Punctuation
Which is right?
Between 1938-1945
Between 1939–1945
Between 1939 and 1945
Between 1939 and 1945
‘Between’ shouldn’t be paired with ‘to’ later in a phrase, and ‘to’ is what the en dash in the second option represents. In the first option, a hyphen has been used to represent range, which isn’t correct. In both UK and US English, an en dash represents range.
Which are correct?
In my judgement, the court judgment is wrong.
In my judgement, the court judgement is wrong.
In my judgment, the court judgment is wrong.
In my judgement, the court judgment is wrong.
In my judgment, the court judgment is wrong.
Outside legal terminology, whether you include an ‘e’ in ‘judgment’ is a style issue. In the US you would not generally include it; The Guardian also omits it. However, when you’re talking about a court’s decision, you would never include the ‘e’.
Which of these options are correct?
One smokey whiskey is enough to make me smiley
One smoky whiskey is enough to make me smiley
One smoky whisky is enough to make me smiley
One smoky whisky is enough to make me smily
One smoky whiskey is enough to make me smiley
One smoky whisky is enough to make me smiley
NODWE (New Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors ) also confirmed that ‘smiley’ should always have an ‘e’. ‘Whisk(e)y’ is a bit more complicated, with Irish and US versions including the ‘e’, and most other versions, including Scotch, leaving it out.
Which of these sentences contain a superfluity?
Please return from whence you came, large spider.
I have a lovely lunch, comprising of soup, a roll and a packet of Quavers.
Let us collaborate together.
The law will be subjected to close scrutiny.
Please return from whence you came, large spider.
I have a lovely lunch, comprising of soup, a roll and a packet of Quavers.
Let us collaborate together.
The law will be subjected to close scrutiny.
Yes, each of these sentences contains something superfluous – from whence, comprising of, collaborate together and close scrutiny could simply be whence, comprising, collaborate and scrutiny and not lose any meaning. You’ll have observed, nonetheless, that many of these tautological constructions are used all the time – why use one word when you can hammer the point home with another that means the exact same (there’s another) thing? It seems to be the consensus of opinion (whoops, we've done it again) that it doesn’t matter too much, but editors might want to watch this superfluity.
Which is right?
Mind your ps and qs
Mind your 'p's and 'q's
Mind your ps and qs
Mind your p's and q's
Mind your 'p's and 'q's
Mind your ps and qs
Mind your p's and q's
Quotation marks, italics and apostrophes can all be used to separate a single lowercase letter from an ‘s’ that makes it plural. Imagine ‘dot the i’s and cross the t’s’ without the apostrophes. You could also use italics and quotation marks to make it clear that you don’t mean ‘dot the is’.
Done
Which are correct?
Whom is speaking?
Who is speaking?
To whom am I speaking?
Who am I speaking to?
Who is speaking?
To whom am I speaking?
Who am I speaking to?
The only incorrect option here is ‘a’, because ‘whom’ should be applied to the object of the sentence, and here we’ve applied it to the subject. Option ‘c’ sounds rather formal these days but it isn’t incorrect, although people are more likely to switch the sentence around completely and say ‘Who am I speaking to?’ (because if you want to end a sentence with a preposition, you can).
Done
If you were sending a card to a Star Wars enthusiast to celebrate 4 May, how would you write the message?
May 4th be with you
May 4 be with you
May the 4th be with you
May the 4th be with you
In dates, some writers include ‘the’ before an ordinal, as that’s how we would say it. But unless you’re leaving the month out, perhaps in writing ‘I’ll see you with your lightsaber on the 4th’, the definite article isn’t included in written dates. However, on Star Wars Day you can use it to make the most of an excellent date-related Star Wars pun. This is rather like the US’s National Grammar Day earlier in spring, which if you wrote it strictly to the generally favoured style (March 4) wouldn’t mean much. But ‘March 4th’ gives a sense of purpose and positivity, rather like grammar itself.
Imagine that it’s 2023 and we’ve finally been given permission to enter a restaurant again. In your excitement, what might you say when you walk through the door?
I love maitre d’s; I’d like to shake that maitre d’s hand.
I love maitre d’s; I’d like to shake that maitre d’’s hand.
I love maitres d’s; I’d like to shake that maitre d’’s hand.
I love maitres d’; I’d like to shake that maitre d’s hand.
I love maitre d’s; I’d like to shake that maitre d’s hand.
The inspiration and explanation for this question came from a recent Grammarphobia blog. The plural for maitre d’ isn’t maitres d’ (although the plural for the long version, maitre d’hotel, is maitres d’hotel); it’s maitre d’s. Somewhat confusingly, the possessive of maitre d’ in the singular is also maitre d’s, because we shouldn't double up on punctuation. Grammarphobia also goes into the possessive of the plural form, but, goodness, we ourselves dare not tread there. Which is similar to how we feel about restaurants at the moment. Roll On 2023!
Which is right?
Suitably-attired editor
Family friendly guide
Family-friendly guide
Lovely-sounding chuckle
Family-friendly guide
Lovely-sounding chuckle
We’re used to hearing that when a hyphen is used to make a compound adjective, there’s one exception: -ly words. These examples show that we need to dig a bit deeper as to why, because both ‘family’ and ‘lovely’ are -ly words that need a hyphen connecting them to the word that follows for the phrase to make complete sense. (Otherwise we might imagine a ‘friendly guide that’s a family’ or a ‘sounding chuckle that’s lovely’.)
We don’t need the hyphen in ‘Suitably attired editor’ because ‘suitably’ is an adverb (whereas ‘family’ is a noun, and ‘lovely’ is an adjective), and it’s adverbs (to be specific, ‘adverbials of manner’) that are the types of -ly words that don’t need hyphens. This is because -ly adverbs are automatically understood to provide information about the word that directly follows, so they are ‘connected’ to it already – no need for a hyphen.
Which are correct?
Marcus Rashford, the Manchester United footballer wrote a letter.
Manchester United footballer Marcus Rashford wrote a letter.
Manchester United footballer, Marcus Rashford, wrote a letter.
Marcus Rashford, the Manchester United footballer, wrote a letter.
Manchester United footballer Marcus Rashford wrote a letter.
Marcus Rashford, the Manchester United footballer, wrote a letter.
This is to do with parenthetical clauses. If a sentence makes sense without a clause, such as ‘the Manchester United footballer’ clause in a and d, you should include commas either side of it. Option ‘a’ almost reads as though you are telling Marcus Rashford himself about another Manchester United footballer, as the lone comma could appear as vocative. Conversely, often writers will include parenthetical commas where they shouldn’t, as in ‘c’, where you need the words ‘Marcus Rashford’ to make sense of the sentence. If you had started the sentence with ‘A Manchester United footballer’ you could keep the comma there, as ‘Marcus Rashford’ isn’t then necessary to complete the sentence – although it’s important to give credit where it’s due.
In which of the following options do the subject and verb agree?
Frank and his many children goes to the park
Frank with his many children go to the park
Frank with his many children goes to the park
Frank with his many children goes to the park.
This question is about identifying the subject. When an ‘and’ is added, unless it’s part of a singular entity such as, say, Hue and Cry, which was an 80s band (although you would say ‘Hue and Cry were looking out for Linda’), the subject should be treated as plural. If ‘with’ and other words and terms that denote extra non-integral elements, such as ‘as well as’, follow the subject, it remains singular.
Which pluralisation is correct?
One health service doesn’t seem enough at times like this – if only we had four NHSes.
One health service doesn’t seem enough at times like this – if only we had four NHSs.
One health service doesn’t seem enough at times like this – if only we had four NHS’s.
One health service doesn’t seem enough at times like this – if only we had four NHS.
One health service doesn’t seem enough at times like this – if only we had four NHSs.
Some authors’ instinct when working with this type of abbreviation is to ignore the ‘s’ altogether, here subsuming it under the large ‘S’ which would then stand for ‘services’. However, it’s then difficult to distinguish between the singular and plural. How, then, to present ‘s’ is an interesting question. We would pronounce it ‘NHSes’ or ’NHS’s’, but in fact, according to New Hart’s Rules, which uses ‘SOSs’ as its example in section 10.5, a simple ‘s’ suffices to show the plural.
Which is right?
Peace prosperity and friendship with all nations
Peace, prosperity and friendship with all nations
Peace, prosperity, and friendship with all nations
Peace, prosperity and friendship with all nations
Peace, prosperity, and friendship with all nations
The use of the serial or Oxford comma (the one before the ‘and’) is a style choice, unless it’s being used to make meaning clearer, in which case it’s incorrect not to use it. Here, the meaning is perfectly clear without the Oxford comma. However, some style guides recommend its use in all cases. So whether you use it depends on which style guide you are working to. You need a comma after ‘Peace’ to separate it from ‘prosperity’, otherwise readers might think ‘Peace prosperity’ is a thing.
Done
In which of these sentences are 'compare with' and 'compare to' being used correctly?
If you compare this year with last you’ll find that some of us have more time for reading, and others have a great deal less.
If you compare this year to last you’ll find that some of us have more time for reading, and others have a great deal less.
Some people have compared these times to the Spanish Flu of 1918 and the Second World War.
Shall I compare thee with a summer’s day?
If you compare this year with last you’ll find that some of us have more time for reading, and others have a great deal less.
Some people have compared these times to the Spanish Flu of 1918 and the Second World War.
‘Compare to’ and ‘compare with’ are not (yet) completely interchangeable. Fowler’s explains: ‘Compare to is generally used to suggest that two things are similar, to liken them, or to draw an analogy between them, whereas compare with is used to weigh or balance one thing against another, by pointing out the similarities and differences.’ Fowler’s goes on to describe and give examples of how ‘with’ and ‘to’ have been used with ‘compare’ to convey either meaning, but it’s useful to remember the difference and to apply it for maximum clarity. After all, if someone compared you ‘with’ a summer’s day they might not be paying you quite the compliment you thought they were. They might be saying, ‘you’re more like a wet weekend’.
What is a ‘light’ verb?
A ‘doing’ word or term that means illuminating something
A ‘doing’ word or term that means igniting something
A ‘doing’ word or term whose main meaning comes from the noun that follows it
A ‘doing’ word or term whose main meaning comes from the noun that follows it.
You probably didn’t need to have a think in order to quickly choose the right answer here, because with the other options we were making a joke. In the words of linguist Edwin L Battistella, light verbs ‘get their main semantic content from the noun that follows rather than the verb itself’: take a look; make a fuss; give a talk; do the laundry. Light verbs aren’t great for keeping down word count, but in text that needs an informal or gentle tone they provide a friendly nuance. Battistella writes that light verbs have arisen from the evolution of the English language – ‘verbs like take, have, give, and make lost some of their meaning and acquired new meaning as the complex predicates take a nap, take a walk, and so on’. Something to think about next time you’re doing an edit.
We’re sad to report that Riffat Yusuf, talented writer of our language column, A Finer Point, is moving on. In corresponding with her in the past year, how should we have referred to her column and its host newsletter?
This is an even finer A Finer Point than the last A Finer Point you submitted.
This is an even finer Finer Point than the last Finer Point you submitted.
We’ll look forward to getting your column for the next The Edit in a few weeks.
We’ll look forward to getting your column for the next Edit in a few weeks.
We’ll look forward to getting your column for the next issue of The Edit in a few weeks.
This is an even finer Finer Point than the last Finer Point you submitted.
We’ll look forward to getting your column for the next Edit in a few weeks.
We’ll look forward to getting your column for the next issue of The Edit in a few weeks.
In the past year, we have done everything in our power to avoid constructions like the ones you see in Options 1 to 4, because it’s difficult to know what to do in such situations. Looking it up (which we should have done at the outset instead of employing avoidance strategies), the general rule for titles with articles (such as ‘a’ or ‘the’) is that it’s a good idea to omit the article if the title has more than two words in total and it helps the flow of the sentence. Option 1 shows the clumsy result if the article is left in. With a two-word title, such as The Times or The Edit, the rule (in New Harts Rules 8.2.7) is that ‘the definite article can be omitted … where the article does not properly modify the construction’. In Options 3 and 4, ‘the next’ modifies, so ‘The’ is superfluous. But does Option 4 look odd to you (in a way that perhaps ‘famous Times columnist’ doesn’t)? It does to us, which is why we’ve opted for nice safe constructions like Option 5 every time.
Which is right?
I am a mole and I live in a hole.
I am a mole. I live in a hole.
I am a mole; I live in a hole.
I am a mole, I live in a hole.
I am a mole and I live in a hole.
I am a mole. I live in a hole.
I am a mole; I live in a hole.
I am a mole, I live in a hole.
In the first three options the punctuation (or connecting word, ‘and’) are strong enough to carry ‘I live in a hole’. This ‘strength’ is needed because ‘I live in a hole’ can stand alone as a sentence, as we see from the second option, which contains a full point, and the third option, which contains a semicolon (semicolons can only be used before clauses that could stand alone as a sentence but that are related to the first part of the sentence – ‘I am a mole; clouds are fluffy’ wouldn’t work).
So, what about the fourth option, with the comma? One instance where this would be acceptable is in fiction (and such a phrase is likely to appear in fiction, let’s face it: talking moles?). Many fiction authors avoid using semicolons in dialogue, and this isn’t incorrect. It’s the style they’ve chosen for dialogue.
Done
Which are correct?
I love going on holiday, however, we’ve had to cancel this year.
I love going on holiday; however, we’ve had to cancel this year.
I love going on holiday, however we’ve had to cancel this year.
My summer holiday, however, has had to be cancelled.
However you look at it, I’ll have to cancel my summer holiday.
I love going on holiday; however, we’ve had to cancel this year.
My summer holiday, however, has had to be cancelled.
However you look at it, I’ll have to cancel my summer holiday.
‘However’ contains an extra meaning that we have to take into account – ‘no matter how’. This means that, unless you are using it to mean ‘no matter how’, you should always put a comma after it. Otherwise ‘however we’ve had to cancel this year’ could come across as ‘no matter how we’ve had to cancel this year’. Like terms such as ‘therefore’ and ‘for example’, too, ‘however’, unless being used parenthetically, should also be preceded by a semicolon (or a full stop). However you’re using it, sympathies if you’re having to cancel your summer holiday.
Within which referencing method would you be most likely to use the abbreviations ‘ibid.’ and ‘op. cit.’?
Number system (Vancouver)
Author–date (Harvard)
Short-title system (notes)
Short-title system (notes)
You could use ‘ibid.’, short for ibidem (‘in the same place’), and ‘op. cit.’, short for opere citato (‘in the cited work’), in a short-title system where the names and titles of the cited works are given in notes. Whether you should do this is another matter. Oxford style (expressed in New Hart’s Rules) says that ‘ibid.’, which you’d use directly after a note giving the details of the reference, is ‘best avoided’, and that op. cit., which might be used long after the original reference, forcing the reader to retrace their steps to obtain the details, is ‘of little use’. Again, the advice is to avoid. If we were to make a small joke about this, it appears that [clears throat] op. cit.s don’t attract after all. Not laughing? Well, then, ibid you good day. (Yep, best avoided, for sure.)
Which of these is correct?
I was given free reign to hone in on the stationary cupboard and apply the principal of ‘first come, first served’.
I was given free rein to hone in on the stationary cupboard and apply the principal of ‘first come, first served’.
I was given free rein to home in on the stationary cupboard and apply the principal of ‘first come, first served’.
I was given free rein to home in on the stationery cupboard and apply the principal of ‘first come, first served’.
I was given free rein to home in on the stationery cupboard and apply the principle of ‘first come, first served’.
I was given free rein to home in on the stationery cupboard and apply the principle of ‘first come, first served’.
This question is about easily confused words. Free reign is often used by mistake because it gives the impression of having full command over a domain, whereas in fact it refers to a rein such as you might use on a horse. Hone in on is increasingly used by mistake because ‘to hone’ implies an increased focus or sharpness. It’s easy to forget the difference between stationary and stationery, principle and principal. ‘E for envelope’ helps with remembering that stationery applies to paper- and pen-based products, and always remember that the school principal is your pal, so pal at the end of the word means it refers to the first or chief; ple at the end of the word means it pertains to a rule or belief.