averse argument?

OK, folks,  step right up, pay your dollah, and smack ol Doug in the face with a cream pie - if I'm wrong in this usage argument.

From a Randy Hines column on language and style errors in this week's Southern Newspaper Publishers Association bulletin http://snpainfo.org/eBulletin/07.14.11.htm (scroll down, or, if you want just that column, the PDF is http://snpainfo.org/eBulletin/print/SNPA%20eBulletin%2007.14.11-Hines.pdf).

Q1       The sportswriter was averse to using imminent writing coach, Jim Stasiowski.

A1       The sports writer was adverse to using eminent writing coach Jim Stasiowski.
Despite dictionary spellings for sportswriter, our AP bible reminds us of this exception as two words.  Averse means unfavorable; adverse means opposed.  Despite Jim’s protests, he is somewhat famous or eminent in journalism circles.  The informal title before the name does not need a comma. 


To which I wrote that I disagreed that it should be "adverse" and that the original "averse" is correct. My argument:
- What is being expressed here is an attitude, and "averse to" is the common American English expression to show opposition as an attitude.
- The object of the aversion is the "using," not "Stasiowski," and "averse" is usually used to express opposition to concepts rather than people.

I think I'm backed up in this usage note from one of several references I consulted yet again to make sure what I thought I understood all these years was what I understood:

Adverse means 'hostile, unfavorable, opposed,' and is usually applied to situations, conditions, or events—not to people: : the dry weather has had an adverse effect on the garden. Averse is related in origin and also has the sense of 'opposed,' but is usually employed to describe a person’s attitude: I would not be averse to making the repairs myself.

(I suggested another test would be substituting "using" for "making" in that usage note - they line up nicely.)

(For now, please don't suggest "opposes" for "is averse/adverse to" - yep, probably better, clearer writing, but let's color within the lines of what the original question was trying to illustrate.)

I also noted this about the explanation put forth as to why there should be no comma:

The use of the comma (or proper nonuse of it in this case) does not have to do with whether it is a formal or informal title. It has to do with whether there is more than one eminent writing coach. Since there is more than one (though few of Jim's caliber), the phrase is restrictive and thus no comma.

So, do I have a clue here, or is it time to send Doug back to a usage re-education camp?

From the usage trenches: "banned together" and two things from Yagoda

In a story about S.C. wineries in my local paper today was this passage:

Winery owners say they are hopeful state lawmakers will scrap the 50 percent S.C.-fruit law so they can bring in more out-of-state wine grape juice and make the pinot noirs, Rieslings and other wines that more consumers want to drink.

Similar bills have been introduced in the past, only to die on the vine. This time, however, the state’s wineries have banned together and formed an association. They also have worked with those in the alcohol industry who fought past bills. Those opponents, primarily retailers who did not want to compete with wineries selling their own wine, do not oppose this year’s bill.

“There would be just a few more bottles of wine — South Carolina wine — on the shelves,” said Larry Boyleston, assistant commissioner at the state Agriculture Commission. “We’re not talking about a big increase in competition.”

"Have banned together"? Let's try "have banded together." (Is it needed at all? Saying they formed an association would cover it, wouldn't it?)

These kinds of usage illiteracies show up more and more in the paper these days, and while it's tempting to blame it on copy desk cutbacks and more editing done at a North Carolina hub, this sort of thing doesn't take any local knowledge to avoid. It does take some local knowledge, however, to know that South Carolina has an Agriculture Department, not a "commission," although the department is headed by the "agriculture commissioner" (no one said we made this stuff easy to follow down here, but that's what professional journalists get paid for, right). In fact, in a show of editing, why not shorten it entirely to said Larry Boyleston, assistant state agriculture commissioner?

---

Speaking of language and usage, I might recommend two provocative columns by Ben Yagoda in Slate.
- In the most recent, he takes on punctuation and quotation marks and suggests maybe the British, who put much of their punctuation outside the quotes, are more "logical."
- In an earlier one, he addresses whether and when we should go with the flow and accept newer usages for things like disinterested.

When editing, look at the pictures

One of the vexatious things when editing are corporate and product names (is it McDonalds or McDonald's (apostrophe), Walmart or Wal-Mart (both, actually, depending on what you are referring to, the stores or the corporation)).

Jack Daniel's (Daniels? Daniels'?) has always been a bugbear with me.

But if you have a picture with the corporate logo - especially one you've taken - probably a good thing to look at it. Then you can avoid doing what Columbia's Free Times did this week - spell it two ways, both wrong. (Click on the picture for the larger version where you can read what's on the glass.)

It probably also should be "whiskey," not "whisky," the latter term used generally only with Scotch, while this is bourbon a "Tennessee" sipping whiskey (effectively, a bourbon that has the added feature of being dripped through a charcoal filter ... in the case of Jack Daniel's, its 80% corn takes it slightly out of the classic bourbon category, which under international agreements is supposed to be from 51% to 79% corn. It all gets very complicated.)

So 'which' one is it

Lord knows enough ink has been spilled on the that-which distinction and whether it matters much anymore.

But there are times when the distinction, aided by some inept editing, does make a difference as seen in this passage from an L.A. Times story in The (Columbia, S.C.) State:

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has been grappling with the issue of homosexuality for nearly 40 years.

The General Assembly meets every two years. In July, the assembly voted to repeal that requirement, which effectively blocks the ordination of openly gay ministers. Now the denomination's 173 regions, or presbyteries, have two years to vote on whether to ratify that change.

But the wording, "the assembly voted to repeal fthat requirement, which effectively blocks ...," is likely to make some readers come up a bit lame. Written, with the comma, it's easy to read the sentence so that the the relative clause applies to the entire concept of the vote - meaning the vote to repeal actually has effectively blocked ordination.

There's a hint in the next graf: The current balloting will be the fifth time efforts to ordain gay clergy have gone to such a vote. But your readers don't pay you for the thrill of solving a riddle.

Using "that" and no comma makes it clearer the clause refers to "requirement."

In July, the assembly voted to repeal that requirement that  effectively blocks the ordination of openly gay ministers.

 Making it "that had effectively blocked" makes things even clearer, but in this case it might not be so correct. Remember, there are two years to ratify the change, so the wording has not been officially repealed yet. I don't know enough to say, so I'm playing it cautious.

It wasn't a problem in the LAT original.

What, no square or rectangular people invited?

Ah, what a difference a comma can make.

We're not talking the comma of million dollar (Canadian) fame, but just the same, one that would have saved a little snickering here at CSJ central.

This one is from the New York Times (which seems in the past couple of days to be the mega-mart of editing errors -- see my previous two posts) and the post "A Bomb Squad for Wall Street" by William D. Cohan. Take a look:


The sentence in question is the lede: Gather round people, today we are going to discuss the highly opaque but hugely important topic of "O.T.C. derivatives" ...

Now, at a svelte 280 - OK, 300 . Well, OK 31 ... let's just not go there ... I probably qualify as a "round people" and can join the discussion. You scrawny 250-pounders, go away. Nothing to see here. (Although perhaps he is giving you a directive to pick up every rotund roustabout you see and bring them on over to the NYT site.)

Have you seen the problem by now? It's that "people" is a noun of address, and nouns of address are set off by commas to avoid just such ambiguity. So with the wayward comma thusly inserted:

Gather round, people, today we are going to discuss the highly opaque but hugely important topic of "O.T.C. derivatives" ...

It becomes clear, the snicker level goes down, and I don't have to worry about a bunch of 220-pounders hunting me down.

AP Style Updates

Various other AP style updates in recent weeks:

• hard line (n.) but the adjective form is hyphenated: hard-line. Also, hard-liner.
• Capitalize "The" in The Conference Board. (I always find these pretentious, just like The Associated Press and The Ohio State University - you'll find many shops that won't follow it.)
• flu-like is hyphenated. (Not sure why this was an issue; it seems logical. But, whatever.)
• headscarf and headscarves are one word. This is one desks have had to deal with as copy flows in from the Middle East.
  

Ampersand dispute

Who would have thought the lowly ampersand would have provoked so much ire (and apparently funded the endeavors of several law firms)?

But now one travel agency, Abercrombie & Kent, is suing &Beyond, claiming the use of the ampersand in the latter's name violates trademark.

File this under "get a life."

Nurse, hand me that comma please

Apparently the Accounts Receivable and Comma department at the agency handling the Roper St. Francis Cancer Center account had a bit too much of the sauce at the recent company barbecue.

In a fascinating use of the comma, there was this headline in an ad this weekend:

Making Inoperable Tumors, Operable

Now, how shall we read that? Perhaps they meant it this way:

Making Inoperable Tumors (Ok, wait for it. No, wait for it. Wait for it. Wait for it. Here it comes. Yessssss!) Operable

At the next party, let's keep them away from the comma table, OK?
.

Apostrophe Conservation Society - Aussie chapter

Oh those wacky Aussies -- opened up a chapter of the Apostrophe Conservation Society, they appear to have. Picture of a sign above a store's door sent to me by a student spending a semester in that country that I really want to visit someday.

This gives copy editing a bad name

OK, been meaning to get to this for a couple of weeks. Earlier this month, Andrew Beaujon of Washington's City Paper ranted on about how he hates the serial comma. Really. For several hundred words.

I'm hoping he was doing this tongue in cheek (although the intensity of some of the comments that followed indicates that some failed to get the joke, if he was).

My argument against the comma is simple: It's ungrammatical. Here at the copy desk, we hunt down and fix phrases such as "I ate tuna, and crackers for lunch" or "I came for lunch, but stayed for dinner." In both instances the final clause refers to the same subject as the first; they are properly cast, respectively, "I ate tuna and crackers for lunch" and "I came for lunch but stayed for dinner."

But the serial comma ignores this inconvenient fact. If you have three things for lunch, you magically don't have to obey the rules of grammar! Now you can say, "I ate a can of tuna, some sweet corn, and crackers for lunch," or "I came for lunch, got drunk, and stayed for dinner."

Oh, balderdash. First, let's get something straight. Punctuation ain't grammar. They are related, but grammar is the way words go together. Punctuation aids in that meaning, but punctuation is punctuation with its own esoterica, style and rules. Punctuation is, at its simplest, a system of marks overlaid on a grammar (there are many "grammars") to make the particular grammar (and thus meaning) clearer.

Now under our common system I ate tuna, and crackers for lunch is nonstandard use, but it is not nongrammatical. In fact, an author attempting to establish the halting speech of a character might well use the comma this way (no, we wouldn't normally use it in newspapers or magazines like the City Paper, but I am just trying to show that Beaujon's wandering around in the outfield here). It would not be ungrammatical for the writer to use it that way if that is the effect (sort of a subgrammar) the writer intended and its effect was clear enough from the context so as not to be so jarring. As for his second example, I came for lunch but stayed for dinner, no less than the exalted (or villified, depending on your view) Strunk & White sanction allowing -- not mandating -- the use of the comma with but in all cases (Elements of Style, 4th Ed. - page 5)

Whether to use the serial, or Oxford, comma is simply a style issue (in fact, as the Columbia Guide to Standard American English notes, it's really a British vs. American thing, and not what you might think from the name -- and Mr. Strunk himself prescribed its use). It's this sort of overblown pettiness that truly gives copy editors a bad name. At least the dcist blog had a light sendup of Beaujon's rant.

Farmers Market - and other sticky points in AP style

Here's are some other good ones from the AP Ask the Editor that clear up points that arise occasionally:

Does the term Farmers Market use an apostrophe after the s? Or should we not use one at all? – from Ohio: AP style, based on information from the Washington State Farmers Market Association and the USDA, is "farmers market" with no apostrophe. (Generally, the farmers do not own the market.)

(Note from Doug: You will find wide variations and assertions on the Web about farmers vs. farmers'. Either can be considered correct. The farmers' style is called the genitive descriptive, and there is a fair amount of debate about using it in things like teachers(') college, etc. The AP style on farmers conforms to the wire service's general guide that when something is for someone or something else, then no apostrophe. Thus teachers college (a college for teachers), citizens band radio (a radio band for citizens), Yankees first baseman (first baseman for the Yankees) and farmers market (a market for farmers -- note that AP points out "generally, the farmers do not own the market."). This AP style is not definitive, however, if you are not working for AP or an organization that follows AP style. Farmers' can just as easily be supported in a house style. Just be consistent.)

Please address "will be held," as in "The meeting will be held Saturday." Our copy desk claims it is "redundant and wrong," and removes the "held" in all cases, even when it sounds awkward. – from Redding, CA: It does read awkwardly without the "held." We'd use it. (Sorry, Norm. I have to disagree with you there. The meeting will be Saturday makes perfect sense to me without "held." That falls into the same category as saying x is "located at" y -- located is almost never needed. Of course, even better would be, when possible, to recast more directly: The group will meet Saturday." An "on Saturday" could be used if there was any confusion the group is meeting someone named Saturday.)

I'm wondering if it is accurate to refer to a doctor of chiropractic medicine with a Dr. in front of his or her name. The Stylebook says to use Dr. with a doctor of osteopathy, which is similar to but not the same as a chiropractic doctor. And while some states require a four-year undergraduate degree before attending chiropractic school, other states just require a two-year degree.: AP does not use the title "Dr." for chiropractors.

There's a good deal of confusion and no apparent widespread agreement among some fine newspapers about reporting blood alcohol content. Is it proper to call a BAC figure as a percentage? The AP at times refers to an individual's blood alcohol content as 0.24 percent, for example, and at other times treats the figure without the "percent.'' Thank you.: AP generally uses the blood content level figure without percent, as it appears to be familiar to readers (in context). However, both forms are acceptable. (Note from Doug: Generally, it is best to use it without the percent, as it really does not refer to a percentage as normal people use it, but to a volume measurement. Percentage means something different to toxiclogists. But please, do use the zero before the decimal to avoid confusion.)

In regards to your answer on the bulleted list, do you use periods even if the line item is only one word? – from Portland, OR: Yes, AP style on lists is to use a period at the end of each section, even if the "section" is one word.

I read an AP dispatch today that cited the potential for millions of dollars of "damages" to Florida's economy if a hurricane breached dikes on Lake Okeechobee. Shouldn't that be "damage"? My understanding is that storms (or other natural disasters) cause damage, courts award damages. – from Toledo, OH: You understand correctly. The singular form is defined as injury to a person or thing, the plural is a legal term for moneys claimed by or ordererd to a person to compensate for that injury or loss.

In a sentence such as "The store was built two and a half years ago." would two and a half be spelled out or written in numerals (2 1/2)? – from Bend, Ore.: Whenever possible -- depending on available type fonts -- use figures for precise amounts larger than 1, as in "2 1/2 years."