Ten Common Typographic Mistakes
Really nice post up at Receding Hairline regarding the finer points of symbols that everyone tries to use correctly but almost never succeeds. For instance,
A hyphen – the kind of short dash you see above – should really only be used when linking words such as ready-made. It shouldn’t even be used mathematically to represent a minus, as there’s a dedicated character for that, too. Most other uses mandate an en dash – as here, for example – or when planning meetings from 1–2. Changing fashions mean the the long dash—this one, called an em dash—is rarely seen, but where it is, it’s usual to render it without the spaces on either side or with special hairline spaces instead.
There are other entries on, among other things, the proper use of ellipses (contrary to common belief, the ellipsis is so much more than just three periods…); the differences between primes, opening and closing apostrophes and quotes, and straight apostrophes and quotes; and when to use parentheses, brackets, angle brackets, and guillemets. All of these are accompanied by helpful keyboard shortcuts and, when that fails, character palette tips. Time to study up on some keyboard combinations!
(Lifehacker via 43folders)
Foolish Speak
English lauds as a language for fools.
Who can keep up with th’ extravagant rules?
Professors and teachers must practice and twitter,
So students and others can suck til they quit ‘er.
Diction is dandy; syntax, sexlacious;
Commas are overly used and contagious.
A semi-colon certainly seems semi-stoppy,
While periods punctuate prose á la choppy.
Apostrophes thoroughly trump and elude
Even the smarty-pants programmer dudes.
Copyeditors clean up and make merry
Even the ugliest copy contrary.
Where in the quotes do you put the full stop?
Within or without? Either, neither, or what?
What about commas, questions, and complaints?
Exclamations, too, are surreptitiously quaint.
English lauds as a language for fools.
Why wouldn’t you want to play dictionary duels?
English, I say, is for language-law lovers.
Its rules are circuitous—under the covers.
On the Origin of Species Punctuation
Neatorama has a dandy of a post today on the roots of some of the punctuation marks that are in use by literally everyone today (well, not necessarily the Prince symbol, but one never knows how many Prince fans are still out there). I find the ampersand story especially interesting. This is a perfect example of how language can change to accommodate ease of use.
Visual vs. Visional
What is the difference between the two?
I heard that visual refers to what they EYES see, as opposed to visional, which refers to what the MIND sees. Is there any truth to this?
How can “visional” be used in a sentence?
Last question: Can both words be considered adjective forms of the noun “vision?”
Thank you! :)
txt spk, language, education
ive wanted to write a post in txt spk for quite sum time now. not totally txt spk so u cant read it at all, but just 1 where i can shorten things n see how it looks. u c, ive been in correspondance lately with a woman frm sweden who lives in london and who ive been wanting to help get on a translation course.
ive noticed a few things about her which id like to share here, maybe to get a better understanding of her (once ive written it all down).
first of all, in all her emails and msn etc she only uses txt spk. i.e. even if its a written document its just txt speak, not ‘real’ English. its not over the top teenage txt spk, but for instance all the time she uses u to say ‘you’ n stuff like that, so u can still read it but its certainly linguistically wrong! i havent challenged her about it as its quite a touchy subject i think. i mean wot am i gonna say? eh babe can u actually use proper language?
the spk she uses is not totally txt spk, but a weird form of standard english with loads of txt abbreviations thrown in. here are sum of the characteristicsn of her language:
- shortening of words via contraction, often: omission of vowels (example: ’some’ – ’sum’; ‘you’ – ‘u’; ‘would’ – ‘wud’)
- poor vocabulary (sum stats of the average use of vocabulary wud b useful here, i.e. how many different words an average spker of English uses)
- poor punctuation (very little understanding of puncutation rules; often, ommision of punctuation mark even tho theyre required)
- absence or incorrect use of apostrophe’s (e.g. it’s will always be written as its, while other times the apostrophe is placed incorrectly)
- general spelling mistakes (alot of spelling mistakes, indicating poor grasp of english)
- absense of structure (longer emails lack structure an its difficult to comprehend what she means sumtimes)
- use of lowercase ‘i’ – she always uses lowercase ‘i’, never uppercase
the funny thing is that she does strike me as quite intelligent, only her language is so rotten and messy that i really dont know if its improvable or not, i.e. within an educational context. theres been stuff on the news where teachers at secondary school get assignments written in half txt speak and thats what it must look like.
id luv to be able to help her somehow but dont think i can. ive always taken it for granted that ppl know how to write relatively well, but maybe thats because ive only ever corresponded with those that can. maybe its me being snobbish, but it does somewhat illustrate the importance of a gud education imho.
the reason why i wanted to write this post in txt spk (yes, all the errors are intentionel :P ) is to demonstrate that language, to me, is very adaptable to whatever u want it to do. its not a reflection of any exterior reality. its a tool that u can use in all sorts of contexts, and the way u use it conveys a lot of information about u. so, use it wisely. use txt speak if u want n it makes ur life easier, but remember to switch back to proper English if u want to make urself understood.
All right now…
This is my pet peeve to end all language pet peeves. Two words are used to spell “all right.” That’s exactly what it should look like, all right? It means satisfactory, agreeable.
The Chicago Manual of Style says to avoid “alright.” To my chagrin, “alright” has been used in business publications, by journalists, and even by Gertrude Stein.
Speaking for myself alone, I cannot stand “alright” because it looks like a misspelling.
But something interesting is happening to the usage of “alright.” Contemporary American urban use has reduced it to a single syllable expressed on paper as “a’ight.” If you’re one of the more than 35 million TV viewers of “American Idol,” you would’ve heard judge Randy Jackson say “a’ight” more than a few times per episode. It’s pronounced like the word “height” but without the H.
I accept “a’ight.” The apostrophe, inserted to indicate that letters have been removed, makes this spelling acceptable (palatable, really).
So here’s to “a’ight.” Though it’s considered slang right now, I’d welcome its entry into the dictionary.
What’s the Genitive Singular of ‘address’?
I’ve been working on a translation project lately and just got stuck a wee bit. Look at the following sentence:
Alternatively, you can put it onto your email address’ ‘whitelist’
(intended meaning: ‘you can put it onto the ‘whitelist’ of your email address’)
Can someone tell me what the correct genitive singular is of the word ‘address’? I mean, in writing, you could just add an apostrophe, like what I’ve done above. However, it doesn’t look right. I’ve been trying to figure it out using Google, but not very helpful. I thought for a moment it might be addresse’s as I think that’s pronouncable (you can hear that it’s a genitive); however, on pasting addresse’s into Google I get stuff like this:
Beware sellers of unconfirmed addresse’s with paypal payments from buyers.
Doesn’t help, does it? Any sensible suggestions or pointers? For now, I’m just going to not use genitive, as I reckon that:
Alternatively, you can put it onto your email address ‘whitelist’
is grammatically correct too.
Language Problems: Articles (The/A/’Omission’)
I’m having to revise my PhD thesis (minor corrections) and one item on the list of corrections pertains to my use of articles. The internal examiner wrote:
Page 16, line 3, should read ‘new media’, not ‘the new media’. The use of such prepositions [sic] before ‘media’ and other nouns should be reviewed throughout the thesis. Example, p. 71 ‘the TV’, ‘the magazine’, p. 76 ‘the telephone’, p. 94 ‘the tv’
Now, I didn’t think I had many problems with articles these days. I proofread a non-native friend’s MA thesis and corrected many instances of incorrect article use. I thought I had cracked it.
Apparently this is not the case. I’ve tried narrowing down my specific problem with it, and I think it concerns mainly ‘the’ vs. ‘no article (omission)’. Here are two actual examples from my thesis:
The commercial advent of the new media, especially the digital computer and the Internet, has revived popular and academic interest in Marshall McLuhan’s theory of the media.
and
Similar to the TV, the World Wide Web (WWW) too is defined by a high degree of remediation.
I *think* my problem is that I use ‘the’ when contrasting two or more nouns and my reasoning is that, when contrasting, you’re referring to something specific or particular and therefore, the direct article is necessary. In the above example, consider the following:
The commercial advent of the new media [as opposed to the old media], especially the digital computer and the Internet, has revived popular and academic interest in Marshall McLuhan’s theory of the media [i.e. not the cinema, not the new media].
I can see it looks odd now myself. I’d really appreciate it if someone could point me to references or articles dealing with this particular problem. I need to understand exactly what it is and why I’m getting it wrong before starting with my corrections. My thesis is 320 pages long and it will take a few days to actually read it all and correct the article situation. I can’t really afford not to understand it and then having to read it again :(
Perfecting the Perfect Tenses
I was preparing my lesson plan on Perfect Tenses and, being the forgetful dork that I am, forgot my previous year’s LP in school (for reference). Since I have no intention of hauling my lovely ass back to school before Christmas break is over, I decided to browse around the internet for some ideas and clarifications (hell, after all my students’ questions last year, it’s best to be prepared).
Lo and behold the best site explaining the Perfect Tenses (to adults, at least):
This one’s helpful also: Present Perfect
Now I have to work on motivation and drills. (not to mention translating the explanations into kid-friendly language. ^_^)
Marks and Spencer’s Apostrophe Catastrophe
(I love my heading! Read it out loud.)
In the news today: British retailer Marks and Spencer got a slogan wrong on its children’s Christmas pyjama range:
“The slogan “Mum’s dreaming of a quiet Christmas just like the one’s she used to know” has a rogue second apostrophe.”
Apparently, it’s not the first time either:
“In October, the store withdrew a set of children’s pyjamas which had a picture of two giraffes and an extra apostrophe on the words “Baby Giraffe’s”.”
Full story here.
NUMB3RS Rerun
One thing on my list of New Year’s resolutions: saying numbers correctly. Well, not really, but it might be if I were an even bigger nerd than I already am.
The fact is that many people either don’t know how to say numbers correctly or at least don’t say them properly. The numbers I’m referring to here are those pesky ones with decimals and commas – you know, the really big ones, and the really small ones, too.
So where do you say “and,” and where don’t you?
The rule of thumb is that you only need an “and” where there appears a decimal. All other positions should be devoid of “and.” For instance, if you were to speak aloud the number 1,234, it would go something like this: “one thousand three hundred thirty-four.” To say “one thousand three hundred and thirty-four would technically be incorrect, although I doubt you’ll be shot over it (otherwise you already would have been). On the other hand, if you were to speak aloud the number 123.4, it would go something like this: “one hundred twenty-three and four-tenths.” I don’t suspect that most of the three of you who are reading this would say “one hundred twenty-three-four-tenths,” but if you do happen to say it like that, stop.
(I should mention here that this applies at least to American English, while in other places the grammar may be different. How does it work over there, Lenina? Bronwyn?)
As far as writing numbers is concerned, well, I’ve already covered some of it. But, as it happens, there is more. There is always more. When writing out numbers using words (as opposed to…numbers), those that require two words but are less than one hundred should be hyphenated. For example, forty-five should always be hyphenated; four hundred never should be. This goes for decimals too, as they all will use two words.
Wiktionary – ‘Misspellings’ Category
There’s a ‘misspellings’ category on Wiktionary, here, which I wanted to share with fellow language enthusiasts. It just lists common misspellings. Our old friend ’should of’ is listed there as incorrect. There are also some other favourites of mine including ‘definately’, ‘occurence’, and even another one of those pesky ‘apostrophe – s’ cases: ‘April Fool’s Day’.
On the contentious issue of Wikipedia’s accuracy, I would say that I’m pretty confident that its content is to a large extent authoritative and correct – others agree. I used it a lot in my PhD research (though I read somewhere this is not allowed in a US academic context).
On a slightly different note, has anyone ever used the WordPress built-in spellchecker? I think it’s a fairly recent addition but I’ve only used it once or twice (should use it more regularly.. maybe they can add a grammar check too).
Language Watch: Guardian Unlimited Podcast Blog
I’ve just come across another missing apostrophe. Either these are on the increase or I notice them more, now that I have to write about them :P
From Guardian Unlimited Podcast Blog (here):
The Guardian’s Social Affairs Editor, John Carvel, has used the paper’s IT team to help him disentangle the accounts of over a hundred hospital trusts in England and finds that at least 12 of them are technically bankrupt. He explains that the government has designed a financial control system that makes it impossible for them solve the problem – its like a black hole in space, says John.
Thankfully I’m registered with them so I was able to leave a comment which I hope they’ll look kindly upon :)
Language Problems: ‘4 Years(’) Experience’
As a non-native speaker, I am sometimes unsure in matters of the English language. While I’m pretty knowledgeable regarding grammar and sentence structure – a knowledge acquired through studying linguistics and also Latin for a number of years – there are some grey spots in my mind.
One such grey spot concerns the construction ‘years experience’. For instance, I have over 4 years / years’ experience as remote worker. Which one is correct? With or without apostrophe? Typing the construction into Google doesn’t help. The rest of the world too seems to have a problem with this. Here are some examples copied from search results when inputting ‘years’ experience’:
- CERTIFIED SERVICE TECHNICIAN Minimum 3 years experience
-
Backed by 40 years experience
-
Forty Years’ Experience
-
Nanny with 7 years experience
-
We are looking to recruit a Solicitor with 4 years’ corporate experience
I suppose my confusion partly stems from my native language (German). For instance, you can say:
“Wir suchen einen Anwalt mit 4 Jahren Erfahrung (We are looking for a solicitor with 4 years experience)”
Here, ‘Jahren’ (years) seems to be used as plural form (4 years). On the other hand, less elegantly, you could also say:
“Wir suchen einen Anwalt mit Erfahrung von 4 Jahren (We are looking for a solicitor with 4 years of experience)”
Here, ‘von 4 Jahren’ is I think Genitive – or is it Dative? See, I’m not even sure here :) – if it were Genitive, I would be inclined to argue that the apostrophe in English (in the first sentence, i.e. the one without the ‘of’) is necessary. But I’m not sure and the more I think about it, the less sure I am :P
I’m hoping that someone can clear up the issue once and for all. So, today’s question:
- Which one is correct: “I have 4 years experience” OR “I have 4 years’ experience“?
- More importantly, why?
Language Watch: ‘The Pursuit of Happyness’ (Film)
When watching the new Bond film (Casino Royale) last night, I had to sit through a number of trailers, as you do. One of them caught my eye:
Disregarding the fact that the film looks like an incredibly boring, ‘American dream’ kind of film with Will Smith pursuing happiness for himself and his young son (by working hard, thus leaving his poor Black neighbourhood behind and eventually ‘making it’ through hard work and enabled by the US of A and the freedom and choice it provides, blah blah blah, propaganda blah blah blah), I could not believe my eyes when at the end of this very dull trailer, the film title was revealed:
The Pursuit of Happyness
Is it me or is this spelling of ‘happyness’ totally bloody wrong? Did I just use a question mark where there shouldn’t be one? I just couldn’t believe it. So, here are two questions for today:
- Is the spelling of ‘happyness’ right or wrong? It isn’t recognised by dictionary.com
- Why would they spell it incorrectly, if it is indeed incorrect? Are they so thick that no one in the chain of producing a Hollywood film actually fucking notices? Or is it an intentional spelling error? If yes, WHY WHY WHY?
Please enlighten me.
Boycott this film.
PS: We should at some point create some template letters/emails to send to governments, media companies, and anyone else in a position of public responsibility that uses language incorrectly. As I’ve argued before, I do strongly believe they have a responsibility to use it correctly.
Could of, should of, would of
I’ve been wanting to write about ‘could of, should of, would of’ for a while. As I’ve said elsewhere, I’m a language purist, not a language fascist, and I am interested (amongst other things) in the way language changes through its use.
‘Could of, should of, would of’ is a very good case in point. When I first read ‘I should of seen it coming’ instead of ‘I should’ve seen it coming’ I was convinced it was incorrect. After all, ‘of’ is a preposition (or rather, an adposition) and in ’should’ve’ , the ‘ve’ is a contraction of ‘have’. I.e. ‘ve’ and ‘of’ have nothing in common, apart from (mabye) their pronunciation.
Anyhow, some months after my first encounter with ’should of’ (and its siblings ‘could of’ and ‘would of’), I read somewhere that it’s now in fact gramatically correct to use these forms, i.e. in writing. Thus, incorrect terms via common usage have become correct. The reason for my post is to (hopefully) collate some more information on this matter – I couldn’t find any good discussion on ‘could of, should of, would of’, apart from the links below:
This guy here claims these forms are incorrect.
Here’s a linguist’s take on the matter.
What do you guys think? Is it correct or incorrect? Any supporting evidence welcome.
lenina.
PS: I’d also be interested in the differences between AE and BE regarding the matter. I see it a lot in BE; however, I don’t read much AE at all so I wouldn’t know how common this problem is in AE.
Et Alii
Great heads-up over at Bladewriter Blog regarding the pronunciation of short-lived. (The real meat is here.) Honestly, it’s not something I’ve ever thought about (I’m a short “i” person myself), but there are definitely some compelling points to the contrary. I might just have to change my ways.
How do you pronounce it?
Supposedly Supposably Is Merely Supposition
Okay, I’ll keep this one short and sweet too: Supposably is not a word. Never has been, probably never will be. Sure, supposable is a word, as is its root, suppose. The kicker, though, is that the word most people are shooting for – supposedly, referring to “what is generally assumed or believed,” according to OED – when they say supposably is actually a word, while the latter bastard child of poor grammar isn’t.
The next time you’re about to whip out supposably, don’t. It doesn’t exist.
The Greengrocer’s at it again
Last time I contributed about apostrophes, I mentioned that there is a particular misuse of the apostrophe that is actually named after greengrocers.
It’s a shame to malign greengrocers because their signs are so cheery, somehow . Maybe it’s all that crunchy good health.
But not long after I wrote about Apple’s for $6.95 a kilogram, our local market was advertising Rosy Ladys for so much per kilogram. No, there was no apostrophe this time. But somehow the plural didn’t look right.
I have to ask - if one apple is a Rosy lady, are two of them Rosy Ladies or Rosy Ladys? I don’t want to make assumptions about my local greengrocer just because of a reputation!
Language Watch: BBC News Website
Occasionally, I come across errors and mistakes on reputable websites that really should know better. It doesn’t bother me too much; it’s mostly irritating, given that these sites have some sort of ‘responsibility’ imho to use language correctly.
Just today I read this on the BBC website (here):
“The campaign is raising the necessary capital through pledges and has already received more than 60,000 euros.
If the group is successful it will purchase the source code for the game and distribute it for free.
Avid fans could then write code and contribute to the game’s development.
“The game won’t change, its more the way people will use it” said Xavier Antoviaque, a founder of the campaign and an ex-employee of Nevrax.”
Spot the error :p
I wish there was some direct feedback system so I could notify the editors. The author of the news item isn’t even identified.
Whenever I spot any language-related errors on reputable sites, I’ll post them here (under ‘Language Watch’). I think we should collect them all, or even let the sites know. With regard to the BBC – how such mistakes get past whoever proofreads their stuff is a mystery to me! It simply shouldn’t happen.
edit: I DO like smileys. Aren’t they enabled on this blog? They don’t show. I know it’s mainly about language but a little bit of colour here and there wouldn’t go amiss ;)
