Answered Questions

19 years ago

From the Q&A section of the website of The Chicago Manual of Style:

Q. As an editor of regulatory documents, I routinely come across sentences in which the subject is an inanimate object but the verb denotes something only a person can do. Examples are "this document analyzes the hazards" and "the analysis considers the environmental impacts." Does this type of thing have a name? Inappropriate anthropomorphism or personification? Is there a rule I can cite when explaining to the author why I have suggested rewording the sentence?

A. Why reword it? Documents do analyze and present and consider. They discuss and bemoan and mangle and make mockeries of things. ThereÂs no rule that restricts writers to using the literal meanings of words. If it gets to the point where the documents are ordering in pizza, consider rewording.

Q. I have always been taught that there are two ways to spell dietitian (or dietician), but that the correct style is with a t not a c. A friend of mine disagrees completely and feels that dietitian is the wrong spelling and therefore should never be used. Another friend of mine says that dietitians spell it with a t. I am really curious. . . . What is the correct spelling?

A. I would look it up in the dictionary for youÂbut then IÂd have to do it for everyone. (Let me know what you find out!)

Q. The menu in our cafeteria shows that enchiladas are available "Tues.ÂFri." However, when I ordered one on a Wednesday, I was informed that enchiladas are available on Tuesday AND Friday, not Tuesday THROUGH Friday. When I informed the cafeteria manager that this was incorrect, she seemed shocked and refused to change the sign. Please help determine who is correct!

A. Although the sign was incorrect, IÂm not sure you should annoy the person who provides the enchiladas

Q. Oh, English-language gurus, is it ever proper to put a question mark and an exclamation mark at the end of a sentence in formal writing? This author is giving me a fit with some of her overkill emphases, and now there is this sentence that has both marks at the end. My everlasting gratitude for letting me know what I should tell this person.

A. In formal writing, we allow both marks only in the event that the author was being physically assaulted while writing. Otherwise, no

Q. My question is, is there any standard for the usage of emoticons? In particular, is there an accepted practice for the use of emoticons that include an opening or closing parenthesis as the final token within a set of parentheses? Should I (1) incorporate the emoticon into the closing of the parentheses (giving a dual purpose to the closing parenthesis, such as in this case. :-) (2) simply leave the emoticon up against the closing parenthesis, ignoring the bizarre visual effect of the doubled closing parenthesis (as I am doing here, producing a doubled-chin effect :-)) (3) put a space or two between the emoticon and the closing parenthesis (like this: :-) ) (4) or...

Sort by:Oldest

Comments (30)

robert-e
19 years ago
Heh, heh...this is going to get someone "up in arms"... ":-))"

Bob
Chris_in_the_Valley
19 years ago
Delightful.
Related Discussions
Can you identify and answer questions on this squash?
Q
Comments (11)
I think the Tromboncinos are better sauteed with garlic than steamed. Soup is a good use for the size pictured above. To me, the flavor of the Tromboncinos is superior to that of regular Butternuts or Tahitians when picked young. Regular Butternuts (or Tahitian squashes, which resemble Tromboncinos when young.) are sweeter and less fibrous as winter squash. Tromboncinos are quite stringy when ripe, almost like spaghetti squash. They are less sweet than most Butternut types (C. moschata) when ripe. Like other squashes in the Butternut family, Tromboncinos have non-spiny vines. I imagine growing them on an overhead arbor, maybe along with velvet-leaved edible Cucuzzi gourds, as a dramatic source of summer shade. Both plants make rather rampant growth. Because the flavor and texture of Tromboncino squash is different from zucchini, I think it's nice to grow both if you have room (the Tromboncinos preferably on a support). If you live where other summer squashes (C. pepo) lose their vigor, or even die, before the end of summer, Tromboncinos can take over as summer squash for the later season, when you may be sick of zucchini anyway.
...See More
Answered questions on Lake Okeechobee
Q
Comments (19)
REMEMBER WHEN THIS WAS THEIR ANSWER TO THE LOW LAKE?????? LAKE OKEECHOBEE BACKPUMPING FACT SHEET Lake Okeechobee has a surface area of 730 square miles and is the second largest freshwater lake wholly within the United States. Â The Lake has been classified by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection as a Class I Drinking Water source, which requires strict standards allowing only small amounts of pollution. Â The Lake is the sole source of drinking water for several small towns on the south rim of the Lake and one of the sources of drinking water for West Palm Beach, Fort Myers, and the entire Lower East Coast metropolitan area. Â The region south of the Lake, known as the Everglades Agricultural Area ("EAA"), contains over a half million acres of former Everglades that have been diked and drained to make them suitable for urban and agricultural development. Most of the land is in sugar cane cultivation. Â Three companies own 87% of the land within the EAA. One of those companies is the United States Sugar Corporation which owns 104,000 acres in the EAA, much of it in the area directly south of Lake Okeechobee. Â Polluted water is pumped off the sugar cane fields and collected in large District-owned canals. Â At the north ends of these canals, the District owns and operates three pumping stations, S-2, S-3, and S-4, which are built into the Herbert Hoover Dike that surrounds Lake Okeechobee. Â Each of these pumping stations has either three or four very large pumps each powered by a diesel engine about four times the size of a semi trailer engine. When all the pumps in a pump station are operating, the discharge is equivalent to the flow of a medium size Florida river. Â The flow from the pumps creates a highly visible "plume" of dark (sometimes even black) colored water that can reach nine miles out into Lake Okeechobee. Â The plume contains high levels of nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) and high levels of dissolved organic materials that come from agricultural and urban wastes. Â One of the largest pump stations is within 2 and Â½ miles of the drinking water intake of South Bay, one of the small towns on the south rim of the Lake that uses the Lake for drinking water. Â Earthjustice brought this lawsuit against the South Florida Water Management District in 2002 on behalf of the Florida Wildlife Federation. Â The case is a Clean Water Act "citizen suit" which sought a declaration from the court that the District had to obtain federal Clean Water Act "point source" permits for its pump station discharges. Â As "point sources," the discharges from the pumping station must meet pollution limits applicable to Lake Okeechobee. Â The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians entered the lawsuit in support of the environmental groups. Â The United States Sugar Corporation entered the case in support of the District. Â The Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers entered the case on the side of the polluters - the District and U.S. Sugar - in early 2005. This was the first occasion in the 33 year history of the EPA that it entered a water pollution case on the side of a polluter. Â No EPA witness testified at the trial and no EPA witnesses were provided for depositions. Â Florida Wildlife Federation argued that when the District collects and then moves water in a way that harms the receiving water body (here Lake Okeechobee) it is responsible for cleaning up the pollution in the same way a city is responsible for cleaning up sewage it collects in its sewage system before it discharges its wastewater. Â On average, the S-2, S-3, and S-4 pumping stations discharge 32 billion gallons of water into Lake Okeechobee each year. Â Today, on average, the pumps contribute the equivalent of 60,000 one hundred pound bags of phosphorus to the Lake each year. Â Because of this excessive fertilization, the Lake now chronically suffers from toxic blue-green algae blooms, including one in 2005 that generated toxin levels in Lake Okeechobee 65 times greater than the World Health OrganizationÂs safe drinking water guidelines. Â Blue-green algae toxins can affect the liver, nervous system and skin and have been linked to increases in liver cancer, chronic fatigue illness, skin rashes, abdominal cramps, nausea, diarrhea and vomiting, as well as deaths of dogs and cattle. The toxins are not removed by chlorination or boiling and algaecides (which kill the algae) result in the release of the toxins into the environment. Â Phosphorus pollution levels in the Lake have risen continuously from about 40 parts per billion in 1960 to 240 parts per billion last year Â an all time high. Phosphorus is a main ingredient in fertilizer and is an important component of animal waste and sewage. Â The state and EPA have recently determined that the maximum allowable level of phosphorus pollution is 40 parts per billion. Â In 1976, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection contended that backpumping into Lake Okeechobee from the pumping stations should be stopped. At trial, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection reversed position and sided with the District in contending that no Clean Water Act permit was necessary. Â After the trial was completed but before a decision was issued, EPA proposed an administrative rule that would exempt all water transfers from permitting under the Clean Water Act. The South Florida Water Management District Â the defendant in the backpumping case Â explained that the rule is "expressly designed" for the backpumping lawsuit. Â Thirteen states and the Canadian province of Manitoba filed comments in opposition to the proposed EPA rule as did over 50 national conservation organizations. Â Earthjustice will take the EPA to court to challenge the legality of the new water transfers exemption rule when it is adopted by EPA. The theory of the case will be that EPA may not legally exempt any polluters from the Clean Water ActÂs permitting requirements.
...See More
Broccoli Casserole - answer to question and recipe ...................
Q
Comments (15)
@woodrose77 I'm sorry if that seemed rude. It was just a bit funny to me, because that sounds like broccoli with cheese sauce. I married in 1982, so mom probably started making it sometime in the 70's. The broccoli/mushroom soup/etc. was popular. Yes! exactly. My mom was a great cook and I have always cooked from scratch because that's how she and my grandmother did. I cooked more with my grandmother than my mom, actually. No cheeze whiz, cream of whatever soups, etc. I've never added mushrooms to the casserole though. I have probably tasted my share of broccoli casseroles at various pot-lucks over the years. Although I haven't had Velveeta in years, I actually used to like the taste of it. I guess that was when it was real cheese (or made with real cheese). I believe it is cheese product now? Anyhoo, too much discussion on broccoli casserole, I am sure. I sure did enjoy mine this week and it made me think of mom. Now it's dad on my mind, as he would have turned 92 today. I sure do miss them!
...See More
Answering question
Q
Comments (1)
Answer the question in the thread it was asked. Not randomly here where it has no context.
...See More
pam53
19 years ago
I loved it!
sheriz6
19 years ago
That's great!
laceyvail 6A, WV
19 years ago
This is like the Miss Manners of grammar, style, punctuation!
martin_z
19 years ago
What a fascinating web site! I'll be revisiting this one. One other that appeals to me...

Q. When referring to the house belonging to my wife and me, I have trouble deciding between "Libby and my house" or "LibbyÂs and my house." Which is correct?

A. "LibbyÂs and my house." In some contexts, the difference could be critical. You might not want to say, for instance, "We put Libby and my house on the market."

Can't argue with that!

Of course, it being an American style guide, it gets some things wrong from a UK point of view. There's a discussion about "in regards to" vs "in regard to"...which is right? Well, as far as I'm concerned, neither of them - it should be "with regard to" !!
veer
19 years ago
Another UK difference, but not wrong is the American use of 'Tuesday THROUGH Friday'. Over here we would write 'Tuesday-Friday' or say either "between Tuesday AND Friday" or "Tuesday TO Friday".
We never use THROUGH in that context.
leel
19 years ago
I was taught "in regard to" and I'm in the US. A permutation might be: "as regards ...."
martin_z
19 years ago
Vee - it's very decent of you to suggest that things like "Tuesday through Friday" are not wrong, just because our American friends use them. Typical British tact. Of course, you know and I know that they are actually wrong, but we have to be kind to our US cousins - that's the way they've been brought up and they don't know any better.

(Takes cover as brickbats come flying across the pond...)

BTW - what is a brickbat? Sounds like something you should duck, but I've no idea what it actually is...
frances_md
19 years ago
Why is "Tuesday through Friday" wrong? When you say "Tuesday to Friday" does that include all of Friday or does it stop when Friday starts? Would you then say "Tuesday to Saturday" so Friday would be included?

I don't have a brickbat handy (at least I don't think I do) so I won't be throwing one but I am curious about the meaning of "Tuesday to Friday" in the tactful British world.
martin_z
19 years ago
Actually, and being serious now, I happen to quite like the "Tuesday through Friday" phraseology in the US - it seems to clearly imply Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday inclusive. If you say in the UK Tuesday to Friday, there is sometimes some doubt as to whether you're including the Friday.

It's only "wrong" because we Brits don't use it. Bit like "color" is wrong.
carolyn_ky
19 years ago
I once read a mystery set in the U.S. where the word colour was used and thought in passing that it was odd to find that spelling in that context. Turned out, it was the clue to the whole thing, and I missed it because I read too many English novels.
annpan
19 years ago
I too have had trouble with time descriptions. Disappointed when a friend did not arrive on a promised day, she said when contacted "I said next Friday." I thought she had meant the coming Friday, a few days away! Now I ask for dates.
BTW is "New Year's" in the USA "New Year's Eve"," New Year's Day" or the whole two days?
Kath
19 years ago
Of course, in Oz we use the British 'Monday to Friday' and I think that Friday is always included in this. What really annoys me is 'open 7 days'. Which seven days would that be? "seven days a week" isn't that hard to say or write.

I have had problems with 'next Saturday'. In my family, the closest day is 'this Saturday' and the one after that is 'next Sat'. My husband doesn't subscribe to this convention and it has caused problems, the worst when someone came for dinner a week early! I now always specify the date *g*
anyanka
19 years ago
I've had problems with 'next' as well, mainly because I take it too literally - 'next' is from the German 'naechste' which means nearest. Logically therefore the next Sunday is the one coming up. Language, however, works by convention rather than logic.

Another one that's always puzzled me is 'Monday week', as in 'my next visit to the vets is Monday week'.
dynomutt
19 years ago
I once looked into the origins of the term "brickbat" just for fun and mainly because I wanted to know what in heck WAS a brickbat. I mean, was it a brick that's been turned into a bat? And if it was turned into a bat, does it hunt mice or just insects? Or was it a bat that got turned into a brick? And what type of brick? Red brick?

From the American Heritage Dictionary at Bartleby.com, here's the definition :

1. A piece, especially of brick, used as a weapon or missile. 2. An unfavorable remark; a criticism.

And the history :

The earliest sense of brickbat, first recorded in 1563, was "a piece of brick." Such pieces of brick have not infrequently been thrown at others in the hope of injuring them; hence, the figurative brickbats (first recorded in 1929) that critics hurl at performances they dislike. The appearance of bat as the second part of this compound is explained by the fact that the word bat, "war club, cudgel," developed in Middle English the sense "chunk, clod, wad," and in the 16th century came to be used specifically for a piece of brick that was unbroken on one end.

So I guess fruitbats were nowhere to be found where brickbats are concerned. ;-)
martin_z
19 years ago
Definitely worth ducking, then!
mummsie
19 years ago
Dynomutt,
Hmmm...
1. an unfavourable remark... ;-)
Humour me.
dynomutt
19 years ago
Mummsie --

I agree with you, especially since we're both in Canada. However, the definition WAS copied and pasted from an American website so ..... I blame American spelling. ;-) (It was, after all, from the American Heritage Dictionary....)

So if one plagiarizes and the plagiarizee was wrong, does that mean that the plagiarizer was wrong as well? ;-)
martin_z
19 years ago
Without a doubt.

If you were to copy a wrong answer in an exam, you'd get zero marks. And it's hardly a defence to say it wasn't your fault - you didn't get the question wrong, the other guy did...!
veer
19 years ago
The UK newspaper The Daily Telegraph has a weekly column dealing with 'public illiteracy' and this week quoted from a recent press statement from McDonald's announcing why it has redesigned its McFlurry ice cream containers The smaller aperture of the lids has been designed to prevent hedgehogs from entering the McFlurry in the unfortunate incidence that the lid is littered.
A reader found the 'American English almost unintelligible and suggests they say . . . to prevent hedgehogs entering discarded McFlurry containers.
MacDonalds replied with a little humour We're sorry it has become a prickly subject for your readers.
The US press picked up the above remarks and sees them as a sign of British eccentricity 'God Save the Hedgehogs' etc and is further quoted as saying McDonald's now fully hedgehog compliant. Still bordering on US verbosity perhaps?

Onto Canadian English. Is there a 'correct' form for spelling and usage in your country? At school (notice I don't say 'in' school) are you taught the 'American' or the 'English' way?
dynomutt
19 years ago
Veer --

That's a darned good question. I think other Canadians on this board can probably answer your question better than I can. I was raised under a pseudo-American system and, as such, my mind has been polluted from the get go. ;-) Plus, if you add to the fact that I actually went to the school in the US for a year and a lot of my correspondence is with Americans .....

I do remember that, in my final year of high school (spent in Toronto), I had an English teacher who seemed to oscillate between the American and the British (or 'English') way of spelling and usage. Maybe he just reflects that split personality in the Canadian national psyche -- British roots but an American upbringing that results in a seeming confusion about identity!

(Ducks as fruitbats are hurled in his direction)
friedag
19 years ago
Veer, the "American" sentence is an example of corporatese and would cause an average American as much trouble as it does Britons; but we are accustomed to such and we would only shake our heads and laugh, or sigh. The US press comments are firmly tongue in cheek, but that may not be obvious to non-Americans.

Back to time confusions: I'm always unsure what people mean when they say: "It's a quarter of three." Do they mean fifteen minutes till three or fifteen minutes after three o'clock? If I remember correctly, Americans and Brits are opposite in their opinions.
veer
19 years ago
Frieda, over here we say "It's a quarter to three" or "A quarter past three". I've never heard the use of of before.
And I think we in the UK would have 'got' the prickly comment re hedgehogs.

Dyno, we are sent the Canadian Geographical Mag. from friends in Toronto. Sometimes the spelling is US as are the word constructions, other times 'English'. They occasionally confuse their kms, kgs etc with miles, yards lbs, oz and that is when the fun really starts.
We have the same trouble over here where the Govt wastes valuable time and our money telling us to think 'metric' except for miles, pints (beer and milk). I love to watch the TV news items when they describe a plane travelling at so many kms an hour (despite being 'allowed' to use miles) with a wing span of so-many metres and a cargo of 1000's of tons (or maybe tonnes) being piloted by a guy 6ft 4ins tall . . . total confusion.
friedag
19 years ago
And I think we in the UK would have 'got' the prickly comment re hedgehogs.Sorry, Vee, I was talking about the US press comment: "McDonald's now fully hedgehog compliant," which echoes the verbosity of the original sentence, with amusing effect for American readers.
rambo
19 years ago
Veer, There is an official Canadian 'English'. The Canadian Oxford Dictionary is the version most often used in the schools. That is one thing I found to be a challenge when I studied in Leeds and then moved back to Ottawa because the Canadian English language is partly influenced by the American system and partly by the British system.

To give you a few examples: In Canada, British influences include words like colour, light (as opposed to lite), offence, and centre. American influences include words like organize, cozy and aluminum.
carolyn_ky
19 years ago
Lite isn't correct American usage. It's just slang, in spite of its being used on grocery items such as cream cheese, cottage cheese, etc., to mean lower in fat or calories.
mummsie
19 years ago
Dynomutt - ahh, clearly an honourable oversight ;-)

Veer
I was taught in the "English" way. I believe today's students are governed by Microsoft spell check.

Carolyn
"In Canada we have enough to do keeping up with two spoken languages without trying to invent slang, so we just go right ahead and use English for literature, Scotch for sermons and American for conversation." -- Stephen Leacock
woodnymph2_gw
19 years ago
er,ahem ;-) Shouldn't it be "Scottish for sermons" in the above quote? ( I was taught that "Scotch" is the noun for the drink only).
mummsie
19 years ago
woodnymph

hehe, Given that Stephen Leacock is a beloved Canadian humourist, I'm sure the noun 'Scotch' is quite correct. ;-)

Answered Questions

Comments (30)

robert-e

Chris_in_the_Valley

Related Discussions

pam53

sheriz6

laceyvail 6A, WV

martin_z

veer

leel

martin_z

frances_md

martin_z

carolyn_ky

annpan

Kath

anyanka

dynomutt

martin_z

mummsie

dynomutt

martin_z

veer

dynomutt

friedag

veer

friedag

rambo

carolyn_ky

mummsie

woodnymph2_gw

mummsie

COMPANY

BUSINESS SERVICES

GET HELP

CONNECT WITH US