[mea] Re: Are you ok with this sentence?
- From: Meg Coish <mhudek@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: mea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:05:16 -0600
Murder of crows
Unkindness of ravens
(I've always loved that one.)
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 5:29 PM, <cheri.frazer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> That's a fun one!
>
> A correction (collection, with an accent) of editors
> A brace of editors
> A bracket of editors
> A nitpick of editors
> A murder of editors (no, that's crows--or is it ravens? I think it's
> ravens)
> Ha, a caret of editors!
>
> I think I need to go home.
>
>
>
> From: Karen McElrea <karenmcelrea@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: <mea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 2012-01-12 05:19 PM Subject:
> [mea] Re: Are you ok with this sentence?
> Sent by: mea-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> Well, yes, except the skier is in no position to be critical (that
> particular usage always bugs me). As opposed to a gaggle of editors ...
> what is the correct term for that, by the way?
>
> ------------------------------
> Subject: [mea] Re: Are you ok with this sentence?
> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 17:08:25 -0600
> From: Carl.DeGurse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: mea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> It’s a “don’t read me” headline. Nothing new in this news story. But
> it’s possible the headline writer was stuck topping a nothing-new story and
> responsibly wrote a headline that is bland yet accurate.
>
> *From:* mea-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:mea-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mea-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]
> *On Behalf Of *Karen McElrea*
> Sent:* January-12-12 4:58 PM*
> To:* mea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx*
> Subject:* [mea] Re: Are you ok with this sentence?
>
> Thanks, Arden -- what do we think about that headline, "Canadian skier
> Sarah Burke still critical..."?
>
> I think Cheri's solution is a good one (a double)!
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:18:25 -0600
> Subject: [mea] Re: Are you ok with this sentence?
> From: acogg@xxxxxxx
> To: mea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Where's the like button, Karen?
> ...Arden
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Karen McElrea
> <*karenmcelrea@xxxxxxxxxxx*<karenmcelrea@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
> wrote:
>
> I would object to a sentence of that construction, which I believe are
> incorrect in any context.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> To: *mea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx* <mea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [mea] Are you ok with this sentence?
> From: *cheri.frazer@xxxxxxxxxx* <cheri.frazer@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:32:53 -0600
>
>
> "Burke tore a vertebral artery, which are located in the neck and supply
> blood to the brainstem — the back part of the brain which controls
> consciousness."
>
> (From *
> http://www.cbc.ca/sports/skiing/story/2012/01/12/sp-burke-skiing-injury.html
> *<http://www.cbc.ca/sports/skiing/story/2012/01/12/sp-burke-skiing-injury.html>
> )
>
> Would you consider that construction perfectly ok, a colloquialism /
> grammatical shortcut, or would you consider it wrong no matter what?
>
> Just curious.
> -C.
>
>
> "PLEASE NOTE: The preceding information may be confidential or privileged.
> It only should be used or disseminated for the purpose of conducting
> business with Parker. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify
> the sender by replying to this message and then delete the information from
> your system. Thank you for your cooperation."
>
> "PLEASE NOTE: The preceding information may be confidential or privileged.
> It only should be used or disseminated for the purpose of conducting
> business with Parker. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify
> the sender by replying to this message and then delete the information from
> your system. Thank you for your cooperation."
>
Other related posts:
