1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

style questions

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by dog eat dog world, Aug 25, 2012.

  1. dog eat dog world

    dog eat dog world New Member

    I don't get why we use 2-for-5 in football or basketball. Literally that means two completions for five attempts or two baskets for five attempts. It should be 2-of-5. He completed two of five passes. "for" should relate to an end result. 2-of-5 for 43 yards.
     
  2. Versatile

    Versatile Active Member

    Two completions for five attempts doesn't make sense. You'd naturally say "in" or "out of." It's jargon, more or less, that every sports fan is used to. That's why you hyphenate; it wouldn't make sense if the words came apart.
     
  3. Songbird

    Songbird Well-Known Member

    Tebow completed 8 of his first 9 attempts for 207 yards.

    Tebow finished 8 of 9 for 207 yards.

    Tebow was 1 of 17. His only completion was a 97-yard touchdown that began as a 3-yard screen.
     
  4. Versatile

    Versatile Active Member

    You'd say "Tebow was 1(-)for(-)17" normally.
     
  5. dog eat dog world

    dog eat dog world New Member

    I agree but check AP stories. "for" is used often.
     
  6. bpoindexter

    bpoindexter Active Member

    As Moe said often to Larry, Curly and Shemp: "We ain't gettin' no place fast."
     
  7. Frank_Ridgeway

    Frank_Ridgeway Well-Known Member

    This is not something to sweat. Pick a style, stick with it and it's yours.

    I worked for one guy who decreed that we not use Roman numerals for Super Bowls, so we'd say Super Bowl 26, etc. And if that was the only thing you knew about him, you'd think he is a goofball. But anyone who knows who I mean -- and we are legion here -- knows the man was probably one of the best sports editors of all time. On the record, he said it was because he didn't want the NFL dictating to us. But I bet the real reason he did it was just because he could.

    Plenty of room to disagree on various style points. But life is short.
     
  8. MightyMouse

    MightyMouse Member

    I'm diverting the thread a bit, mostly because I didn't want to start a new one about style.

    Cleaning up quotes (another popular topic):

    This isn't specific to athletes. People, in general, don't talk how we normally would write. But I'm looking at a story right now with a quote that uses "gotta." And I can make equal arguments for changing it and leaving it alone.

    What are anyone's thoughts on this?
     
  9. boundforboston

    boundforboston Well-Known Member

    I'd say leave it. It accurately depicts what the person said and it's more conversational, which helps your piece read better.
     
  10. da man

    da man Well-Known Member

    Nope. This is wrong. If you try to accurately depict what people actually sound like, it will have no Gs at the end of words and will include all sorts of stuff you don't want in there.

    From another thread:

    OK, then I'll say it. You should never, ever use gotta or gonna. That's not what the person said because there are no such words. He (or she) said got to and going to and slurred his (or her) words together. Whoever said gotta and gonna are different from matters of pronunciation is wrong. That's exactly what they are. The person is saying got to and going to but pronouncing them incorrectly -- too fast and running them together. If you use gotta and gonna (and its vicious cousin gotcha), you'd better be prepared to drop pretty much every g at the end of -ing words or write 'em instead of them almost every time, because that's the exact same thing. And when you start doing that, yes, you wind up making people look stupid in print. And that is not "cleaning up" a quote because you are simply writing what the person actually said, just as if you wrote "doing" instead of "doin'."

    And...

    Hate to dredge up a third-page thread, but this is faulty logic. Sure, most people say gonna and gotta. They also say runnin' and laughin' and b'lieve and wanna and what's a matter and whaddaya and 'em. Are you putting all of those -- and many other mispronunciations -- in your quotes, too? The fact is, these are lazy pronunciations of actual words -- not to say I don't talk like that, too, but that's what they are -- and we should write what people are actually saying. Ain't, to bring up an earlier example, is not a mispronunciation of isn't. And while it wasn't a word (as noted, I believe our buddy Webster has relented), if you wanted to use the quote for color and felt confident it would be understood, you'd go with it regardless. That's is not, however, the same as gonna and gotta.

    As far as where the T went in gonna, people drop Ts all the time. There's a town in South Carolina called Clinton, but everyone in the area pronounces in "Clinnon." Would you spell it that way in a quote?
     
  11. boundforboston

    boundforboston Well-Known Member

    I'm probably in a different part of the country than you, but coaches around here say, "he's our running back," "our starting pitcher kept us in the game" and "he shot that thing." Oh, and they also say gotta and gonna. Their adding an a on the end gives it away.
     
  12. waterytart

    waterytart Active Member

    Disagree that gotta and gonna are mispronunciations in conversational American English. Shoot, I'd rather die on the hills of dour and err, but that's not relevant to writing.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page