Wordcraft Home Page Wordcraft Community Home Page Forums Questions & Answers about Words If or Whether
Wordcraft Community Home Page Forums Questions & Answers about Words If or WhetherGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| If or Whether | Login/Join |
Member |
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!  ) | ||
|
| Member |
I prefer if in that sentence because I think it sounds better, but I think either one is "correct." Dictionary.com says this:
| |||
|
| Member |
if, whether [Edit: fixed goofy's URL in the link.]This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd, | |||
|
| Member |
Thanks. How? | |||
|
Member |
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. | |||
|
| Member |
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. | |||
|
Member |
So change it back, already! Richard English | |||
|
| Member |
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. | |||
|
| Member |
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 | |||
|
Member |
I think either one is correct, but I would have written "whether" also. Wordmatic | |||
|
| Member |
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. | |||
|
| Member |
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. | |||
|
| Member |
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." | |||
|
| Member |
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 | |||
|
Member |
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. | |||
|
| Member |
Yeah, really. WM | |||
|
| <Proofreader> |
Ask her whether or if she's just a copy editor. | ||
|
| Member |
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. | |||
|
| Member |
That sounds like a great reason to remove her name from the paper and restore your paper as you wrote it. | |||
|
Member |
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. | |||
|
| Member |
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 | |||
|
| Member |
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. | |||
|
| Member |
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 | |||
|
| Member |
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: 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. | |||
|
| Member |
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 | |||
|
| Member |
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. | |||
|
| Member |
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. | |||
|
| Member |
This is from the Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS):
| |||
|
| Member |
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. | |||
|
| Member |
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 | |||
|
| Member |
Isn't it true that academic battles are so fierce because the rewards are so negligible? | |||
|
Copyright © 2002-12