Ask Our Grammar "Experts" II, the Sequel

[Ken, Moderator]

Like many older threads, the old one wasn't showing "new" posts. Time for a sequel, then....

[Joanne]

I don't know if it's correct, I know I don't like it.

[Ken, Moderator]

Back to my go-to grammarian, Bryan Garner:

"As a noun, [couple] requires the preposition of to link it to another noun a couple of dollars. Using couple as an adjective directly before the noun is unidiomatic and awkward. That is, the age-old expression is a couple of people, not a couple people, and the first phrase is still five times as common as the upstart second in modern print sources..."

[Ken, Moderator]

Take THAT, Janet Evermoreavich....

[Ken, Moderator]

I think you put three dots for the ellipsis and add a fourth as the period -- all INSIDE the closing quotation marks, unless the Sun is Never Setting on Your Punctuation Empire (read: you follow the daft Brit rules).

[Caroline]

A friend and I were wondering if there are any instances where one would/should use "whilst" rather than "while".

[Arlene]

Caroline, the short answer is that "while" is North American English while "whilst" is British English. Hope that helps! I'm a book editor (Arlene Prunkl, www.penultimateword.com), and I deal with these differences often.

[Caroline]

Thank you so much Arlene - that is in fact what my friend had guessed (she is from California and I am from the UK....), but I wondered if there was something more to it.

Even though in the UK, I personally would use "while" rather than "whilst". Presumably the two are wholly interchangeable, e.g., if you were editing a British book you wouldn't change "while" to "whilst".

[Arlene]

Caroline, I've just finished editing a British book, and I've left all the "whilst"s as they are (I haven't changed them to "while"). I'm sure that's okay too.

[Caroline]

Thank you very much indeed for your help!

[Anthony]

On while/whilst Fowler (my British bible in these matters) starts a complicated article: "while (or less commonly whilst) . . . ". In other words, they are more or less interchangeable. I always think, however, that "whilst" is a bit ponderous.

[Caroline]

Anthony D wrote: "On while/whilst Fowler (my British bible in these matters) starts a complicated article: "while (or less commonly whilst) . . . ". In other words, they are more or less interchangeable. I always t..."

Yes, I'm a 'while' woman myself, in spite of being based in the UK....

[Ken, Moderator]

Last week I rec'd an e-mail from a Brit with three (three!) "whilst" usages. It struck me as weird because not only do I never use it, I haven't seen it for ages. (And I've been around for a few of those ages....)

[Anthony]

I suspect "whilst" is gradually disappearing. No great loss, perhaps. My copy of Fowler is a bit old, and in any case he tends to be a bit old-fashioned. Grammar, like other English Usage, is not set in stone.

[Ken, Moderator]

Thanks, Anthony, for the info from Fowler. Curious, I looked whilst up in the American go-to usage book, Garner's Modern American Usage. Here's an excerpt:

WHILST, though correct British English, is virtually obsolete in American English and reeks of pretension in the work of a modern American writer... Like its sibling while, it may be used for although or whereas. But again, this isn't good usage in American English.

[Caroline]

Hi Newengland - I have copied that wonderful quote for my American friend who is curious about the difference between while and whilst.

I also went and explored the blurb and reviews for Garner's Modern America Usage. It sounds an outstanding book - a real pleasure to read as well as a great reference book.

I have Fowler, but find it a bit daunting. Today's conversation has encouraged me to take it off the shelf and knock some of the dust off it.

[Lisa]

Hi Arlene, If you're a book editor, perhaps you can settle a question my writing critique group has: How should numbers be written - as words or numerals?

[Arlene]

As a Canadian editor, it's very interesting for me to learn that some Brits use "while." I'll remember that the next time I'm editing British English. Along with "whilst," there are also "amid/amidst" and "among/amongst."

Lisa, I love answering questions related to English-language usage and style. The answer to your question about numbers is, it depends. For a full-length book, numbers should almost always be spelled out from one to one hundred and round numbers thereafter. (The exceptions are math-related books with a lot of numbers.) For other printed material like newspapers (where column space is an issue) and more informal media like blogs, generally single-digit numbers are spelled out (zero, one, two, three, etc.) and the rest are in Arabic form (10,11,12, etc.). The main thing is consistency: decide on a style for whatever you're publishing and stick with it.

Does that help?

[Anthony]

Fowler's ok and quite witty in places. It's good, for example, if you need to differentiate "gourmand" and "gourmet", or "masterly" and "masterful". Also, it wages war on the long sentence and the long word.

However, its preoccupations are sometimes a bit odd and old fashioned. For example, in an article on "golf" it ponders the deep question of whether the word should (still) be pronounced "goff". Since I have never heard anybody say "goff", this is not something I bother my head about.

[Caroline]

Arlene - I found your advice re. numbers interesting. So thank you from me too for that.

Anthony - after you mentioned Fowler I went and had a look a my very-seldom-looked-at copy. I checked out "while". Gulp! I think I will continue to do far better getting help from this group than I will from Fowler. I'm afraid it is way out of my depth....

[Ken, Moderator]

Yes, Caroline, we're definitely a great source for "slummers" who don't care about credentials. Meaning: Anyone can hang a shingle reading "Grammar Expert... 5 cents"!

[Arlene]

Except me, Newengland! Most people who know me would agree that I am a true grammar expert. :-)

[Ken, Moderator]

Not until you pass the diagnostic test. Where did we leave that diagnostic test, anyway? I'll have to look in the kitchen....

[Caroline]

Well, I am over-awed at everyone's expertise (& helpfulness).

[Ken, Moderator]

This being the "Language & Grammar" group, we have no choice but to act like we know what we're doing... or so it says in the charter.

[Lisa]

Arlene wrote: "As a Canadian editor, it's very interesting for me to learn that some Brits use "while." I'll remember that the next time I'm editing British English. Along with "whilst," there are also "amid/amid..."

Thank you. Yes, it does help.

[Daniel J.]

Question #3: The lonely octopus.

Does anyone know why the plural of octopus is octopi instead of octopod? Octopus is a Greek word but English uses a Latin plural, and I'm just not sure why. I apologize in advanced for the obscurity (or so it seems to me) of this question, but curiosity can take us to obscure places.

And yes, I know that “octopuses” is also an acceptable plural.

[Cecily]

Felix wrote: "...Does anyone know why the plural of octopus is octopi instead of octopod?..."

Many say that octopi isn't the plural.

"The standard plural in English of octopus is octopuses. However, the word octopus comes from Greek and the Greek plural form octopodes is still occasionally used. The plural form octopi, formed according to rules for some Latin plurals, is incorrect."
From Oxford Dictionaries: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definit...

Furthermore, according to Pam Peters' The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, "Octopuses was endorsed by almost two thirds of those responding to the Landscape survey (1998-2000). Its dominance is confirmed in data from both CCAE and the BNC, though the scene is a little more diverse in the UK, with octopi occurring in 25% of all instances of the word."

[Ken, Moderator]

And from Garner's Modern American Usage:

"Because this word is actually of Greek origin -- not Latin -- the classical plural is octopodes, not octopi. But the standard plural in AmE and BrE alike is octopuses. Still, some writers mistakenly use the supposed Latin plural.... Occasionally the pedantic octopodes appears, but it is relatively rare."

Will wonders never cease -- Yanks and Brits agree on all eight arms of this one.

[Cecily]

Newengland wrote: "...Will wonders never cease -- Yanks and Brits agree on all eight arms of this one. "

Fear not: sooner or later someone will mention singular "they", or "have got", or collective nouns, and then the divisive power of the Atlantic will arise! ;)

[Anthony]

"An embrace of octopuses"?

[Cecily]

Or a tangle of octopuses?
Or oodles of octopuses?

[Ken, Moderator]

A snare of octopuses?
An unguent of octopuses?
An octagon of octopuses?

That's all I've got!

[Portia]

Yes, you are all correct, but I just can't resist using "octopi" and pronouncing it "octo - pie."

Then, of course, there is the month Octo - brr.

Or my birth month, Septober.

But, I digress ...

[Cecily]

While we're on collective nouns, this is clever:
;)

[Ken, Moderator]

Good one. Though I've never seen a blue-headed crow before....

[Ruth]

Hee!

[Sonali]

One lives and learns every day.;-)

[Jane]

Which is correct--all right or alright and why?

[Ken, Moderator]

Until the Mongol hordes overwhelm us (and they're at the ramparts), it's all right. That said, alright is surfacing more and more, first gaining ascendancy in Jolly Olde.

My reason comes in two words: all wrong.

[Caroline]

Newengland wrote: "Until the Mongol hordes overwhelm us (and they're at the ramparts), it's all right. That said, alright is surfacing more and more, first gaining ascendancy in Jolly Olde.

My reason comes in two wo..."

:-))))

[Cecily]

Jane wrote: "Which is correct--all right or alright and why?"

Alright is more all right in British than American English. For instance, we often make a distinction like this:

James felt alright about getting the questions all right.

[Caroline]

Hi, a change of tack.

I just wrote somewhere about Florence Nightingale being referred to as "The lady with the lamp". I called it a nickname, but I am sure that is wrong. "Title" isn't right either. I would very much like to know the correct term.

[Jane]

My best guess is sobriquet, e.g., New York City=Big Apple.

[Ken, Moderator]

I'm not sure there's a set word for it, but rather a choice of words. I like sobriquet. Or moniker. Or an appositive, like ",the Lady with the Lamp," between commas.

[Caroline]

Newengland wrote: "I'm not sure there's a set word for it, but rather a choice of words. I like sobriquet. Or moniker. Or an appositive, like ",the Lady with the Lamp," between commas."

Jane wrote: "My best guess is sobriquet, e.g., New York City=Big Apple."

Thank you Jane and Newengland. This is just what I was looking for. In fact I have heard friends use the term moniker.

Presumably one would use it like this...

"Florence Nightingale, often given the sobriquet/moniker 'Our Lady with the Lamp'.....

[Ruth]

Why not make it simple?

Florence Nightingale, known as the "the Lady with the Lamp,"

[Caroline]

Ruth wrote: "Why not make it simple?

Florence Nightingale, known as the "the Lady with the Lamp,""

I agree with you Ruth, but the real context where I was looking for these words did need the terms sobriquet or moniker.... (Well, I think so anyway, I may be wrong!)

" I found the book utterly mind-blowing. Nightingale was incredibly driven, a genius, and in my mind, a remarkable statistician, rather than the beloved nursing figure suggested by her nickname ‘the lady of the lamp’."

[Jane]

Wouldn't moniker be a little slangy, though, in this context?

[Caroline]

Jane wrote: "Wouldn't moniker be a little slangy, though, in this context?"

Hi Jane,

I have actually used the phrase now (in an email which has been sent), but will bear in mind for the future that moniker is for more casual usage....