This is a common error that I see (and hear) a lot. Towards is used in British English, while in the U.S., we use toward. Toward means moving in the direction of or in relation to. So when I received this notification from an American company, it caught my attention. I have previously written a blog post about this topic at https://proofthatblog.com/2016/07/27/the-pesky-s/.
I have not shared Grammar Giggles from my European vacation because English is not their primary language so I was generous with any small errors I saw. However, on the Big Bus tour, I found this error. Since they are a large company with offices worldwide (including the US), I’m not so ready to cut them as much slack. So when I saw this one, the phone camera came out.
So by now, you may be wondering why I spend so much time talking about, writing about, and actually proofreading. Here are just a few of the reasons I think proofreading helps you:
Proofreading is a skill that can be learned and should be practiced. It is something that may well change your life (or perhaps only if you’re a nerd like me). So keep learning, keep practicing, and keep honing that skill.
This I found on Twitter. The correct phrase should be “couldn’t have gotten.” I think the error happens because when you are actually saying the phrase out loud, it sounds like “couldn’t uv gotten” so people assume it is “of” instead of “have.” That is incorrect.
So is it “attorney’s fees” or “attorneys’ fees”? I see it both ways in all kinds of documents. According to Bryan Garner, it seems that “attorney’s fees” is used most frequently, but that “attorneys’ fees” is acceptable in cases where more than one attorney is charging fees for services. Some people use “attorney fees” to avoid making decision altogether.
Other sources I found say:
No wonder people are confused. While it isn’t really a big deal, your firm should decide which form they want to use and then everyone should use that form. My biggest fear is always that different briefs from the same firm will have it different ways. Remember my mantra–consistency is good.
Here is my take: If there is ONLY one attorney charging fees, I think “attorney’s fees” is correct. They are the fees of that attorney. However, if there are multiple attorneys charging fees even in one firm, it should be “attorneys’ fees.” They are fees charged by multiple attorneys.
Do you agree?
This is a pretty common error that I saw on a TV ad recently. The phrase “use to be” is incorrect. When you’re talking about something that happened in the past but doesn’t happen anymore, the correct phrase is “used to be.” In this sentence it means that in the past, surgery was the only option, but it is not the only option anymore, so “used to be” would be correct.
My local news had a little bit of trouble spelling “Duchess.” A Duchess is the female equivalent if a Duke. Dutchess could possibly be a woman from the Netherlands, but is not a word that appears in a dictionary. The Duchess of Cambridge is a well-known figure and the headline is obviously incorrect.
Here is an example of how spell check doesn’t always help. “Untied” is spelled correctly. Unfortunately, “untied” isn’t the correct word in this instance. #proofthatblog #proofreading #untiedvsunited
A reader recently emailed asking about the word “bailiff” and whether it was capitalized when transcribing a legal court hearing. She asked “I understand that when it is used as a title, for example: Bailiff Jones will now take the jury to the jury room. But, during the course of conversation by the Judge – for example: If you (jury) has a question, please write out the question and hand it to our bailiff. Is the word bailiff capitalized then – or is it capitalized throughout the document just as you would for Mr. or Mrs.?”
Based on my review of the Gregg Reference Manual, it would be capitalized when used with the last name as in Bailiff Jones, but I do not think in the Judge’s conversation it would be capitalized. However, in reading Paragraph 313(c), it could be capitalized just because it is a court transcription and the bailiff might be considered an “official of high rank” in that courtroom by the persons reading the transcript.
Paragraph 312(e) says not to capitalize occupational titles preceding names. The way to distinguish occupational titles from official titles is that only official titles can be used with last names alone. for instance, you wouldn’t address a person as “Author Collins,” “Lawyer Jones,” or “Director of Public Marketing Smith,” so they are occupational titles and shouldn’t be capitalized. As a general rule, the Gregg Reference Manual says not to put a title before a person’s name unless it is short and you would actually use the title when you are addressing them aloud.
Other sources say if the title precedes the name, it should be capitalized and if it does not, it should not be. But what about “bailiff”? As above, you would address them as “Bailiff Jones” but in this case the title is not preceding the name–you are just using “bailiff.” According to Gregg Reference Manual:
My gut says not to capitalize it because it is a job title in that courtroom and you are not capitalizing other job titles like court reporter, judicial assistant, etc. when they are used in place of a name.
Do you agree or disagree? Comment below.
Follow