elements of style
when was it decided that "addy" was an acceptable abbreviation of "address"? who in their right mind uses that? it looks and sounds horrible, and when i read it, it ends up rattling around my brain until i can feel it piercing the gray matter. it's the linguistic equivalent of a fanny pack. it's even worse than calling pizza "za" which was once the undisupted and unchallenged holder of the "world's worst abbreviation" crown. at least there you're saving a syllable. when you type "addy" you're not even saving yourself much time. look at the keyboard. unless you're using a dvorak model, the 'r' 'e' and 's' are all adjacent to the 'd' making it easy, even for those of us who can't quite manage to get our pinkies involved in the typing process. please cease and desist from any and all uses of the term.
coming in a distant second on the list of grievances is the misuse of the terms "less" and "fewer," which is reaching epidemic proportions. "less" is for concepts and measurements (i.e. time, money, rainfall), "fewer" is for individual objects (dimes, shoes, zits). less patience, fewer patients. also, "less ripe apples" means that the apples in question are not as ripe, while "fewer ripe apples" indicates the relative number of apples involved.
the wife has an interesting linguistic quirk in which she will often say things like "the closet needs cleaned," leaving out the "to be" (or just refusing to use the gerund). the official position on this for now is that it's endearing, but given 10 or 15 years it could easily devolve into a hidden source of tension until one day someone has a reference copy of the Book of English Usage flying at their unsuspecting head.
Comments
thank you for getting into the "less" vs. "fewer" issue. this subject began piercing my brain's gray matter about a week ago. is it just me or did half the world suddenly start getting confused about which word should be used?
Posted by: marc | January 26, 2004 05:23 PM
i just like to dodge that one entirely and say i'm running low on ________.
Posted by: shmoo | January 26, 2004 09:35 PM
turn signals: how come no one uses them anymore?
Posted by: kfan | January 27, 2004 11:46 AM
I've never seen/heard "addy" before. I already loathe it.
Similar to "less/fewer," the confusion of "over" and "more than" vexes me, especially because several of my fellow copy editors don't have a problem with it. These are people who will change "meanwhile" to "meantime" in copy because "meanwhile" isn't in the latest m-w -- a thoughtless cx, in my view, since there are many examples of the dictionary not having caught up with the language -- but will let "Iverson scored over 40 points in nine consecutive games" slide. "Over" refers to proximity, not amount, dammit!
An entertaining read on the minutiae of grammar (and full of shamless puns, starting with the title): "Lapsing Into a Comma," by Bill Walsh, the copy chief of the National Desk at the Washington Post.
Posted by: David | January 27, 2004 05:08 PM
Jamie, you're such a good writer, you have me pissing my pants.
OK, so about the less than vs. fewer debate. I cringe every time I see something like this said or written: "There were over 300 people at the concert." No, Fucktard! It's "more than"! "Over" denotes proximity and space, "more than" is discussing quantities. It drives me CRAZY that I’ll see it published incorrectly 99 times for the one time someone actually uses MORE THAN. There are many issues such as this one that my wonderful journalism professor instilled into his students. “A near miss”?! No it IS a miss, not a NEAR miss! I don’t get so bothered when people say these things, but it pisses me off so badly when this incorrect shit gets published! Grrrrr!
Posted by: Claire | January 27, 2004 05:08 PM
Oh, I just read David's post. Is that Larimer or another great writer/editor. We're on the same wavelength, though! :)
I, too, HATE "addy," and I've never heard of it either.
Posted by: Claire | January 27, 2004 05:10 PM
Oh, it IS Larmier! I just hovered my mouse over his name and it's his Hotmail. Dave, get out of my brain! ;) OK, Jamie, I'll stop hogging your blog now...
Posted by: Claire | January 27, 2004 05:13 PM
i just read sujan's movie list. to quote: "Also, I'm going to see less movies in 2004 because 53 movies is too many to write about." busted!
Posted by: jamie | January 27, 2004 05:16 PM
Wow. Glad I hit "Post" when I did. I'd have hated to finish second in the race to express displeasure with "less/fewer" confusion. Here's one thing I've noticed in editing TWP's international copy: Bad things come in rafts, ie "The Thai government is struggling to overcome a raft of domestic troubles." I'd never heard the word raft used in such a way; now I read about it a couple times a month at least. So when abroad, beware of rafts.
Posted by: David | January 27, 2004 05:24 PM
listen paquette the elder, i've never made any waves about having proper grammar. i know it stinks. some of us weren't fortunate enough to be products of the Montgomery County school disctrict. my participles dangle. i wouldn't be able to graph a sentence if my life depended on it. and you know what? i couldn't care fewer.
p.s. i proudly use addy for address, maddy for madonna and caddy for cadillac. shove it!
Posted by: sujan | January 27, 2004 06:58 PM
So does Sujan get a 10-15 year grace period on her grammar like the wife? Since she's not married to you, I suppose she should get less. However, her crime of seeing less movies is not nearly as awful as "the closet needs cleaned."
Also, at least she was willing to put out her list on time rather than burying it for 12 months in a paralyzing bit of perfectionist shoegazing. But, I guess that was in the pre apes days.
Posted by: Dan | January 28, 2004 09:37 AM
sujan,'s main crime was simply having her list posted around the time i was harping on grammar. i didn't mean to single her out for public ridicule, but it's interesting that everyone has their own grammar peeves that set them off.
and yes, Dan it is better to turn something in that to sit on it forever. part of the motivation for the blog is simply to get me to focus on finishing things rather than starting them and then never bothering to complete them.
Posted by: jamie | January 28, 2004 11:36 AM
Jamie, I know the motivation for writing your blog. And I applaud you!
Posted by: Dan | January 28, 2004 07:13 PM
People - they're the worst.
Posted by: crispin | January 29, 2004 03:43 PM
I really should check your blog more often. What do you expect?! I'm a military brat from Ohia! Now if you'll excuse me, the carpet needs vacuumed. That's right goddammit!
Posted by: the wife | January 29, 2004 04:51 PM
Hey Jamie, the third Project Greenlight contest is coming up. Why don't you pen a witty screenplay entitled Linguistics: Less vs. Fewer with the expectation that Antonio Banderas and Lucy Liu might sign on.
Posted by: Jim | January 29, 2004 08:20 PM
i just wanted to comment on the brilliance of jim's last entry. hilarious!
Posted by: crispin | January 30, 2004 02:03 PM
Can we even get our knickers in a twist about grammar while writing in a "blog"? Tell Kaci that I need to rid up the living room.
Posted by: jake | February 3, 2004 12:50 PM