Question about "first ever"

[CarltonBanks]

Our ASE hates it when one of the staffers writes something to the effect of it was their "first-ever" trip to the playoffs, "first-ever" shutout, "first-ever" no-hitter, etc. Does anyone else have a problem with this. He says "it's just their first, not first ever." Just curious as to what everyone thought because I didn't find it in the AP Style Book and have seen "first ever" all over the place.

 

[lono]

First is correct.

First ever is redundant.

 

[BRoth]

Google search shows lots of people use it:
http://news.google.com/news?q=first%20ever&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn

Of course, you can always go by the rule of never using extra words when one will suffice.

 

[CarltonBanks]

When you are talking about something like the first occurrence in school history of something, I think first ever is more concise than "first in school history." For instance: "St. Mary's clinched its first-ever playoff berth" as opposed to "St. Mary clinched the first playoff berth in school history." But I see it both ways.

 

[lono]

When you are talking about something like the first occurrence in school history of something, I think first ever is more concise than "first in school history." For instance: "St. Mary's clinched its first-ever playoff berth" as opposed to "St. Mary clinched the first playoff berth in school history." But I see it both ways.

"St. Mary clinched its first playoff berth," suffices.

 

[CarltonBanks]

When you are talking about something like the first occurrence in school history of something, I think first ever is more concise than "first in school history." For instance: "St. Mary's clinched its first-ever playoff berth" as opposed to "St. Mary clinched the first playoff berth in school history." But I see it both ways.

Got it ... thanks.

"St. Mary clinched its first playoff berth," suffices.

 

[Rhody31]

When you are talking about something like the first occurrence in school history of something, I think first ever is more concise than "first in school history." For instance: "St. Mary's clinched its first-ever playoff berth" as opposed to "St. Mary clinched the first playoff berth in school history." But I see it both ways.

"St. Mary clinched its first playoff berth," suffices.

I don't think that works because its ambiguous. It doesn't state when. First playoff berth this decade? First playoff berth this year?
First ever takes care of that.

 

[RickStain]

When you are talking about something like the first occurrence in school history of something, I think first ever is more concise than "first in school history." For instance: "St. Mary's clinched its first-ever playoff berth" as opposed to "St. Mary clinched the first playoff berth in school history." But I see it both ways.

"St. Mary clinched its first playoff berth," suffices.

I don't think that works because its ambiguous. It doesn't state when. First playoff berth this decade? First playoff berth this year?
First ever takes care of that.

Unless qualified, first means first.

 

[2muchcoffeeman]

When you are talking about something like the first occurrence in school history of something, I think first ever is more concise than "first in school history."  For instance: "St. Mary's clinched its first-ever playoff berth" as opposed to "St. Mary clinched the first playoff berth in school history." But I see it both ways.

"St. Mary clinched its first playoff berth," suffices.

I don't think that works because its ambiguous. It doesn't state when. First playoff berth this decade? First playoff berth this year?
First ever takes care of that.

And is still grammatically wrong. "St. Mary clinched its first playoff berth in school history" fills in the gap for readers who failed reading comprehension. For the rest of us, first means first.

 

[NightHawk112005]

When you are talking about something like the first occurrence in school history of something, I think first ever is more concise than "first in school history." For instance: "St. Mary's clinched its first-ever playoff berth" as opposed to "St. Mary clinched the first playoff berth in school history." But I see it both ways.

"St. Mary clinched its first playoff berth," suffices.

I don't think that works because its ambiguous. It doesn't state when. First playoff berth this decade? First playoff berth this year?
First ever takes care of that.

And is still grammatically wrong. "St. Mary clinched its first playoff berth in school history" fills in the gap for readers who failed reading comprehension. For the rest of us, first means first.

Yeah, I'd go first and then qualify it with the appropriate modifier. First in school history eliminates confusion for even the most simple-minded.

 

[MileHigh]

Pet peeve of mine. First is first. Hate first-ever.

 

[lono]

Yo! What part of "first" don't you understand?

 

[BTExpress]

Unless qualified, first means first.

Not so fast.

I was told long ago by veteran editors to take out qualifiers such as " . . . of the season".

So if someone hits his first home run in the major leagues (a big deal), there had better be some qualifier, lest it be interpreted as his first HR of the season (not a big deal).

"First ever" and things of that nature are USUALLY not needed . . . but those who stubbornly edit them out 100% of the time are likely adding a degree of impreciseness to some stories.

 

[Inky_Wretch]

Pet peeve of mine. First is first. Hate first-ever.

Agreed!

 

[ralph russo]

Ever is rarely if ever necessary.

Though I screwed it up myself tonight while editing baseball copy.
The lede is basically my re-write and that 'ever' does not need to be there.

¶ ANAHEIM, Calif. (AP) _ According to Torii Hunter, it was the second-best catch he's ever made.
¶ The Angels' Gold Glove center fielder made a wall-climbing, homer-stealing catch in the ninth inning to help Los Angeles hold off the Kansas City Royals 4-3 on Sunday.

 

[RickStain]

Ever is rarely if ever necessary.

Though I screwed it up myself tonight while editing baseball copy.
The lede is basically my re-write and that 'ever' does not need to be there.

¶ ANAHEIM, Calif. (AP) _ According to Torii Hunter, it was the second-best catch he's ever made.
¶ The Angels' Gold Glove center fielder made a wall-climbing, homer-stealing catch in the ninth inning to help Los Angeles hold off the Kansas City Royals 4-3 on Sunday.

Maybe it's just me, but without "ever," that sentence just sounds awful in my head when I read it.

 

[ralph russo]

Which is probably why I left it in. The ear test. It sounds right.

But I think we've been conditioned to think the 'ever' is necessary because it's such a broadcaster's crutch. Like true freshman, which makes my eyes bleed everytime I read it.

 

[spnited]

First is first is first is first.

Ever? NEVER!

As to first major league home run or first of the season First major league home run (NOT first ever major league home run). If I just read "first home run," it means this season.


First-ever should never be used....and I do edited out 100% of the time, BT.

 

[Mark2010]

A former journalism professor related this story from one of his former supervisors:

"The next time I read the word UPCOMING, I will be downcoming and some writer will be outgoing. Just COMING will suffice."

 

[trifectarich]

When you are talking about something like the first occurrence in school history of something, I think first ever is more concise than "first in school history." For instance: "St. Mary's clinched its first-ever playoff berth" as opposed to "St. Mary clinched the first playoff berth in school history." But I see it both ways.

"St. Mary clinched its first playoff berth," suffices.

I don't think that works because its ambiguous. It doesn't state when. First playoff berth this decade? First playoff berth this year?
First ever takes care of that.

And is still grammatically wrong. "St. Mary clinched its first playoff berth in school history" fills in the gap for readers who failed reading comprehension. For the rest of us, first means first.

I'm with the side that says "first" will suffice in the overwhelming majority of instances. But it ticks me off when these kind of time references seem to lack substance. I can't remember where I saw it, but I distinctly remember recently reading something to the effect of, "The Cardinals are off to their best start since 2006 . . . "

Wow, that's an entire 2-year gap.

And in the above example, it would benefit the reader to give them some idea how long the St. Mary's history is. Are we talking five years or 50?