False titles.

Dan Brown.

All four sentences are meh at best.

Thanks for the links, which were both quite interesting. I've never been especially bothered by such "false titles" (and in the Economist examples kitaristi0's revisions do benefit from economy) but they do seem best suited to journalism.

God it's irksome to hear (or imagine hearing) linguists and grammarians handing down prescriptions about "proper" (or insert some similarly loaded value term: "good," "correct," "best") usage with all the authority and tonality of priests, when they should confine themselves to descriptive analysis. If some non-standard, non-traditional structuring of sentence parts or modes or whatever starts gaining ground here and there, then let its communicative efficacy, usefulness, and artistic merits compete freely with its alternatives and the chips will fall where they will. Which happens anyway, but with linguists theatrically legislating outcomes from the sidelines. Give us detailed specs on each of the contestants and then shut the **** up, if only for the sake of my ulcers. (Is it still called an ulcer when it's hollowing out your brain stem?)

I guess a better way of putting that is, on the list of reasons why you liked or disliked textual document x, "It used language in ways that aren't sanctioned in my booklet of rules, so I will assume by definition that such language is bad, and put it on the sort of trial where its guilt is assured," is a flimsier reaction than, "I hated it because the character had fish for lunch, fish is gross."

I agree with you, lagdonk. As someone who values ventriloquism in writing, firm prescriptivism ain't my personal cup o' tea.

Same here.



I just finished the first complete arrangement I've done in a while. Wooh.

I learned the word anarthrous from TTI's link.

The basic problem with this familiar argument against those "irksome" prescriptivists is that it ignores the question of audience. "Like, my last job was totally rad!" is probably a very effective communication from one 16-year-old girl to another, but I wouldn't recommend it in a job interview. Similarly very formal grammar can be a powerful tool in some written communications and unnecessary or even offputting in others. (It really comes down to what self-image the writer wants to convey.) I think it's wonderful when writers have a range of possibilities open to them and can therefore make choices. But to do that they have understand what choices are available.

That's why I like this thread so much.

Where does the possessive apostrophe go in this sentence?: (that ?: doesn't look right either)

I plan to make Joe and Jane's bed.

I plan to make Joe and Janes' bed.

I plan to make Joe's and Jane's bed.

For writing, if it reads well I am fine with that. Usually I am annoyed if someone is writing in a super annoying way.

Edit:
I plan to make a cup of Joe, and also make Jane's bed.

The first sentence is correct, assuming the bed belongs to both Joe and Jane. If there are two beds, the third is correct.

No, if there were two beds, it would be "Joe's and Jane's beds." The third sentence is correct for one bed.

It's a late-night logic flub. That's no excuse, however, and I should be appropriately reprimanded for it. Awful stuff there. But yes, obviously I wouldn't have made that error had I been more alert. I wrote that post on my laptop late at night (you can tell a post was written when I was tired if the time of the post corresponds to somewhere around 1am-3am EST) and it was likely an auto-correct mistake in my brain. Still, I should have rechecked my logic and corrected it. Fail.

I see what you did there.

This one made my head explode. The third sentence is the same as the one you cited for two beds (i.e. "Joe's and Jane's beds"). So what you've said here is that it's correct for two beds and that it's also correct for one bed. What did you really mean?

No it isn't. The original one doesn't have a final "s" making beds plural.

Ahh...I was just looking at Joe and Jane. Thx!

LOL. I momentarily thought you were one of my redneck pals who keep their unopened packs of chewing tobacco in the freezer. (They buy in bulk and want them to stay fresh.)

Yes, and I don't think my ranting fired upon this kind of awareness. I'm a great advocate of omnivorousness, and thrilled when linguists or grammarians or usage experts give strategic advice backed by descriptive analysis: cover letters should probably look like this, it is conventional to avoid doing [x, y, z] linguistically in a five-paragraph high-school essay about Hamlet's woes, etc.

It's when they leap to broader, near-dogmatic stances against alleged improprieties in situations where the relation between writer and reader isn't firmly enmeshed in some clear, hierarchical dynamic, and the text's audience is large and open and more or less heterogeneous (novels, journalism, many kinds of non-fiction, advertising copy, public speaking, etc.) that I take futile umbrage.

is this correct?

a (seemingly) impossible task

I don't think so. I'd say

"A seemingly impossible task"
or
"An impossible task"

Not sure if "an (seemingly) impossible task" is right but it looks awful too. Stick with one of the first two. Can't see why the adverb needs to be a parenthetical unless I have more context.

mikech,

I vote it's fine.

I recall grammar books teaching that you write it as if the parentheses were omitted, meaning it should be "an (seemingly) impossible task" but as I said that looks bad so... meh. I'm sticking with get rid of the parentheses anyway.

There is a rule that you should be able to omit the parenthetical entirely and the sentence still be correct without it, so I think you aren't remembering it correctly.

I'm pretty sure the construction you show would never be correct.

Yeah you're probably right. "A (seemingly) impossible task" is better than "An (seemingly) impossible task," but either way I still don't understand the need for the parentheses. We can always go back to "how does it sound when spoken" test, and of course the former is correct.

Um, thanks.