Assume v. Presume

I've been taking the Mail daily since lockdown (mainly, to be honest, for the puzzles and cartoons). I don't normally have spare time for browsing a newspaper, so I don't take one out of lockdown. However, a friend takes the Mail so it is nice to compare notes.

What I have noticed about the editing style is they never use parentheses. What I would put in brackets (as an aside which adds to the information but could be omitted), they only use commas – so there is no distinction between an aside and a sub-clause.

Anybody know why that is? Is it general throughout the newspaper industry?
 
Last edited:
Is there a real difference between an aside and a sub-clause? I suspect not, although I suppose it depends on how far 'off topic' the aside is taking the main cut and thrust of the sentence.
 
I didn't even know there was a
Black Hole said:
distinction between an aside and a sub-clause.
Click to expand...
Or that there was a thing called a sub-clause for that matter. :(

However I often write such things with commas or brackets but later, on reading through, I may change from one to the other according to what feels right to me. So I'm interested to know if there are actually rules about it.

I'd suspect that editorially the newspaper would say that if it can be omitted it should be, if only from space considerations, so would never print stuff in brackets.
 
MikeSh said:
However I often write such things with commas or brackets but later, on reading through, I may change from one to the other according to what feels right to me. So I'm interested to know if there are actually rules about it.
Click to expand...
If there are any rules I probably don't know what they are! I have a habit of doing exactly what you said. I write an aside and can't decide whether it should be commas or brackets. Surely nobody, not even BH, expects a newspaper (especially the Mail) to be an exemplar of proper English usage.
 
MikeSh said:
However I often write such things with commas or brackets but later, on reading through, I may change from one to the other according to what feels right to me. So I'm interested to know if there are actually rules about it.
Click to expand...
Any "rules" are (as always) only what somebody has decided to commit to paper. I use sections in parentheses as in-line footnotes*. I use commas where the phrasing demands a pause were it to be spoken.

* A section which stands on its own by way of explanation.

MikeSh said:
I'd suspect that editorially the newspaper would say that if it can be omitted it should be, if only from space considerations, so would never print stuff in brackets.
Click to expand...
I've had that done to me, but the brackets were converted to commas. The comma separator fails to convey the intent, and making the intent clear without brackets means more text.

EEPhil said:
Surely nobody, not even BH, expects a newspaper (especially the Mail) to be an exemplar of proper English usage.
Click to expand...
That's a different matter. What I'm talking about is a clear editorial policy to eradicate brackets (or whatever type) from submitted copy (I can't believe all reporters would do that universally). Proper usage is whatever you decide it to be, provided it is sustainable and applied consistently.
 
Black Hole said:
What I have noticed about the editing style is they never use parentheses.

Anybody know why that is? Is it general throughout the newspaper industry?
Click to expand...

Judging by the literacy/grammar exhibited by the public comments on the articles, I don't suppose the writers give a toss.
 
Black Hole said:
What I have noticed about the editing style is they never use parentheses. What I would put in brackets (as an aside which adds to the information but could be omitted), they only use commas – so there is no distinction between an aside and a sub-clause.
Click to expand...
I've just had chance to check last Saturday's Mail. At least two headlines have brackets!
Daily Mail said:
FLYING INTO THE HEIGHT OF MADNESS
A BA holiday (even though it's illegal). No checks leaving and none coming back - and thousands arriving every day. No wonder we're the sick man of Europe!
Click to expand...
John Humphrys - Daily Mail said:
Has virus killed off the cult of consumerism?
(I do hope so... and here's why)
Click to expand...
 
No, I don't think this has ever come up... but it sounds awfully like new-fangled phonics to me (not that I know anything about phonics).

The real issue, which he avoids addressing, is that modern pronunciation has drifted away from the spelling - not the other way around. Not that the yokels ever spoke the same as the ruling classes anyway.

I see no reason to introduce new vowels just to describe errors in pronunciation, that stuff can be left as a specialist tool for the academics. There are already loads of funny symbols for that.
 
Black Hole said:
I see no reason to introduce new vowels just to describe errors in pronunciation, that stuff can be left as a specialist tool for the academics.
Click to expand...
It's not really a new vowel, it's a descriptor for the neutral sound that vowels tend to become when not actively pronounced. And as the chart showed, it is indeed a tool for academics.
I found it interesting as I'd never noticed that effect, though now it's been pointed out it seems obvious and logical.
 
Sounds like the hieroglyphics that are almost impossible to understand that are used in dictionaries supposedly to help with pronunciation.
 
Trev said:
Sounds like the hieroglyphics that are almost impossible to understand that are used in dictionaries supposedly to help with pronunciation.
Click to expand...
Exactly. But help who? A significant proportion of the population use alternative pronunciations, and there is no single "correct". A comprehensive textbook would list every variation of pronunciation along with the region it is most prevalent in.

Then, along with the pronunciation of individual isolated words, there are the variations of inflection which convey grammatical things - such as the rising tone at the end of a question (or every sentence, question or not, if you are a kiwi or Canadian).
 
Or especially if you are Australian.
There is only one 'correct' way to pronounce Queen's English words, and that's by learning the hieroglyphs in the OED.
Anyone who pronounces them any other way is pronouncing them incorrectly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top