Question about "first ever"

Well, I agree and I don't. "He's" can mean either/or. That's just a fact.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/he's

Because it can mean either/or, it can cause the reader to hiccup in certain contexts. So better to just spell it out, when it doubt.

 

I guess that answers my question. I'm gonna stop changing the it's and he's when they refer to it has or he has.

 

This is simply morphing into one of our favorite "pet peeves" threads, so let me continue to rail strongly against "respective" and "respectively".

My premise starts with, "Jones and Smith led Seton Hall with 17 and 14 points, respectively."

I maintain that if you do the names in order, the readers will get it that the points are in the same order, and that "respectively" is worthless. Nonetheless, I get some pushback on that here. And, of course, that's cool having friendly disagreements with my SportsJournalists.com brothers and sisters.

However, I am unyielding in my hatred for this one, and if you disagree, I'm sorry, you're out of my will:

"The Rockets and Lakers lead their respective divisions with 20 games left."

There are few words in our writing more worthless than "respective" in that spot, and if even two people listen to me today, I'll be a happy guy. It's a total affectation, a word with zero value, but I see it all the time. In fact, I'm seeing it more and more.

"The Rockets and Lakers lead their divisions with 20 games left."

If anybody has an sensible argument why that is any less clear, I'll listen. You'll still be absolutely dead wrong, but I'll listen.

(To cut off one point: If, for some reason, you feel that pairing two teams leading their two divisions is confusing, that's up to you. Reword to your heart's content. But if you make the argument that "respective" fixes the problem, again, you're wrong.)

 

"To date" ... The Slobknobbers have won 10 games to date. Like fingernails on a chalkboard.

 

"Free gift" ... "gift" implies it is free.

"First-started" ... as in "He first started working for the city in 2002." Unless he started, stopped and started again, first is unnecessary.

 

PODUNK - The Podunk Pounders exploded for 7 runs in the first inning and never looked back.

YADA YADA - Yada Yada High wanted to set the tone with the playoffs on the horizon.
Mission accomplished.

Stringers are awesome.

 

Whomever first penned first ever should be the first to be taken out in the street and shot.

 

First when? This week? This month? I am unclear!

 

In addition to the potential stumble with he's as he has or he is, he'd could be either he would or he had, which are quite different and generally worth spelling out.

 

No, no, no, no. A complete-game shutout is one where the starting pitcher finishes a game in which the opposition fails to score. You can have a shutout without a complete game, if more than one pitcher is involved. Or maybe I'm missing something in the translation here.

And I'm probably offending the grammar police here, but I don't have a problem with first-ever. Short and sweet way to say something was done that had never been done before ... ever.

 

The only pitcher who gets credit for a shutout is a pitcher who pitches a complete-game shutout. Four pitchers combining to hold the other team scoreless isn't worthy of the word.

As for your second premise, it's entirely covered by using the adjective "first." Writers who continue to make the mistake after being gently corrected the first time shall be hit over the head with a cinder block.

 

2MCM... WFW!

Albert needs a good editor to help him