Rantings of a sub-editor

December 13, 2011

Learned/learnt and spelled/spelt

Filed under: Uncategorized — substuff @ 6:01 pm

"Can you point out the grain that attacked you, ma'am?"

These two pairs have long troubled me gently, and it came to a head last week when someone impertinently commented on Facebook (where, for reasons you need not worry about, I was talking about ‘commonly misspelt words’) ‘”Misspelt”?! “Misspelled”, please.’

To deal with spell first, here’s the thing. The Guardian style guide specifies spelled for the past tense and spelt for the past participle, The Times prefers spelt in both instances, The Economist says spelled is American English and spelt is British English and healthfood shops tell us spelt is a more primitive form of wheat. Then there’s the OED, which says both are fine but lists spelled first, and Collins, which agrees but lists spelt first.

Is learn any simpler? Nope. Now, my first chief sub told me to spell it learnt, so as not to confuse it with the adjective learned, as in ‘he’s a learned man’. The Guardian style guide, however, says not to write learnt ‘unless you are writing old-fashioned poetry’. The Economist says learnt is British English and learned is American English and The Times prefers learnt in both instances. Collins and the OED agree that either spelling is fine, and both list learned first.

Fowler, in a rare show of tolerance, acknowledges both learned and learnt, spelled and spelt, though he notes that the -t endings are more common in British English, and that learned is more common as the past form.

Right then. That’s as clear as mud. So, what do people actually do? I asked the question on Twitter, and discovered that they do all kinds of things. There was a slight preference for -t endings (most of my followers are British, so that makes sense), a lot of confusion and a few preferences, but none of the usual tubthumping. Basically, we’re all a bit unsure.

Do I have an answer? Not really, beyond that if someone starts throwing ‘?!’ combinations at you on Facebook, you’re well within your rights to tell them to bugger orf.

As a general rule, it seems that -t endings are a trait peculiar to the British, and as such have some connotations of old-fashionedness. If you’re writing for an international audience, you may wish to switch to -ed, but otherwise, as you were. Pick your preference and defend it to the death, or at least until someone comes up with a sensible argument for changing it.

What’s your preference?

February 16, 2011

A question of form

Filed under: Uncategorized — substuff @ 4:55 pm
Tags: ,

I have just received this email. Frustratingly, I don’t know the answer either. Anyone?

Hi Cathy,

Received this from my friend ‘The Headkicker’ James [oh that one, yes, he and his apostrophe have cropped up before] today. I don’t know the answer…

I have a new grammar conundrum for your friend’s blog that needs answering: On a form you often see a word with an (s) after it if the answer could be single or plural – e.g. Enter middle name(s) here: etc.

What happens when you have a word that doesn’t pluralise so conveniently such as property/properties? Is it acceptable to have property(s)? We all know what it is asking but is it grammatically correct? Is there even a rule of grammar that covers this sort of thing? Am I putting too much thought into the new house name change application form I am creating? Probably.

What do you reckon Relfy?

I hope are well and you don’t have VD*,

Dave

 
* I do not. This is a reference to a text message I received on Valentine’s Day asking whether I’d received any “VD cards”.

November 22, 2010

Not my Howard

Filed under: affair,Uncategorized,word choice — substuff @ 4:32 pm
Tags: , ,

Here’s a tricky little question for you: when is an affair an affair? I am talking affairs of the heart and the bedroom here, rather than affairs of state.

I was alerted to this last week while reading a story about my favourite Take That member Howard Donald (well, at least joint favourite, anyway – Jason Orange will always have a place in my heart too). According to The Evening Standard, a court had lifted a super-injunction that the lovely Howard had taken out on a former lover: Take That star Howard Donald has no right to keep his affair secret, judges rule. But while The Evening Standard described it as an “affair” throughout the story, the Metro the next day described it as a “relationship” and the woman concerned as his “girlfriend”: Take That’s Howard Donald’s super-injunction lifted by court (mmm… great headline there).

To me, the word ”affair” implies that infidelity is involved. In this case, there appears to be no suggestion that either of the parties were married or in another relationship. Neither was this a fling - it began in 2000 and ended last year. So is there any justification for describing it as an affair, other than that it sounds sexier than “relationship”? It strikes me that “an affair” and “a love affair” are also subtly different – the former suggests infidelity, but the latter suggests (non-permanent) romance.

This prompted two more questions in my mind:

1. If two people have a relationship, but one of them is also in another (presumably more permanent) relationship, are they both having an affair? Or only the cheating party?

2. If a newspaper refers to a relationship or “love affair” as “an affair”, thus suggesting infidelity where there was none – could there be a case for libel?

Theme: Rubric. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 62 other followers