Vote off! Vote often!

[riverfrontier]

Which is your favorite misapplication?
A: 'YOUR crazy, the Dodgers are gettin' it done this year!'
B: 'I see YOU'RE point. Comerica Park is a toilet bowl.'
C: 'His head has grown TO big from the 'juice'.'
D: 'He had TOO demand a trade, there was TO much pressure!'
E: 'I've been TWO Wrigley many times, and the CUB'S lose ALOT!'
F; 'THEY'RE bullpen could use some help.'
G: 'How can you say THEIR aren't any prospects in THERE farm system?'

[SF Kid]

Which is your favorite misapplication?
A: 'YOUR crazy, the Dodgers are gettin' it done this year!'
B: 'I see YOU'RE point. Comerica Park is a toilet bowl.'
C: 'His head has grown TO big from the 'juice'.'
D: 'He had TOO demand a trade, there was TO much pressure!'
E: 'I've been TWO Wrigley many times, and the CUB'S lose ALOT!'
F; 'THEY'RE bullpen could use some help.'
G: 'How can you say THEIR aren't any prospects in THERE farm system?'Dude, you're killin' me.

I could spend an entire day correcting poeple's use of those words.

Just don't have the time!

[BoofBonser26]

Which is your favorite misapplication?
A: 'YOUR crazy, the Dodgers are gettin' it done this year!'
B: 'I see YOU'RE point. Comerica Park is a toilet bowl.'
C: 'His head has grown TO big from the 'juice'.'
D: 'He had TOO demand a trade, there was TO much pressure!'
E: 'I've been TWO Wrigley many times, and the CUB'S lose ALOT!'
F; 'THEY'RE bullpen could use some help.'
G: 'How can you say THEIR aren't any prospects in THERE farm system?'
A because it's so common.

[SF Kid]

Well your really to in tune about this subject! :p

[Dravecky43]

Which is your favorite misapplication?
A: 'YOUR crazy, the Dodgers are gettin' it done this year!'
B: 'I see YOU'RE point. Comerica Park is a toilet bowl.'
C: 'His head has grown TO big from the 'juice'.'
D: 'He had TOO demand a trade, there was TO much pressure!'
E: 'I've been TWO Wrigley many times, and the CUB'S lose ALOT!'
F; 'THEY'RE bullpen could use some help.'
G: 'How can you say THEIR aren't any prospects in THERE farm system?'
Wow. All of these annoy me. Bad grammar is practically my biggest pet peeve. But I'm going to have to go with D. Mixing up those is the worst.

[Mattingly]

I'm curious, is this thread about forumers' using the wrong synonyms, or about sports writers using the wrong ones?

[sandlot]

Good point, Matt. Let's aim at the professional writers, a few of whom lurk around BBF. After all, they do it for the dough. Here are three proposed rules for separating sportswriting wheat from chaff.

First, a sportswriter should strive never to produce work containing parentheticals. The exceptions would be, e.g., "Major League Baseball (MLB)", or a name including a popular nickname, "Roger (Rocket) Clemens," where the item in parentheses will appear further down. Any writer should be banished indefinitely to the land of tiny suburban weeklies for including a parenthetical within a quote, e.g., "He really hit (the ball) squarely on a pitch that was down and in the (strike) zone." Ugh.

The second inflexible rule is that no story should ever end with one of those annoying, thought-to-be-clever lines that's intended to summarize the article neatly like a little present for the intellectually challenged, and -- not incidentally -- to assure that the self-important writer gets the last word. This tail-on-the-donkey approach was once a no-no justifying dismissal. It's somehow become virulent among mediocre sportswriters. Read the wrap of almost any game on the MLB site to find an example.

The third unbendable rule is to avoid punning on someone's name in order to write a headline. People do not usually consider their own names to be material for someone else's humor; the intended humor rarely works, and requires stretching beyond the breaking point; it's amateurish, feeble, and the time spent trying to come up with it would be much better spent producing a headline that tells the story without risk of insult to either the person in question or the reader.

Studies of libel suits against newspapers show that the vast majority of cases arise from headlines, the cutlines under pictures, and the final sentence. Surprise, surprise.

Feel free to call me old-fashioned. I take it as a compliment.

[BoofBonser26]

The third unbendable rule is to avoid punning on someone's name in order to write a headline. People do not usually consider their own names to be material for someone else's humor; the intended humor rarely works, and requires stretching beyond the breaking point; it's amateurish, feeble, and the time spent trying to come up with it would be much better spent producing a headline that tells the story without risk of insult to either the person in question or the reader.

Someone reads MLB.com. ;) I agree with you, though. :ughh


First, a sportswriter should strive never to produce work containing parentheticals. The exceptions would be, e.g., "Major League Baseball (MLB)", or a name including a popular nickname, "Roger (Rocket) Clemens," where the item in parentheses will appear further down. Any writer should be banished indefinitely to the land of tiny suburban weeklies for including a parenthetical within a quote, e.g., "He really hit (the ball) squarely on a pitch that was down and in the (strike) zone." Ugh.

But if the quote were originally


He really hit it squarely on a pitch that was down and in the zone.
then

He really hit [the ball] squarely on a pitch that was down and in the [strike] zone.
Your example includes some obvious terms such as clarifying "strike" is the zone meant, but in most cases clarifying vague nouns in quotes is GOOD journalism.

[SF Kid]

I'm curious, is this thread about forumers' using the wrong synonyms, or about sports writers using the wrong ones?Ah, I think we'll fiind a few more around here than in the newspaper! ;)

Your on the right track though. To many newspapers let this stuff slip by a lot of the time. :p

[GiambiJuice]

spelings not that' importent.

[ESPNFan]

spelings not that' importent.

Us Lesdexycs support your position

[soberdennis]

spelings not that' importent.
I agree with you to a point. But good usage should be. We have a beautiful language here. Let's use it correctly.
How would you like to see that paragraph written like this.
i Agrie wit yu too a poit. Butt gud usaje shud bee. Wee hav a butiful langage hear. lets youse it corectly.
Which paragraph is easier to read.? I think you see my point.

[CuriousBoston]

Realtor,nuclear

typing like this with i and u

Is parsing taught anymore?

[Erik Bedard]

The third unbendable rule is to avoid punning on someone's name in order to write a headline. People do not usually consider their own names to be material for someone else's humor; the intended humor rarely works, and requires stretching beyond the breaking point; it's amateurish, feeble, and the time spent trying to come up with it would be much better spent producing a headline that tells the story without risk of insult to either the person in question or the reader.

Amen, brother, amen.

CB, what's "parsing"?

[Astro]

what is the point of this topic? this isn't (Is Not) english class...

[hudsonharden]

Which is your favorite misapplication?
A: 'YOUR crazy, the Dodgers are gettin' it done this year!'
B: 'I see YOU'RE point. Comerica Park is a toilet bowl.'
C: 'His head has grown TO big from the 'juice'.'
D: 'He had TOO demand a trade, there was TO much pressure!'
E: 'I've been TWO Wrigley many times, and the CUB'S lose ALOT!'
F; 'THEY'RE bullpen could use some help.'
G: 'How can you say THEIR aren't any prospects in THERE farm system?'

People tend to make a lot of mistakes when typing, expecially with keyboards on laptops getting smaller and smaller. And blackberrys are real hard to type with. Alls I'm saying is that these people aren't as stupid as you supposably think they are. I think you should give them the benefit of the doubt instead of misunderestimating them.

(now try to find all the errors in THAT one... I counted seven)

[Erik Bedard]

People tend to make a lot of mistakes when typing, expecially with keyboards on laptops getting smaller and smaller. And blackberrys are real hard to type with. Alls I'm saying is that these people aren't as stupid as you supposably think they are. I think you should give them the benefit of the doubt instead of misunderestimating them.

(now try to find all the errors in THAT one... I counted seven)

I found five easily. The other two were harder. Plus, nobody is going to accidentally type "misunderestimating" or "supposably".

[SF Kid]

spelings not that' importent.Well I'd agree completely. But then nobody spells correctly to much around here anyway! Heh. :crazy

[SF Kid]

I found five easily. The other two were harder. Plus, nobody is going to accidentally type "misunderestimating" or "supposably".Don't be too sure of that! Or is it don't be to sure about that? :rolleyes:

[riverfrontier]

The thread was not really intended to be mean-spirited. I was just calling attention to something that bothers me far more than any steroid issue, and that's knowing that a frightening percentage of PEOPLE WHO NEED THEIR OPINION HEARD process and relate information like a fourth-grader. If somebody wants to make a post about the Reds on a public forum, at least they could learn how to spell Cincinnati. They can add another t when they're e-mailing cousin Jethro.

[1995hoo]

All of the original examples drive me crazy. Punctuation errors do, too.

So do people who don't try to write their message board postings in legible English—you know, these annoying kids who think that their stupid "IM-speak" is appropriate for use anywhere other than in instant messages. If I see a post written that way, I ignore it. If I receive an e-mail written that way, I delete it.

[1995hoo]

People tend to make a lot of mistakes when typing, expecially with keyboards on laptops getting smaller and smaller. And blackberrys are real hard to type with. Alls I'm saying is that these people aren't as stupid as you supposably think they are. I think you should give them the benefit of the doubt instead of misunderestimating them.

(now try to find all the errors in THAT one... I counted seven)
hudsonharden found seven and highlighted them. I found some more, as indicated above. (Capitalization error on "now," improper use of ellipsis, and failure to punctuate the end of "I counted seven.")

:laugh

[Mattingly]

Moving to "Web Improvements", since this is more about grammar than anything about baseball.

There was a similar thread here under Web Improvements entitled Annoying Chat Speak (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=41439), which I believe was very interesting.

[digglahhh]

You know one of my little zingers...

Seeing as how so many people are fond of using the nonexistent word, "irregardless," I counter that faux pas with my own creation. I will respond, "Disirregardless of that,..."

Also, if I had a dollar for everytime tricky situations involving apostrophes and plural possesives were handled correctly, I wouldn't have much more money than I do now.

Bonds' implies something belonging to more than one Bonds. "Bonds' homerun record" would refer to the one for fathers and sons combined... But, alas, even that the esoteric grammarian community is beginning to abandon me on this one.

[BoofBonser26]

Bonds' implies something belonging to more than one Bonds. "Bonds' homerun record" would refer to the one for fathers and sons combined... But, alas, even that the esoteric grammarian community is beginning to abandon me on this one.
So you would say "Bonds's homerun record"?

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

Personally, I HATE it when people do not capitalize their I's. HATE it.

[sandlot]

Your example includes some obvious terms such as clarifying "strike" is the zone meant, but in most cases clarifying vague nouns in quotes is GOOD journalism.I couldn't get your post to come out with both my original statements and your comments, but I'll try to address what you wrote and hope that it make sense. We agree on the first point, so that's easy, but we disagree on the use of parentheses. Writing so that the meaning is clear is good writing. Seeking to make it clear through unnecessary and interrruptive parentheticals is not, especially where the meaning is already clear in the original. In the example given, "He really hit it...," the meaning of "it" is evident from the context. Inserting "the ball" clarifies nothing and adds only annoyance. How stupid is the reader assumed to be? As the subject is baseball, what zone other than the strike zone would one be talking about when discussing a ball hit by a batter? Parenthetical insertions, to borrow from Mark Twain, are like the pauses between the dentist's drilling. If something truly is not clear, then write around it. To use the same example again, one could write: "Asked about the sinker that Giambi hit over the rightfield wall in the seventh inning, Torre said: 'He really hit it squarely on a pitch that was down and in the zone.'" How much better this is than: "Torre said 'He (Giambi) really hit (the ball) squarely on a pitch that was down and in the (strike) zone.'"

[sandlot]

Moving to "Web Improvements", since this is more about grammar than anything about baseball.

There was a similar thread here under Web Improvements entitled Annoying Chat Speak (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=41439), which I believe was very interesting.Respectfully disagree with moving the thread, Matt. I had to do a search of my own posts to find out what had happened to the discussion, and I couldn't find the icon indicating movement, even though I looked everywhere. It never occurred to me to check under Web Improvement, which this discussion is not about. To my mind, it directly concerns baseball (and, indirectly, other sports) -- how we obtain information about it, how we feel about what we're presented with, how we communicate about it. We know that BBF is read by writers, and let's hope this kind of exchange makes them think about lazy habits they've fallen into, or poor examples that they've copied. It might also provide ammunition for some poor editor who's been striving for improvement but feeling outgunned. If it has a positive effect, however small, on the ims-generation's neutron attack on syntax and grammar, we can only light a candle to the gods of good communication. I may well be hoping for too much, but moving the discussion to languish in the still waters of Web Improvement effectively punctuates it with a full stop.

[BoofBonser26]

Seeking to make it clear through unnecessary and interrruptive parentheticals is not, especially where the meaning is already clear in the original.

Agreed, no arguement here.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

I'm curious, is this thread about forumers' using the wrong synonyms, or about sports writers using the wrong ones?

Those aren't actually "synonyms." They are homophones--i.e., words which have the same pronunciation, but different meanings. And no, they're not homoNYMS, because those are words which have BOTH the same pronunciation and spelling.. A "homograph," if anyone cares, has the same spelling, but a different meaning.

BHN

[Sliding Billy]

So you would say "Bonds's homerun record"?
Tommy Bond's 1877 strikeout record lasted only one year, until Bond broke it in 1878.
Tommy and Walt Bond combined for 41 lifetime home runs. Walt was responsible for all the Bonds' homers.
Barry Bonds's season record is likely to stand for a while.
Of all father-son combinations, the Bondses were one of the most potent.
The Bondses' power-speed number is probably the highest.