Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
If or Whether Login/Join
 
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted
I have another grammar question. Which is correct in this sentence?

"...50% of employers reported "yes definitely" when asked ("if" or "whether" or either?) new graduates are ready to provide safe and effective care."

An editor "corrected" my writing, and I am not sure why. I am probably wrong, but I'd like your opinions (particularly if I'm not! Razz)
 
Posts: 24735 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I prefer if in that sentence because I think it sounds better, but I think either one is "correct." Dictionary.com says this:
quote:
If meaning “whether,” as in I haven't decided if I'll go, is sometimes criticized, but the usage has been established in standard English for a long time.
 
Posts: 2878 | Location: Shoreline, WA, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
if, whether

[Edit: fixed goofy's URL in the link.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,
 
Posts: 2428Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:

[Edit: fixed goofy's URL in the link.]


Thanks. How?
 
Posts: 2428Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of zmježd
posted Hide Post
How?

It was the apostrophe in your search criteria. Those apostrophes cause so much trouble, they should really be abolished.


Ceci n'est pas un seing.
 
Posts: 5148 | Location: R'lyehReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
Yes, I read the Dictionary.com's discussion and from that didn't really see a difference. The one thing that drew my attention from goofy's link is that "whether" is more often used in formal contexts. I used "whether" in the sentence, but my nitpicking editor changed it to "if." If there is an error, fine. But if not, I don't get it.
 
Posts: 24735 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Richard English
posted Hide Post
quote:
I used "whether" in the sentence, but my nitpicking editor changed it to "if." If there is an error, fine. But if not, I don't get it.

So change it back, already!


Richard English
 
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UKReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
Oh, I left the stupid "so." It wasn't just that. I felt as though she just made changes to make changes. For example, she removed all my "thats." I realize it's a style issue, but I'd rather read "Del Bueno found that when novice nurses were given patient scenarios, 50% would miss life-threatening situations." She removed all those "thats," and I let it be. However, I looked at other research reports, and most of them "reported that." I guess, when push comes to shove, it makes no difference...but that's the reason I wondered why she insisted on changing all of them.
 
Posts: 24735 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Richard English
posted Hide Post
quote:
I wondered why she insisted on changing all of them.

Power and a need to justify her existence. For what it's worth, I think the sentence reads much better with "that" in it. My only comment would be that it might be better to put a comma after "that", since the phrase "...when novice nurses were given patient scenarios,..." could be considered parenthetic.


Richard English
 
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UKReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of wordmatic
posted Hide Post
I think either one is correct, but I would have written "whether" also.

Wordmatic
 
Posts: 1390 | Location: Near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
I asked her about it (actually, she is a co-author with me on an article, but is mostly taking the role of editing what I've written...which is annoying to me), and she said that whenever she writes manuscripts, she never gets any comments on them because she is such a good writer. Okay then.
 
Posts: 24735 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of zmježd
posted Hide Post
she never gets any comments on them because she is such a good writer.

I see. Ask her if she edits her own documents, too.


Ceci n'est pas un seing.
 
Posts: 5148 | Location: R'lyehReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
If I had a backbone, I'd refuse her to have her name on the article. She really hasn't contributed anything except removing all my "thats" and changing "whether" to "if."
 
Posts: 24735 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Richard English
posted Hide Post
Is she your boss? If not why not tell her that you (backed up by the erudite contributors to this board) consider that your grammar and style is better than hers and you'd like her to leave your work alone, thank you very much.


Richard English
 
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UKReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of arnie
posted Hide Post
quote:
I'd refuse her to have her name on the article.

She shouldn't expect it if all she's done is act as a copy editor.


Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 
Posts: 10940 | Location: LondonReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of wordmatic
posted Hide Post
Yeah, really.

WM
 
Posts: 1390 | Location: Near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
<Proofreader>
posted
Ask her whether or if she's just a copy editor.
 
Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
quote:
Is she your boss?
No. I feel that I am too far into this to turn her down at this point. She was suppose to review my drafts, and then, I thought, edit them for content. However, all she has done is edit for grammar, even though the journal editors will do the same thing. One of my colleagues in academia told me it was actually unethical for me to let her be a co-author, and I suppose she is right.

The worst of it is, if I do say so myself, it is one of the best articles I've ever written. I have researched it thoroughly and developed some excellent tables and figures.

I guess, since I don't intend to confront her, I shouldn't complain. I learned a lesson from this experience, though, and I will never write an article with anyone again without specific roles.
 
Posts: 24735 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kalleh:
One of my colleagues in academia told me it was actually unethical for me to let her be a co-author, and I suppose she is right.

That sounds like a great reason to remove her name from the paper and restore your paper as you wrote it.
 
Posts: 2878 | Location: Shoreline, WA, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of BobHale
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kalleh:
However, all she has done is edit for grammar, even though the journal editors will do the same thing.


I'll bet you sixpence that the journal editors change some more of your writing AND change some of her changes back. It's how these people justify their existence.


"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson.
 
Posts: 9421 | Location: EnglandReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Richard English
posted Hide Post
quote:
I'll bet you sixpence that the journal editors change some more of your writing AND change some of her changes back. It's how these people justify their existence.


City and Guilds did that once to one of my examiner's reports. When we had the next meeting to discuss the series I refused to comment on my report (which is usually one of the items on the agendum). When asked why, I said to the Chairman, "This report has been altered by a person or persons unknown, without my even having been advised - let alone consulted - and if you want feedback you can ask them". They never altered a report of mine ever again.

Sometimes you just have to stick your neck out to avoid being taken advantage of.


Richard English
 
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UKReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of zmježd
posted Hide Post
one of the items on the agendum

An interesting hypercorrection that. An agendum is a single item on a list or agenda. The same holds true for addendum, addenda, and corrigendum, corrigenda. Agendum is a gerundive adjective being used as a noun in Latin grammar. Latin had two kinds of verbal forms corresponding to what English has in verbal forms ending in -ing. Perhaps the most famous gerundive in Roman literature is Cato's famous quotation: Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse ("I also think Carthage to be something that must be destroyed"). Of course, you can insist that that's how you use and you're correct, but that is a slippery slope that licenses infer as imply and other constructions ...


Ceci n'est pas un seing.
 
Posts: 5148 | Location: R'lyehReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Richard English
posted Hide Post
I took the COED's definitions - although it agrees agenda is now usually treated as singular. It also comments that "agendum" is a singular, treated as a plural, and means a list of things to be done. However, it comments further that, although this is its original sense, such usage is now only "ocasional". Mine was one of those occasions.


Richard English
 
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UKReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of zmježd
posted Hide Post
Mine was one of those occasions.

As I suggested, you can do as you please. And this idiosyncratic use of agendum for agenda is just one of the many tics that makes you who you are.

I'd be curious to know exactly what the Compact Oxford English Dictionary says. The online version (link) has:
quote:
agenda noun 1 a list of items of business to be discussed at a meeting. 2 a list of matters to be addressed. — ORIGIN Latin, ‘things to be done’.
The OED1 and Fowler MEU (1st ed.) both say that agendum as an item on an agenda has replaced the older agend. The OED1 states that the obsolete (at least in the late 19th century when the volume A-B was published) agend could be used in a plural sense. I'll have to investigate further.

[Addendum: The MWDEU states: "The use of agendum in English to mean 'a list or program'm is considered a slip by Evans 1961 and pedantic by a few other commentators. It is considerably less frequent than agenda, but it has been in use since 1898, and is entered as standard in dictionaries. (link). So, one of the rare times you and the MWDEU agree. As for me, I agree with Evans. Here's a digitized version of the OED1 entry:



I believe I will start using agend and agends in place of agendum and agenda.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,


Ceci n'est pas un seing.
 
Posts: 5148 | Location: R'lyehReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Richard English
posted Hide Post
I tried to save myself the trouble by paraphrasing, but this is the full entry less pronunciation guide) in my COED - which is not the latest edition:

agenda n 1 (pl agendas) a a list of items of business to be considered at a meeting. b a series of things to be done; a plan of activities or action. 2 (sing. agendum (treated as pl.) a items of business to be considered. b things to be done. [Latin, neut. pl. of gerundive agere 'do']

Usage Agenda is now usually treated as a singular noun (with plural agendas), as in sense 1 above, e.g. The agenda for the meeting was very long; Today's agenda includes a visit to the old town; Anticipate what hidden agendas others may have. It is occasionally found in sense 2 (its original sense) meaning 'items to be considered' or 'things to be done'. Cf. DATA, MEDIA.


Richard English
 
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UKReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of zmježd
posted Hide Post
2 (sing. agendum (treated as pl.) a items of business to be considered. b things to be done.

The question then is when did the newer form come about. The plural meaning of agendum is not there in the OED (first edition) or Fowler's, so it must have happened sometime in the last century after the '20s. My theory is that it developed because of the controversial plural (of agenda) agendas, which dates from 1907. By the way, there is an earlier use of agend, agenda, in theology. It is opposed to credendum, credenda 'things to be believed'.


Ceci n'est pas un seing.
 
Posts: 5148 | Location: R'lyehReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
quote:
That sounds like a great reason to remove her name from the paper and restore your paper as you wrote it.
Yes, you are probably right. And I know it's not an excuse to say that this happens all the time in academia, though of course it does. However, in this particular situation, there are complications which keep me from taking her name off the publication at this point. But, as I said, I learned a huge lesson from this, and it will never happen again.
 
Posts: 24735 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
This is from the Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS):
quote:
Q. I wrote a profile article for an in-house employee-networking group’s intranet Web site. My lead consisted of a quote from the interviewee and my reply, which included the pronoun “I” in the sentence. The committee chair decided I should not be the only one credited as writer, since in her thinking, some editing suggestions that I incorporated in the final version negated my “ownership” as sole writer, so she changed the byline to “Reported by [me, Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2].” She then changed the “I” in the lead to “we.” How is something like this seen in the publishing world? Would it be considered fabrication, copyright infringement, or just a case of bad judgment?

A. Although I don’t think it’s grounds for a lawsuit, typically writers receive editing without having to share the byline. If Janes 1 and 2 didn’t actually create original text or provide you with source material, then it shouldn’t matter how much they reworked your piece—you are entitled to be the author. If they gave you paragraphs that you integrated into the article, or did research for you, then they could at least be acknowledged as contributors. If the Janes did substantial original work (not editing), they can claim coauthorship. “Reported by” fudges these issues, but it suggests a true collaboration. If you drafted the piece and it was printed more or less intact after editing, even substantive editing, you should have the byline, and acknowledgment of others would be up to you. It’s tough for copyeditors, but we have to accept that we aren’t in it for the glory.
 
Posts: 2878 | Location: Shoreline, WA, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
Yes, that's the rule, I agree. But is it what happens in academia? No. When I was a graduate student in a pulmonology department once, the head of the department insisted that any article that came out of his department should have his name on it, even if he did nothing. This is just an example, and not an isolated case.
 
Posts: 24735 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Richard English
posted Hide Post
I have to say that with my own limited involvement with academia (as a visiting lecturer in travel subjects at various colleges) I found that the attitude of some of those involved was strange indeed. In particular those who had never worked in commerce or any other "outside" occupation - who had spent their entire lives in academia - had the most extraordinary ideas which they felt they had every right to foist onto others.

I recall one lecturer arguing with me about gross profit margins (which back in those days were around 8% for travel agents) and I was getting nowhere. It wasn't until he stalked off with a parting shot that "...His margin was only 5% last year..." that I realised he didn't even know what a profit margin was - he was talking about his previous year's pay rise!

I suspect that there might be some (like the head of the department cited above) who have delusions of infallibility simply because, in their own small world of the classroom, they are the fount of all knowledge.

I should add that this kind of attitude was not the norm - but it surely happened.


Richard English
 
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UKReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Isn't it true that academic battles are so fierce because the rewards are so negligible?
 
Posts: 70 | Location: Philly/SJReply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 


Copyright © 2002-12