Copy editor? You are a stinking *copy editor*?!?

We may have to re-access our relationship.

;-)

Or "re-assess" it?

xoxo,

Attila Girl

I have learned that any post in which I carp about copy editors always contains a huge error. Par for the course. Thpt!

Xacto-wielding pig dogs.

I try to walk softly; after all, my own posts aren't perfect.

Though, if I do say so myself, they are damn clean considering the conditions under which I proofread them (right on the spot, on screen, in a hurry).

Dear LMA,

You need to up your meds or something. Ending a sentence with a conjunction...indeed!

Happy New Year!
LMM

Dear LMM:

Actually, "for" is primarily a preposition, especially when describing a function, say, "composing headlines."

You're not supposed to end a sentence with a preposition, either.

I only know this because I dearly love to end my sentences with prepositions. But ending with a conjunction just doesn't float my boat.

I also love to really split my infinitives. And start sentences with And or But.

Drives 'm nuts.

heh heh.

k

Winston Churchill: "The rule about not ending sentences with prepositions is one up with which I shall not put."

snort!!!

You made me spit my chocolate milk all over my monitor.

If this is how you write and think when depressed, please don't take up Prozac or anything, ok?

go Winnie!

k

Anyone here ever hear of the concept of the "idiom." It's a collection of words that has a singular meaning, such as "That is a situation I will not put up with."

"Put up with" is an idiom that means, roughly, "tolerate."

In this context, "with" is not a true preposition.

Therefore, it is perfectly grammatical to use at the end of a sentence.

But try to tell that to the grey-haired retired school teachers who write letters to your editor complaining about the bad grammar in your articles.

Screw 'em, I say.

Newspapers have two options: Write to the specifications of a handful of Language Nazis, who as often as not are not the experts they claim to be -- or write bright, entertaining copy.

Why would anyone want their newspaper to read like a 9th grade term paper?

Basically, I feel that if all the elements are in a sentence, and it sounds okay, full steam ahead--I can't get upset by wayward prepositions or this "split infinitive" stuff. Who cares?

But certain things still bother me, often because they require two readings for one to understand what's being said--or because they just come off as silly ("irregardless").

I mean, when an unfortunate situation occurs, and someone tells me he feels "badly," I'm often tempted to reply, "that's too bad. Especially for your wife."

um ... huh?

He feels badly. He's bad at feeling. He lacks skill in feeling. He's a little clumsy with respect to . . . feeling.

(Obviously, the joke rests on the double meaning of the word "feel," and I'm alluding to its tactile sense.)

OH! Well, now that you've pointed it out, it seems perfectly obvious.

The only way I ever learn anything about grammar is by my own mistakes, and then only when pounded into my head with a rock. Since I say "bad" not "badly" I had no idea what was going on.

You're fine. And you're talking to someone whose relationship with arithmetic and money are very troubled. Not my field at all.

Actually, very few things are my field: I do well in two or three areas, and fake the rest.

Actually, my arithmatic's lousy. It startled the hell out of the teachers when they realized I had the thing for math. It's different.

And I wouldn't be in the pickle I'm in if my control of my money were better that it is. When it's other people's money I always make it come out so true.

But I do know what my fields are, so I won't worry about the grammar any more. Now I can safely confess: the only preposition I know is "for." Only conjunction, too, come to think. I only know them because I looked em' up. I like looking stuff up. Makes it look like you know so much stuff you don't.

Did you say something about "I do well in two or three areas, and fake the rest"?

k

An English teacher I knew used to talk about prepositions using a small stuffed animal and a box.

"Jack is IN the box."

"Jack in ON the box."

"Jack is zooming AROUND the box."

"Jack is jumping OVER the box."

You get the idea.

Ok. Jumping Jack Flashed FOR the box. I think I get it now.

See? The problem with looking stuff up is, sometimes it leads to actually learning something. Sheesh.

Yeah. Once you have the little creature and the small cardboard box, it's easy to make the leap to the non-physical sorts of prepositions. God bless Mr. Scherrer.