johntaylor Posted 21 September , 2018 Share Posted 21 September , 2018 I'm probably guilty on that count, though fortunately it's not a comment I've had from readers or reviewers. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Black Posted 21 September , 2018 Share Posted 21 September , 2018 (edited) 51 minutes ago, Steven Broomfield said: I see today that the Man Booker Award judges have decided less is more and have cut out overly-long books. The wiki page on the that particular popularity contest makes for interesting reading. " In 2001, A.L. Kennedy, who was a judge in 1996, called the prize "a pile of crooked nonsense" with the winner determined by "who knows who, who's sleeping with who, who's selling drugs to who, who's married to who, whose turn it is" Edited 21 September , 2018 by Derek Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johntaylor Posted 21 September , 2018 Share Posted 21 September , 2018 If you can find out who I need to sleep with or sell drugs to, I'll definitely consider it. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrellDuthie Posted 21 September , 2018 Share Posted 21 September , 2018 2 hours ago, johntaylor said: If you can find out who I need to sleep with or sell drugs to, I'll definitely consider it. John Wonderful stuff!!! Shame one can't "like" posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Bennitt Posted 21 September , 2018 Share Posted 21 September , 2018 3 hours ago, Derek Black said: The wiki page on the that particular popularity contest makes for interesting reading. " In 2001, A.L. Kennedy, who was a judge in 1996, called the prize "a pile of crooked nonsense" with the winner determined by "who knows who, who's sleeping with who, who's selling drugs to who, who's married to who, whose turn it is" Shouldn’t half those whos be whoms? Cheers Martin B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonraker Posted 21 September , 2018 Share Posted 21 September , 2018 Yes. Who vs whom Not that I'm impressed by the site's title including the word "grammarly". If I wasn't going to bed, I might say something about Derek's use of double quotes within double quotes, but I won't. Moonraker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
depaor01 Posted 21 September , 2018 Share Posted 21 September , 2018 2 hours ago, Martin Bennitt said: Shouldn’t half those whos be whoms? Cheers Martin B I recently came across a rule of thumb to the effect that you should reword the sentence in your head to use the pronoun He and Him. For He, put who. For Him, put whom. In the above example, who is sleeping with who is rendered as he is sleeping with him. The correct sentence is therefore who is sleeping with whom. Simples. Ish... Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Filsell Posted 22 September , 2018 Share Posted 22 September , 2018 Glad this thread has thirven (If you have gotten the time earlier, you can argue that one, or both)! When I assumed the post of reviews editor I sent out a Stand To! House Style Guide, to all reviewers. At the end I included this I attach the copy of George Orwell’s six invaluable rules for clear and effective writing given to me and almost every other young journo. They have stood the test of time. 1) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech you are used to seeing in print. (Brass is never bold, cats are never dragged in) (2) Never use a long word where a short one will do. (3i) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. (4) Never use the passive where you can use the active. (5) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. (6) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous. I would add again – adjectives in writing are like salt on a meal. Overuse can spoil an article. (To my shame it contained a, now removed, error.) I fully admit my own 'final copy' is always peppered with errors. Equally, contributing to the forum on an IPad is always foolish - bash it out , read it, re read it but will still contain errors caused by over enthusiasm because I always forget the other old rule - read out loud before submitting.. Editing other's work is easier. But still things can slip through - or, at worst, errors be introduced by the 'editor'! David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank_East Posted 22 September , 2018 Share Posted 22 September , 2018 Didn't Orwell advise in the use of communication .....don't show off and don't swear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonraker Posted 22 September , 2018 Share Posted 22 September , 2018 16 hours ago, depaor01 said: I recently came across a rule of thumb to the effect that you should reword the sentence in your head to use the pronoun He and Him. For He, put who. For Him, put whom... Dave Perhaps you came across it in the link I gave in the post before yours? Moonraker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Filsell Posted 22 September , 2018 Share Posted 22 September , 2018 Not in any version that I have seen, although it's bloody good advice (joke). Others may know better. Perhaps it's like Boelke's dicta of air fighting, and several version exist. (Oxford comma also lighthearted) regards David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seaJane Posted 22 September , 2018 Share Posted 22 September , 2018 8 hours ago, David Filsell said: thirven <cough> thriven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
depaor01 Posted 22 September , 2018 Share Posted 22 September , 2018 5 hours ago, Moonraker said: Perhaps you came across it in the link I gave in the post before yours? Moonraker Swear I didn't read it. Great minds an' all that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrellDuthie Posted 22 September , 2018 Share Posted 22 September , 2018 As to the Oxford comma - never, ever, take it lightheartedly. The copy-editor of my first book took me to task for the "virtual absence of Oxford commas". Endeavouring to improve myself, I even read a book about commas... Having thought I had it all licked, my second book arrived back from the editor (a different one it must be said) plastered in the digital equivalent of red ink. The growling commentary moaned about the wanton proliferation of commas. No. The Oxford comma is not to be taken lightly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Wade Posted 22 September , 2018 Share Posted 22 September , 2018 1 hour ago, seaJane said: <cough> thriven I saw that but was thinking it's probably a word I'm unfamiliar with, so kept my trap shut... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
depaor01 Posted 22 September , 2018 Share Posted 22 September , 2018 1 hour ago, Esdorn said: As to the Oxford comma - never, ever, take it lightheartedly. The copy-editor of my first book took me to task for the "virtual absence of Oxford commas". Endeavouring to improve myself, I even read a book about commas... Having thought I had it all licked, my second book arrived back from the editor (a different one it must be said) plastered in the digital equivalent of red ink. The growling commentary moaned about the wanton proliferation of commas. No. The Oxford comma is not to be taken lightly. The problem is that Oxford is a legitimate punctuation so it's really a question of taste. Personally I can't stand the sight of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crunchy Posted 23 September , 2018 Share Posted 23 September , 2018 8 hours ago, Esdorn said: As to the Oxford comma - never, ever, take it lightheartedly. The copy-editor of my first book took me to task for the "virtual absence of Oxford commas". Endeavouring to improve myself, I even read a book about commas... Having thought I had it all licked, my second book arrived back from the editor (a different one it must be said) plastered in the digital equivalent of red ink. The growling commentary moaned about the wanton proliferation of commas. No. The Oxford comma is not to be taken lightly. 6 hours ago, depaor01 said: The problem is that Oxford is a legitimate punctuation so it's really a question of taste. Personally I can't stand the sight of it. We can't win, can we? Oh for the joy of the English language, and its punctuation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
593jones Posted 23 September , 2018 Share Posted 23 September , 2018 I had never heard of the Oxford comma before, but, having looked it up, I find that I have been using it for years. I learn something new every day on here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 23 September , 2018 Share Posted 23 September , 2018 The sort of English up with which we will not put, if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liz in Eastbourne Posted 23 September , 2018 Share Posted 23 September , 2018 On 21/09/2018 at 21:19, Moonraker said: Yes. Who vs whom Not that I'm impressed by the site's title including the word "grammarly". If I wasn't going to bed, I might say something about Derek's use of double quotes within double quotes, but I won't. Moonraker Except that it would have sounded prissy these days if she had used 'whom'. So she was probably right not to. Except, I must admit, in the case of 'married to who(m)' - I still find 'who' after a preposition hard to accept. We all have different levels of tolerance, I suppose. i am much more irritated by over-zealous 'whom's stuck in where they should be 'who's. Liz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry_Reeves Posted 23 September , 2018 Share Posted 23 September , 2018 There is of course Who's Who which can be quite useful depending on .... TR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Filsell Posted 24 September , 2018 Share Posted 24 September , 2018 SJ Thriven - past participle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seaJane Posted 24 September , 2018 Share Posted 24 September , 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, David Filsell said: SJ Thriven - past participle Indeed, but if you look at the word which I quoted from your post, you had spelt it thirven ... Edited 24 September , 2018 by seaJane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 25 September , 2018 Share Posted 25 September , 2018 As a translator of German WW1 material, I often have to insert commas (and other punctuation marks, and devices such as dots, dashes, brackets) in odd places in order to signpost what is going on in the translation of a complex German sentence and indicate what relates to what. I sometimes think of myself as the lead climber on the ascent of a rock face ... if I create hand-holds and insert pitons, slings and other technical aids in the right places, those who follow will be able to climb with confidence and in comparative safety. As an editor and proofreader, having already edited the raw copy and checked intermediate proofs, I am just about to embark on the final read-through (with both editing and proofreading faculties switched on) of a 268-page book. So I am just going inside and may be some time ... Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Filsell Posted 25 September , 2018 Share Posted 25 September , 2018 SJ That was just a test - and I failed it! Regards David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now