Breaking language barriers

[MNgremlin]

Again, drawing on experience with top-notch editors, most would not even allow "gonna" (instead of "going to") and "gotta" (instead of got to) into the paper. In fact, one sports desk stylebook I worked with forbade those usages in all cases; another one allowed them in rare instances that didn't include routine stories. Writers would argue, "Well, that's how so-and-so talks," and the editors would come back with, "True, but it's bad English and shouldn't be in the paper."

I was honestly surprised to see my ME use gonna in a quote recently (twice in one story, in fact). I always assumed it was common practice for industry veterans to clean up stuff like that.

 

[Bronco77]

One of the best quotes I had came from a high school football coach talking about a key play in a close game several years ago — a fumble recovery for a long score, if I remember correctly. His closing line about the play was "Who'd a-thunk it?"

Have to admit I would have been inclined to leave that quote in as a one-off usage. Though it's ungrammatical and uses a nonexistent word, it's folksy and something that isn't likely to be repeated in every high school game story. And it's certainly fresher than the typical boilerplate quotes from most high school coaches -- stuff along the lines of, "We're really proud of our kids."

 

[BDC99]

I don't agree.
One of the best quotes I had came from a high school football coach talking about a key play in a close game several years ago — a fumble recovery for a long score, if I remember correctly. His closing line about the play was "Who'd a-thunk it?"
My editor wanted to take it out. She said it was bad grammar and used a word that didn't really exist. She was also a graduate of the private school the guy coached and thought it made her alma mater look bad.
We argued about it, and then a fellow reporter, also a graduate of the school, walked in. She asked him about it.
He read it and said, "Oh, you've got to put that in."
It ran.
We never received a complaint.

What Bronco said. And it is ALL subjective. I would have run that quote as well. It's all about what serves the reader best and tells the story best. Period. If you need to have a discussion about it, as you guys did, do it.

 

[BDC99]

Though it should be who'da thunk it? Just saying!

 

[MNgremlin]

Though it should be who'da thunk it? Just saying!

Wiktionary says it should be punctuated who'd'a' thunk it, as an alternative to who'd have thunk it

who'd have thunk it - Wiktionary

 

[Riptide]

Wiktionary says it should be punctuated who'd'a' thunk it, as an alternative to who'd have thunk it

Jesus, who'da thunk that?

Nobody's gonna write it that way.

 

[Ace]

I was honestly surprised to see my ME use gonna in a quote recently (twice in one story, in fact). I always assumed it was common practice for industry veterans to clean up stuff like that.

Common practice to clean it up and grumble loudly about it.

 

[fossywriter8]

Wiktionary says it should be punctuated who'd'a' thunk it, as an alternative to who'd have thunk it

who'd have thunk it - Wiktionary

I'll remember that if it comes up again.
Of course, I had to think of how to spell it on my own. His usage came before I'd even heard of Wikipedia, let alone Wiktionary. In fact, it probably came before either was invented.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

Sorry to those offended!

Houston paper apologizes for quoting Carlos Gomez's broken English

 

[cake in the rain]

If you can't apologize genuinely, don't apologize at all. That was pretty weak by the Chronicle.

I've discussed this among other sports reporters and haven't found a single one who supports Smith on this.

That said, I found it interesting that the AP guidelines were so far removed from what actual working journalists do on a daily basis. Our job is not to be court stenographers, recording every "um" and grunt and pause and "like" and "you know." Our job is to convey the meaning of what a person is saying accurately and clearly.

If you can't do that without belittling your subject, then paraphrase or don't use it.