Peeve and thank you

majorbabs · **Posted:** Tue Nov 18, 2003 2:00 pm

I'm looking at a web seminar that includes this item on the agenda. "How to avoid an irritating practice that's become the biggest pet peeve of editors, readers and business people"Since I probably won't attend the seminar, I won't be able to give you the answer, but I'd be interested in Testy Copy Editor guesses. What's your biggest pet peeve in copy?

Hawkeye · **Posted:** Tue Nov 18, 2003 2:41 pm

Getting 30" when the budget says you're getting 12-15, and you've got a 14" hole. ... But I guess that doesn't matter as much on the Web.[ November 18, 2003: Message edited by: Hawkeye ]

Jackie · **Posted:** Sat Nov 22, 2003 1:14 am

Oh, man, there are so many irritating practices from which to choose. Invent-a-verb, last names spelled multiple ways, numbers that don't add up, the oblivious use of the worst cliches, no attribution on information that screams for attribution.... How to choose?One that makes me crazy, and really irritates me how often it gets by the city editors, is So-and-So being arrested FOR kidnapping someone or charged FOR killing someone.

Oeditpus Rex · **Posted:** Sat Nov 22, 2003 3:13 pm

Waaaayyy too many to list... but the one that made me famous for saying "Aargh!" before changing is "able to." It shows up mostly in sports, as in, "The 49ers were able to score..." I see or hear that and I think, "OK, but did they?"Biggest waste of words since "at this point in time" was in every other quote.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Sat Nov 22, 2003 4:42 pm

CQs on things that turn out to be wrong, or CQs used in an attempt to preserve a stupid phrase or usage.

majorbabs · **Posted:** Sat Nov 22, 2003 11:36 pm

I guess mine is the "The (fill-in activity)'s purpose IS TO..." I send it back saying "The class teaches, the workshop presents, the dancers perform, pick something." I find "the purpose to" strictly high-school level.[ November 22, 2003: Message edited by: majorbabs ]

JonScribe · **Posted:** Sun Nov 23, 2003 12:07 am

Reporters that won't translate jargon and officialese, such as:
mobile data terminal = laptop computer
reduction in force = layoffs

paulwiggins · **Posted:** Sun Nov 23, 2003 12:16 am

People who file direct quotes that don't make any sense.

paulwiggins · **Posted:** Tue Dec 09, 2003 6:52 pm

Apologies for replying to myself. But here is a classic example ....
``If you are bitten by a red-back. don't do
anything just go to hospital,'' Dr Gray said.
[A red-back is a venonmous spider]

RimRat · **Posted:** Tue Dec 09, 2003 8:49 pm

Run-on sentences, comma splices (or coma splices) and fused sentences, to use a phrase from Grade 10 grammar. Also the inability to tell the difference between bring and take.

SeaRaven · **Posted:** Wed Dec 10, 2003 1:08 am

A reporter once gave me a story with a note at the top claiming "All names are CQ," but one person's name was spelled three different ways in the story.

Gatekeeper · **Posted:** Wed Dec 10, 2003 2:43 am

Everything listed above, plus contractions in stories outside of quotes. Some reporters at my paper, with the CE's approval, are trying to make their stories more "earthy" and "humanistic" by filling copy with contractions such as "he'll," "she'll" and so on.I just think that copy should be a bit more formal than that, because it's something that's going to go into scrapbooks, official records and so on.Gatekeeper-30-

bwalsh · **Posted:** Wed Dec 10, 2003 4:13 am

Contractions are evil? "Let us" retire that superstition, OK?

majorbabs · **Posted:** Wed Dec 10, 2003 9:28 am

We've had that very discussion this week. I guess I don't see a problem with saying, "Johnson's looking to make money on eBay," but it makes my editor crazy. No contractions. Ever. (Couldn't there be just a few, judiciously used?)

Rio · **Posted:** Wed Dec 10, 2003 11:04 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by majorbabs:
We've had that very discussion this week. I guess I don't see a problem with saying, "Johnson's looking to make money on eBay," but it makes my editor crazy. No contractions. Ever.(Couldn't there be just a few, judiciously used?)<hr></blockquote>To cite Mr. Walsh's example above, does your editor change instances of "let's" to "let us"?Newspaper copy should be more formal than, say, this bulletin board. But while the writing shouldn't be colloquial English, it also shouldn't be so pompously stuffy and formal that no one's going to read it â€” either in that day's paper, or in a scrapbook.

tim · **Posted:** Wed Dec 10, 2003 11:11 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by majorbabs:
(Couldn't there be just a few, judiciously used?)<hr></blockquote>Sure, most contractions are OK. But a few can cause the reader to pause to determine the intended meaning ("she'd" could mean more than one thing). I have always thought anything that makes the reader stop reading -- even for a moment -- is a bad thing.I do not think you can be wrong if you never use them. I put this in the same category as using a 25-cent word when a 5-cent word will do. Why put a potential roadblock in front of the reader? I have to say I have never heard the "more formal" argument before and cannot agree with it.

majorbabs · **Posted:** Wed Dec 10, 2003 2:15 pm

Well, mine was not strictly a story. It was an ad, so now it says something like, "Bill is learning to play the piano." As an ad, I think we could say "Bill's learning..." and it would be perfectly okay but even in a story, I think there can be valid uses of contractions. What about "Gore's Stumping for Dean?"My two cents.

Rio · **Posted:** Wed Dec 10, 2003 4:14 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Tim Hathcock:
I do not think you can be wrong if you never use them. I put this in the same category as using a 25-cent word when a 5-cent word will do. Why put a potential roadblock in front of the reader?<hr></blockquote>You may not be technically wrong. You also wouldn't be technically wrong if you were to cling to silly anal rules like "You can't split an infinitive" and "You can't end a sentence with a preposition." Flouting any of these "rules" doesn't make the result "bad" or substandard English. Perhaps not appropriate for a doctoral dissertation, but perfectly acceptable for a newspaper. Even preferable. A rigid rule against using contractions is nothing short of pedantic. <blockquote>quote:<hr>I have to say I have never heard the "more formal" argument before and cannot agree with it. I have to say I have never heard the "more formal" argument before and cannot agree with it.<hr></blockquote>What part of the argument exactly do you have a problem with?[ December 10, 2003: Message edited by: Gary Kirchherr ]

Rio · **Posted:** Wed Dec 10, 2003 4:19 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by majorbabs:
I think there can be valid uses of contractions. What about "Gore's Stumping for Dean?"<hr></blockquote>Actually, this is an example of a contraction that should not be used. Is "Gore's" short for "Gore is," or is it a possessive form of "Gore"?

majorbabs · **Posted:** Wed Dec 10, 2003 6:08 pm

In this case, it would mean "Gore Is Stumping for Dean," but you're right (I am sorry, you are right); it could be confusing. Bad example.How about, "Smedley's Looking To Announce Candidacy" instead? Still need the "is?"

tim · **Posted:** Wed Dec 10, 2003 7:16 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gary Kirchherr:
What part of the argument exactly do you have a problem with?[ December 10, 2003: Message edited by: Gary Kirchherr ]<hr></blockquote>I think newspaper copy should be clear and concise, but not formal.And I am not advocating a strict adherence to a no contractions rule. As I said, most are OK and the meaning is clear.

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Wed Dec 10, 2003 7:19 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by majorbabs:
In this case, it would mean "Gore Is Stumping for Dean," but you're right (I am sorry, you are right); it could be confusing. Bad example.How about, "Smedley's Looking To Announce Candidacy" instead? Still need the "is?"<hr></blockquote>All you need is "Smedley Looking ... "That is, if you're referring to a headline.[ December 10, 2003: Message edited by: ADKbrown ]

paulwiggins · **Posted:** Wed Dec 10, 2003 7:24 pm

Go Tim. We don't have to dumb things down but we should engage our readers' interest. Why this great fear of informality? And by that I don't mean Crocodile Man's Steve Irwin's use of the word Crikey.[ December 10, 2003: Message edited by: Paul Wiggins ]

Rio · **Posted:** Thu Dec 11, 2003 2:33 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by ADKbrown:
All you need is "Smedley Looking ... "<hr></blockquote>Even better: "Smedley looks..."

Oeditpus Rex · **Posted:** Thu Dec 11, 2003 1:06 pm

One contraction I always avoid is the one for "who are." High potential for trouble there.

RimRat · **Posted:** Thu Dec 11, 2003 9:05 pm

High potential for troubleYikes. Good point.If I may be permitted an addition to my original peeve:
People who write media or bacteria is and who can't discern between regime and regimen. But then again, maybe I'm just anal.BTW, Smedley was Dudley Dooright's horse, if memory serves.

Rio · **Posted:** Thu Dec 11, 2003 10:02 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by RimRat:
Yikes. Good point.<hr></blockquote>No it's not.It's that same kind of thinking that had AP style gurus telling us for years to say that defendants pleaded or were found "innocent." Are you guys going to avoid "public" too? How about "shot"?But I'm not defending the contraction. In fact, I don't like "who're" for another reason: It looks and sounds forced. "Who's" is one thing. "Who're" is another. Does anyone even know anyone else who says "who're"? I don't.[ December 11, 2003: Message edited by: Gary Kirchherr ]

jjmoney62 · **Posted:** Thu Dec 11, 2003 10:53 pm

There was Ralphie Ciparetto on "The Sporanos" ...

jmcg · **Posted:** Thu Dec 11, 2003 11:17 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by JonScribe:
Reporters that won't translate jargon and officialese, such as:
mobile data terminal = laptop computer
reduction in force = layoffs<hr></blockquote>You mean reporters who won't ... . Sorry.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Thu Dec 11, 2003 11:29 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by RimRat:
[b]BTW, Smedley was Dudley Dooright's horse, if memory serves.<hr></blockquote>[/b]Do-Right's horse was named "Horse."

Oeditpus Rex · **Posted:** Fri Dec 12, 2003 1:34 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gary Kirchherr:
Does anyone even know anyone else who says "who're"? I don't.<hr></blockquote>
Mmmm... just about everybody I know. I doubt that it's generally thought of as a contraction, though, since there's less of an audible difference between "who're" (rhymes with "sewer") and "who are," and, say, "it's" and "it is." It looks weird because we don't hear it that way in our brains.

Gatekeeper · **Posted:** Fri Dec 12, 2003 2:37 am

Just to clarify that I'm not against all contractions. Just the ones that make readers pause for whatever reason â€” some of them being, in my book, "she'll," "we'll," "he'll," and so on.Gatekeeper-30-

Emily Salmon · **Joined:** Sat Nov 16, 2002 1:01 am **Posts:** 86

<blockquote>quote:<hr> there's less of an audible difference between "who're" (rhymes with "sewer") and "who are," and, say, "it's" and "it is." It looks weird because we don't hear it that way in our brains<hr></blockquote>Speaking of which, a copy of a sewing magazine once featured Deborah Norville on the cover, calling her "Today's Sewer."

Oeditpus Rex · **Posted:** Fri Dec 12, 2003 12:47 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gatekeeper:
Just the ones that make readers pause for whatever reason — some of them being, in my book, "she'll," "we'll," "he'll," and so on.<hr></blockquote>I put those in the same category as "who're." If you delete the apostrophe they spell other words, so they're a bit awkward and should be avoided in most cases.

Rio · **Posted:** Fri Dec 12, 2003 5:47 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Oeditpus Rex:
I put those in the same category as "who're." If you delete the apostrophe they spell other words, so they're a bit awkward and should be avoided in most cases.<hr></blockquote>I'm sorry, Oeditpus, I'm trying to keep an open mind, but I really don't understand where you're coming from with your rigid rules against apostrophes.So deleting an apostrophe would create another word. So what? Can you provide a more compelling argument?

Wayne Countryman · **Posted:** Sat Dec 13, 2003 4:51 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Oeditpus Rex:

I put those in the same category as "who're." If you delete the apostrophe they spell other words, so they're a bit awkward and should be avoided in most cases.<hr></blockquote>In using contractions, I worry more about whether the tense is clear.

Oeditpus Rex · **Posted:** Sat Dec 13, 2003 11:11 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gary Kirchherr:
So deleting an apostrophe would create another word. So what? Can you provide a more compelling argument?<hr></blockquote>
Other than "Level all speed bumps"? Nope. That's my gut check.

Testy Copy Editors

Peeve and thank you

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links