Category Archives: legal proofreading

Wi-Fi, Wifi, Wi-fi, WiFi–Which One Is Right?

By | | , , , ,
Comments Off on Wi-Fi, Wifi, Wi-fi, WiFi–Which One Is Right?
Wi-Fi

Wi-Fi, Wifi, Wi-fi, WiFi–Which One Is Right? proofthatblog.com

I was recently a passenger on a road trip from Albuquerque to Phoenix. On that route, there are tons of billboards, some very professional and some not so much. One thing I noticed as I was checking for errors was the many ways that hotels spell the word indicating you will be able to use your phone, tablet, e-reader, watch, etc. to access the internet (usually for free).

I decided to do a little bit of research to find out what the appropriate spelling should be. That sounds easy, doesn’t it? Well, it isn’t.

  • According to Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, “Wi-fi” is used to certify the interoperability of wireless computer networking devices. (Spelling #1)
  • The AP Stylebook’s dictionary of choice–Webster’s New World–defines “Wi-Fi” as an abbreviation for wireless fidelity, meaning you can access or connect to a network using radio waves, without needing to use wires. (Spelling #2) Webster’s also indicates that it is also written “WiFi.” (Spelling #3)
  • Tripsavvy.com (a true expert on spelling and definitions) defines “wifi” as “the wireless network you connect to that allows you to access the internet.” (Spelling #4)
  • The American Heritage Dictionary indicates that “Wi-Fi” is a trademark for the certification of products that meet certain standards for transmitting data over wireless networks.
  • The Chicago Manual of Style indicates that “Wi-Fi” is a trademark.
  • “Wi-Fi” is the registered trademark of the Wi-Fi Alliance, who “brings us Wi-Fi.” Their website indicates they coined the term “Wi-Fi” and they certify Wi-Fi products.

I found several more instances of the “Wi-Fi” spelling. In addition, it seems that Wi-Fi Alliance is more the expert and that’s the way that organization spells it–so “Wi-Fi” seems the most correct.

Email, RSS Follow

Confusing Words Of The Week

By | | , , , , , ,
2 Comments

Words of the WeekIt’s time for “Confusing Words of the Week” where I take a set of two or three words that get confused and give you definitions and try to give you a memory trick to help you remember when to use which word. If you have words that confuse you, use the Ask PTB tab on the website or send an email to proofthatblog@gmail.com and they may appear here soon!

This week’s words are:

  • adverse – harmful; hostile; unfavorable
    • They expected an adverse reaction to the change in the PTO policy.
  • averse – opposed (to)
    • He was averse to having kale on the menu.

Memory tips:

  • adverse – since the difference is the letter “d” being included in this word, I would think of “dang,” “dynamite,” or another “d” word that makes you think of being on the verge of being harmful.
  • averse – think of “vice versa” or opposites so it is opposed to
Email, RSS Follow

Replay Thursday

By | | , , , , ,
Comments Off on Replay Thursday

Thursday ReplayIt’s time for a review of recent blog posts just in case you’ve missed them. We call this Replay Thursday. Here are posts from Proof That proofreading blog and 60 Is The New 60 blog during the past week.

Grammar Giggle – Weeknd

Grammar Giggle – Friend Chicken

Confusing Words Of The Week

 

Email, RSS Follow

Confusing Words Of The Week

By | | , , , , , ,
Comments Off on Confusing Words Of The Week

Words of the WeekIt’s time for “Confusing Words of the Week” where I take a set of two or three words that get confused and give you definitions and try to give you a memory trick to help you remember when to use which word. If you have words that confuse you, use the Ask PTB tab on the website or send an email to proofthatblog@gmail.com and they may appear here soon!

This week’s words are:

  • collision – a clashing
    • The receptionist had a car collision on her way to work today.
  • collusion – a scheme to defraud
    • He was accused of collusion in billing his elderly client through another corporation.

Memory tips:

  • collision – remember the “i” as in “incident”
  • collusion – remember the “u” as in “fraud”
Email, RSS Follow

Grammar Giggle – Friend Chicken

By | | , , , , , ,
Comments Off on Grammar Giggle – Friend Chicken

My cousin sent this one to me. I love friends and I love fried chicken (it is my death row meal), but “friend chicken” scares me a little bit. Again, the word is not misspelled, it is just not the right word. You need to read for context to make sure it is the right word.

Chicken

 

Email, RSS Follow

Replay Thursday

By | | , , , ,
Comments Off on Replay Thursday

Thursday ReplayIt’s time for a review of recent blog posts just in case you’ve missed them. We call this Replay Thursday. Here are posts from Proof That proofreading blog and 60 Is The New 60 blog during the past week.

Grammar Giggle – You iPhone

Grammar Giggle – Nerver Too Old

Confusing Words of the Week

Attorneys and Apostrophes

 

Email, RSS Follow

Attorneys and Apostrophes

By | | , , , , , , ,
Comments Off on Attorneys and Apostrophes

Attorneys and ApostrophesI found this article and thought it was interesting. Incorrect use of apostrophes is probably my biggest pet peeve. It isn’t really hard. If you need to show possession or show that letters are missing, use an apostrophe. Otherwise, for the most part, do not use an apostrophe. There are, of course, exceptions, but you need to learn the difference because I’m pretty sure that you don’t want your attorney’s work to be the topic of a FindLaw article.

Attorney Objects to Motion’s Use of Apostrophes, Possessives

By Stephanie Rabiner, Esq. on June 16, 2011 5:42 AM

Though she managed to graduate from law school, Anissa Bluebaum apparently never managed to master elementary school grammar.

Or at least that’s what her fellow attorney had to say when he responded to a complaint in a civil lawsuit filed by Bluebaum.

Her egregious use of apostrophes made it impossible to tell who she was referring to and when.

Anissa Bluebaum is representing Alison Peck (a teacher who was busted for sleeping with her students) in a lawsuit against her former probation officer, Rebecca Martin, reports the Springfield News-Leader.

When Martin’s attorney, Richard Crites, received the complaint, he was a bit baffled. But Crites soldiered on, responding on behalf of his client.

With 8 pages of questions.

Apparently, the lawsuit was filed against Martin and her brother, but because Bluebaum had rendered the complaint incoherent by misusing both “defendants” and “defendant’s,” Crites was unable to tell whether statements were referring to one or both parties.

He also requested that Bluebaum respond to his request in paragraph form.

Did Bluebaum write her pleading like a stream-of-consciousness text message, too?

As you may know, glaring grammatical errors can be disastrous to your case (and make you look a bit ridiculous). So the next time you’re confronted with multiple parties to which you need to attribute actions or statements, keep the following in mind:

  • Defendants is more than one defendant;
  • Defendant’s is the possessive of a singular defendant; and
  • Defendants’ is the possessive of more than one defendant.

If you’re still unsure, ask around–you don’t want to end up like Anissa Bluebaum.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/greedy_associates/2011/06/attorney-objects-to-motions-use-of-apostrophes-possessives.html

 

Email, RSS Follow