Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You might as well be a great copy editor

blog.regehr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 58 posts

Re: You might as well be a great copy editor

#41

Post by [deleted] »

jxcl wrote: post #40
Stratoscope wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a fun set of examples, and most of the answers are right on. But not this one: > 12. Led Zeppelin did not steal the opening riff of its rock anthem “Stairway to Heaven,” a federal jury ruled here, giving the band a victory in a copyright case in which millions of dollars were at stake. > O.K., this may be a fine point. But since what was at stake was the total amount, rather than the individual dollars or eve…

But that’s exactly how I would say it: “millions of dollars was at stake.” To me, what you propose seems like a mistake someone just learning English would make. Give it a specific sum: you wouldn’t say “two million dollars were at stake,” you would say “two million dollars was at stake”. I admit it’s pretty weird, but you also say “two million dollars is a lot of money,” not “two million dollars are a lot of money.”

[deleted]

Re: You might as well be a great copy editor

#42

Post by Wistar »

jxcl wrote: post #40
Stratoscope wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a fun set of examples, and most of the answers are right on. But not this one: > 12. Led Zeppelin did not steal the opening riff of its rock anthem “Stairway to Heaven,” a federal jury ruled here, giving the band a victory in a copyright case in which millions of dollars were at stake. > O.K., this may be a fine point. But since what was at stake was the total amount, rather than the individual dollars or eve…

But that’s exactly how I would say it: “millions of dollars was at stake.” To me, what you propose seems like a mistake someone just learning English would make. Give it a specific sum: you wouldn’t say “two million dollars were at stake,” you would say “two million dollars was at stake”. I admit it’s pretty weird, but you also say “two million dollars is a lot of money,” not “two million dollars are a lot of money.”

Me, too, "[M]illions of dollars was at stake," is exactly how I would state that.

Re: You might as well be a great copy editor

#43

Post by ninkendo »

jxcl wrote: post #40
Stratoscope wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a fun set of examples, and most of the answers are right on. But not this one: > 12. Led Zeppelin did not steal the opening riff of its rock anthem “Stairway to Heaven,” a federal jury ruled here, giving the band a victory in a copyright case in which millions of dollars were at stake. > O.K., this may be a fine point. But since what was at stake was the total amount, rather than the individual dollars or eve…

But that’s exactly how I would say it: “millions of dollars was at stake.” To me, what you propose seems like a mistake someone just learning English would make. Give it a specific sum: you wouldn’t say “two million dollars were at stake,” you would say “two million dollars was at stake”. I admit it’s pretty weird, but you also say “two million dollars is a lot of money,” not “two million dollars are a lot of money.”

IIRC this may be a difference between British English and American English... Whereas a Briton might say “Led Zeppelin were on stage”, referring to the multiple band members, an American would say “Led Zeppelin was on stage”, referring to the band as the single entity. I can’t remember where I read about this though.

Re: You might as well be a great copy editor

#44

Post by Wistar »

pdevr wrote: post #37
Wistar wrote: post #14

NYT's "Copy Edit This" quizzes are quite good. https://www.nytimes.com/search?query=%22copy%2Bedit%2Bthis%2... https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/11/insider/copy-...

Thanks for sharing those links, now I am addicted :-) This from the second quiz bothers me: >>On the witness stand, the defendants said they had been duped by Mr. Wildstein, a self-confessed liar and political trickster, into believing that the closings were part of a legitimate traffic study. "self-confessed liar" is a phrase present even in dictionaries - as example usage, no less. I have not seen many instances wh…

Although "self-confessed liar" is plainly redundant, IMO.

Re: You might as well be a great copy editor

#45

Post by andrewzah »

Stratoscope wrote: post #36
Wistar wrote: post #14

NYT's "Copy Edit This" quizzes are quite good. https://www.nytimes.com/search?query=%22copy%2Bedit%2Bthis%2... https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/11/insider/copy-...

That is a fun set of examples, and most of the answers are right on. But not this one: > 12. Led Zeppelin did not steal the opening riff of its rock anthem “Stairway to Heaven,” a federal jury ruled here, giving the band a victory in a copyright case in which millions of dollars were at stake. > O.K., this may be a fine point. But since what was at stake was the total amount, rather than the individual dollars or eve…

> Copyediting should reflect how people actually speak and write.

Why? Genuine question. Written language is always different than spoken language, and this is not unique to English. People make mistakes all the time when speaking, particularly native speakers. [0]

Upon initial reading, I would say one -could- say "was" or "were". But when I read it aloud, I found "was" was more natural.

In most situations this isn't that big of a deal, but we are talking about copy editors here...

> how people actually speak and write.

When I grew up religiously reading books, I wrote and spoke a lot more book-like than I do now. Which version of me is "how people actually speak and write"?

Is Standard American English "how people actually speak and write"? Or is it fine to use varieties of English like Appalachian English or African-American Vernacular English?

Who decides the above? English doesn't have a language council like Korean or French. There is no all-authoritative entity to ask.

[0]: /r/boneappletea is both humorous and infuriating for examples of this. https://www.reddit.com/r/BoneAppleTea/comments/doscha/starch...

Re: You might as well be a great copy editor

#46

Post by jxcl »

ninkendo wrote: post #43
jxcl wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that’s exactly how I would say it: “millions of dollars was at stake.” To me, what you propose seems like a mistake someone just learning English would make. Give it a specific sum: you wouldn’t say “two million dollars were at stake,” you would say “two million dollars was at stake”. I admit it’s pretty weird, but you also say “two million dollars is a lot of money,” not “two million dollars are a lot of money.”

IIRC this may be a difference between British English and American English... Whereas a Briton might say “Led Zeppelin were on stage”, referring to the multiple band members, an American would say “Led Zeppelin was on stage”, referring to the band as the single entity. I can’t remember where I read about this though.

You’re correct! They take it pretty far: for instance companies are collective nouns, so they would say “Apple are releasing the new iPhone.” In not sure where it stops, but I’m vaguely suspicious that countries are singular nouns.

Re: You might as well be a great copy editor

#48

Post by zodiac »

yellowapple wrote: post #28
Wistar wrote: post #14

NYT's "Copy Edit This" quizzes are quite good. https://www.nytimes.com/search?query=%22copy%2Bedit%2Bthis%2... https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/11/insider/copy-...

Those are fun. Just got through the first one with 17 total tries (most of which were on the 8th question). Some of them are dubious, though, IMO. For example: > The total amount available to |disperse| will be $150 million annually. I guess in a journalism context more people are talking about disbursing than dispersing, but how am I supposed to know that? For all I know this sentence comes from an article about wan…

> How am I supposed to know "offensively excessive" wasn't the intended meaning here?

I'm guessing if it were the intended meaning, "but" would be incorrect in "Republicans will not like many of these proposals, but they have been fulsome in their praise of Mr. Trump since his election"

Re: You might as well be a great copy editor

#50

Post by Stratoscope »

andrewzah wrote: post #45
Stratoscope wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a fun set of examples, and most of the answers are right on. But not this one: > 12. Led Zeppelin did not steal the opening riff of its rock anthem “Stairway to Heaven,” a federal jury ruled here, giving the band a victory in a copyright case in which millions of dollars were at stake. > O.K., this may be a fine point. But since what was at stake was the total amount, rather than the individual dollars or eve…

> Copyediting should reflect how people actually speak and write. Why? Genuine question. Written language is always different than spoken language, and this is not unique to English. People make mistakes all the time when speaking, particularly native speakers. [0] Upon initial reading, I would say one -could- say "was" or "were". But when I read it aloud, I found "was" was more natural. In most situations this isn't…

Thank you and the others who replied. Obviously I was wrong to say no one would ever use "was" here. Live and learn! :-)
Post reply on HN