4 ms·
I’m proud of the Times for publishing this fine appreciation of the great novel, especially in the context of their continuing slide into cowardice. But I was s
by leephillips 6y ago
I’m proud of the Times for publishing this fine appreciation of the great novel, especially in the context of their continuing slide into cowardice. But I was surprised to see its title set in quotes, not only in the headline but throughout the text. I had assumed that the Times had gotten a handle on basic typographic conventions by now.
- maxerickson 6y agoThey publish their own style guide. Kind of tedious to bitch about them staying consistent with it. It's not like English is actually prescriptive.
- leephillips 6y agoI’ll cop to the tedious bit. But consider that, while “English” may not be prescriptive (odd idea, that), people can be. For example, the people who wrote this style guide: they were exactly prescribing usage for Times editors and writers. Yes, the thing I am tediously complaining about follows this guide. But the guide is wrong.
- maxerickson 6y agoIncoherent. Usage at the times is prescriptive, English ain't.
- meepmorp 6y ago>”English” may not be prescriptive (odd idea, that) Natural languages can’t be descriptive or prescriptive, they merely are. Grammars for those languages can be either descriptive (i.e., describing the language as used by speakers) or prescriptive (i.e., prescribe how the language should be used). In the former case, it’s perfectly fine to freely split infinitives; in the latter it is something up with which one does not put.
- leobabauta 6y agoJust a note that the split infinitive prohibition was largely a 19th century thing: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_infinitive
- meepmorp 6y agoOk?
- blakesterz 6y agoThey have an entire book on the basic typographic conventions they're supposed to follow there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_Manual_of_Style_and_Usage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_Manual_of_S... The one that always looks odd to me is C.I.A. and F.B.I.
- leephillips 6y agoMe, too. It’s quaint, but distracting. But remember that for a good part of its history they had a period after the title of the paper on the front page.
- blueline 6y agoWho cares?
- quesera 6y ago> I had assumed that the Times had gotten a handle on basic typographic conventions by now. NYT sets typographic conventions. For decades. They publish an entire in-depth guide on their style, and they adhere to it with great consistency. They've thought a whole lot more about the issue than you, or I, ever have or ever will. PS: Beware The New Yorker and The Atlantic.
- leephillips 6y agoI applaud the New Yorker’s lonely persistence in using the dieresis.