tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post116422258320527167..comments2023-11-10T16:19:46.880-05:00Comments on Blogslot: A Conclusion of MineUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-1171904438701391762007-02-19T12:00:00.000-05:002007-02-19T12:00:00.000-05:00The acronym "SWAT" does standard for "Special Weap...The acronym "SWAT" does standard for "Special Weapons and Tactics".<BR/><BR/>When the first SWAT unit was set up by the LAPD, Daryl Gates suggested it should be called the "Special Weapons Assault Team". Gates' boss overruled him, and decided on the less aggressive name "Special Weapons and Tactics".<BR/><BR/>So, the term "SWAT team" isn't tautological.<BR/><BR/>As for Stephen Jones' comment "Acronyms are originally used by a certain elite, who know the meaning behind the letters": <BR/><BR/>The house style on every publication I've worked has required that when unfamiliar acronyms are first used they must be written in full, followed by the acronym in brackets.<BR/><BR/>E.g. "The PC's random access memory (RAM) stores data temporarily."<BR/><BR/>From second usage onwards, the acronym is used by itself.<BR/><BR/>Acronyms in common use are never written in full (ATM, DVD, CD, SCUBA etc).<BR/><BR/>This works well. Unless the reader has the memory of a goldfish, or doesn't know how to use a dictionary.Richard Cosgrovehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00843305491000273746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-1168989448509225152007-01-16T18:17:00.000-05:002007-01-16T18:17:00.000-05:00in "BTK," the K doesn't stand for "Killer"a "Kill"...in "BTK," the K doesn't stand for "Killer"<BR/><BR/>a "Kill" Killer is sort of funny, but it's not quite the same.TootsNYChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08250160403913606481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-1164833130309003322006-11-29T15:45:00.000-05:002006-11-29T15:45:00.000-05:00There's a point in there somewhere (it's similar t...There's a point in there somewhere (it's similar to the reason I don't think "Rio Grande River" and "Sahara Desert" are redundant), but who the hell doesn't know what an ATM is? (Or, at least, who would be confused by "ATM" but not by "ATM machine"?)Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01512881095588291721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-1164651884971954462006-11-27T13:24:00.000-05:002006-11-27T13:24:00.000-05:00Do I get extra extra extra credit for knowing that...Do I get extra extra extra credit for knowing that some copy editors would wrongly change "has long been" to "long has been?"Kstieffelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13303205285799501262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-1164398724847471012006-11-24T15:05:00.000-05:002006-11-24T15:05:00.000-05:00I knew it was parallel construction. Now that my a...I knew it was parallel construction. Now that my antennae are up, I find that error all the time, including in my paper. Drives me batty.The Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14646453139038864331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-1164293513176357422006-11-23T09:51:00.000-05:002006-11-23T09:51:00.000-05:00Parallel construction! So, he put her in charge of...Parallel construction! So, he put her in charge of the bomb squad. Check. He put her in charge of other special units. Check. He put her <I>in charge of SWAT team</I>? Who wrote this? Borat? <BR/><BR/>The other way a series like that can work is for the <I>the</I> to apply to each item. OK, so he put her in charge of the bomb squad. Check. He put her in charge of the SWAT team. Check. He put her in charge of the other special units? That sounds fine in isolation, but <I>what</I> other special units? The article hasn't mentioned any, and clearly the writer meant that he put her <I>in charge of other special units</I>.<BR/><BR/>All that's missing is a <I>the</I> in front of <I>SWAT team</I>. That fixes everything. <BR/><BR/>The other thing I was referring to was probably too obscure to even mention, but I've written before about editors who misunderstand the "toast, juice, and ham and eggs" rule (how we non-serial-comma-using journalists are supposed to use the serial comma when one item in a series contains "and") and apply it when there are only two items in a so-called series. So I was thinking that such editors might be tempted to put a comma before "and later."Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01512881095588291721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-1164289366392299042006-11-23T08:42:00.000-05:002006-11-23T08:42:00.000-05:00Oh, good point. I hadn't thought of the serial com...Oh, good point. I hadn't thought of the serial comma -- but what I was looking for as a wrongly flagged error was very similar.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01512881095588291721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-1164269235602970292006-11-23T03:07:00.000-05:002006-11-23T03:07:00.000-05:00I'm going to say the missing serial comma is the t...I'm going to say the missing serial comma is the thing people wrongly flag as wrong, but I can't spot a second mistake.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01208386858497297295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-1164263372214287282006-11-23T01:29:00.000-05:002006-11-23T01:29:00.000-05:00I guess I'm not as lucid as I like to think. The "...I guess I'm not as lucid as I like to think. The "Ramsey's who" thing is the whole point of this post, not either of the extra-credit answers.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01512881095588291721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-1164259524169508572006-11-23T00:25:00.000-05:002006-11-23T00:25:00.000-05:00I ain't no grammar expert :) but the place which a...I ain't no grammar expert :) but the place which appears to have the problem is after the possessive is used. You have "favourite of Ramsey's" and then "who gave her key patrol commands..." . Isn't what the "who" refers to incorrect? In this sentence, it seems like it refers to "Ramsey's" and not "Ramsey".<BR/><BR/>Or is this the thing that people who are wrong would say?Percyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02178643803230403542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-1164259480406681162006-11-23T00:24:00.000-05:002006-11-23T00:24:00.000-05:00One extra-credit answer is that "who" can't refer ...One extra-credit answer is that "who" can't refer back to "Ramsey's," which isn't a noun. I want desperately to know what the other extra credit answer is.kostiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00421321158173999309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-1164244272704379202006-11-22T20:11:00.000-05:002006-11-22T20:11:00.000-05:00Fowler says "that nose of his" is unacceptable?Fowler says "that nose of his" is unacceptable?Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01512881095588291721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-1164244125651154952006-11-22T20:08:00.000-05:002006-11-22T20:08:00.000-05:00What do you think of the rule found in H. W. Fowle...What do you think of the rule found in H. W. Fowler's book that says that the double possessive is allowed when thing possessed is one of many such things, e.g. <I>a friend of mine</I> (assuming there are many friends), but not <I>that nose of his</I>.Ashokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01971476566539456129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7122549.post-1164235480718478962006-11-22T17:44:00.000-05:002006-11-22T17:44:00.000-05:00Hmm -- I've always heard "special weapons and tact...Hmm -- I've always heard "special weapons and tactics." Anyway, that's not what I had in mind on either count.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01512881095588291721noreply@blogger.com