Submitted by Linda Nagy • May 9, 2013
How do you handle a quote within a quote within a quote in an MLA citation?
Be the first to comment
•
Posted in Style
Submitted by Erin • April 14, 2013
“She said she...” or “She said that she...”
All my life I have received great feedback about my grammar, but these past few years I find myself over thinking it—all the time. It actually causes me to create mistakes where there previously weren’t any. Bizarre?
One such thing that I have thought too much about is the necessity of “that” in phrases like the above. When would you say it’s necessary? Always? Never? Sometimes? Explain! Thanks!
12 comments
•
Posted in Style
Submitted by Ion-Sturm • March 31, 2013
Are adverbs something to be avoided like the plague or an inevitable mutation of the English language that we just have to deal with? I’ve heard it said that they’re the mark of a writer who lacks the vocabulary to use powerful words (for example, “He walked slowly” does not carry the weight of “He plodded” or “He trudged”) and the skill to vary their sentence structure. I’ve seen them used in published in professional work, from George R. R. Martin to J.K. Rowling, so it’s not something authors shy away from and, for the most part, the public accepts it without question.
6 comments
•
Posted in Style
Submitted by Cathie • February 22, 2013
What is a correct... “A gift of John Doe” or “A gift from John Doe” when referring to a large charitable donation? I like the sound of “of” but not sure which one is right.
6 comments
•
Posted in Style
Submitted by Hairy Scot • January 1, 2013
What would be the preferred form of each of these:-
a) “in hopes of” or “in the hope of”
b) “a change in plans” or “a change of plan”
c) “apprise” or “inform”
d) “envision” or “envisage”
I favour the second of each of the above, but no doubt there will be different opinions.
31 comments
•
Posted in Style
Submitted by Greg Allen • October 10, 2011
Why is the term “attorneys general” correct? It used to be “attorney generals” ... There are multiple attorney generals.
If I was describing a group of Army generals, I wouldn’t say “Armies General” ... would I?
11 comments
•
Posted in Style
Submitted by AnWulf • October 8, 2011
“What can I do besides complaining” sounds wrong to me but I can’t say why ... I think it should be complain.
“What can I do besides complain?”
“What can I do but complain?”
However, “Besides complaining, what can I do?” sounds ok.
Any thoughts? Or am I completely off base here?
4 comments
•
Posted in Style
Submitted by sigurd • September 30, 2011
If a semicolon is used to contrast two sentences, we can omit repetitive words by using a comma, as in:
“To err is human; to forgive, divine”
and
“The cat was orange; the dog, brown.”
However, if no semicolon is used, can we still do the same? For example:
“You’re our son, Heracles, and we, your family.”
5 comments
•
Posted in Style
Submitted by Brus • September 25, 2011
“If I was the Prime Minister. ...” said Ed Miliband, British Labour party leader, today, Sunday 24th September 2011. Is this not how to phrase it if it remains a possibility that he was once Prime Minister, or if he is not sure if he was, or is reluctant to admit it?
“If I were the Prime Minister, ...”, using the subjunctive mood of the verb, would suggest that he is not Prime minister but is about to tell us what he would do if he were the PM.
If the subjunctive is now defunct in UK Labour politics, as I suspect, how did he continue to tell us what he would have done, if he were the PM, without using the subjunctive? “if I was the PM, I ~~~~~ ???” It cannot be done.
129 comments
•
Posted in Style
Submitted by Max_Elliott • September 22, 2011
I never know whether to use “it” in the following sentence: “Just because ___, (it) doesn’t mean ____.” In other words, would you say,
“Just because I was mean to you, it doesn’t mean you should be mean to me.” OR
“Just because I was mean to you, doesn’t mean you should be mean to me.” OR
“Just because I was mean to you, that doesn’t mean you should be mean to me.”
I hear people using the second variation all the time, but it seems that the third is preferable. Thoughts?
10 comments
•
Posted in Style
Submitted by alant • July 22, 2010
I know that the proper order for a nominative series of nouns including the speaker is “John and I,” but what about for the objective? “Mrs. Smith taught me and John,” or, “Mrs. Smith taught John and me”? The same goes for prepositions, “Mrs. Smith taught chemistry to me and John,” vs. “Mrs. Smith taught chemistry to John and me.”
Also, does whether one uses the objective pronoun or the reflexive pronoun affect the order? “I taught John and myself,” vs, “I taught myself and John.”
13 comments
•
Posted in Style
Submitted by jomelfuentes • April 28, 2010
My teen-age daughter wrote a psychological thriller novella, “Keeping Her in the Light” last summer that Canada-based Eternal Press published last November.
She wants to finish another psychological thriller that she started writing 2 years ago. The setting is during the Victorian Era. She stopped writing this novella because she feels that the conversations in her novella should be in the style of the Victorian Era.
Kindly advise if there is a software or method of converting modern day English to the Victorian Era English.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jomel Fuentes
Manila, Philippines
12 comments
•
Posted in Style
Submitted by frankie • March 3, 2010
How do I write out .25%
20 comments
•
Posted in Style
Submitted by Dyske • April 29, 2009
When you link something in a quote, should we include the double quotes in the link? For instance:
I asked where to look, and John answered, “Wikipedia!”
or
I asked where to look, and John answered, “Wikipedia!”
This is really a matter of style, but I’m wondering if any major sites have a style guide that specifies this.
2 comments
•
Posted in Style
Submitted by alekseyvaneev • February 10, 2009
I’m still undecided on how to spell correctly:
“Drum Track Recording Service” or
“Drum Tracks Recording Service”.
I’m personally voting for the second variant, but as I’m not a native English speaker, I’m not sure.
6 comments
•
Posted in Style
Submitted by mike2 • February 1, 2009
I’ve noticed in the past that the BBC News Web site seems to be rather hit-or-miss with its use of acronyms and abbreviations. One I see repeatedly is its use of “Nasa” for “NASA,” and another I noticed today is “Farc” instead of “FARC” for the Colombian guerrilla group. At the same time, UK, TV, PM, US, and even BBC are treated as I would expect. Can anyone explain this beyond “the editors are twits”?
The abbreviation which prompted me to post this, though, is their habit of abbreviating “Sri Lanka” as “S Lanka.” Why would anyone think it necessary to drop those two characters?
By way of introduction, my name is Mike, and I was born and raised in southern California. I’m a survivor of public schools through high school graduation in 1978. I know full well that my command of the English language is far from perfect, and I do not attempt to correct errors in others’ informal writing or speech, but journalists, authors, and others who write for public consumption I hold to a higher standard, and are therefore considered fair game. :-)
20 comments
•
Posted in Style
Submitted by joseph • April 27, 2008
Isn’t it redundant to say
That is the REASON WHY I am here.
Isn’t the ‘reason’ the ‘why’ as well? But how come many people use it?
20 comments
•
Posted in Style
Submitted by james • October 25, 2007
I’m helping to rewrite my organisation’s style guide. I prefer (and we have always used) Collins but some other colleagues prefer the OED.
Does anyone have any strong views on their respective merits?
thanks,
James
2 comments
•
Posted in Style
Submitted by derek2 • July 6, 2007
There wasn’t a clause left in the sole agency contract that wasn’t a source of conflict.
The author of a book I am editing refuses to change the above sentence to:
Every clause left in the sole agency contract was a source of conflict.
His reason is this is “a literary device to accentuate [my point]” . I think it is bad English to use the same word twice in one sentence. Am I being pedantic?
5 comments
•
Posted in Style
Submitted by marcelo3 • July 3, 2007
I read this sentence and I felt kind of weird about it:
The suppliers imposed us to absorb price increase.
I won’t say that it’s wrong to use IMPOSE in that sentence, neither that ABSORB cannot be used like that, but wouldn’t it sound better, and maybe even clearer to use one of the following alternatives?
1. The suppliers forced us to accept price increase.
2. The suppliers made us accept price increase.
3. The suppliers left us no choice but to accept price increase.
4. The suppliers left us no choice but to deal with price increase.
5. The suppliers imposed price increase on us and we were forced to accept it.
6. The suppliers imposed price increase on us and we were forced to deal with it.
7. The suppliers imposed price increase on us and we could do nothing about it.
Any opinion appreciated...
13 comments
•
Posted in Style