Question about "first ever"

[Some Guy]

A lot of these are broadcaster's enhancements.
First ever home run.
St. Mary's led by AS MANY AS 20 points in the first half. (my personal pet peeve)
Grand slam home run.

But I have a question, came back into mind reading the guy's rewrite of the Angels story (below). I was gonna ask my daughter's English teacher recently, but I chickened out.
To me, "it's" is a contraction for "it is" not "it has." Same with "he's" meaning "he is" but not "he has."
So in the lede below, not using the contraction, it reads: "... it was the second-best catch he is ever made.."
Have I overthunk this one???


¶ 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.

He's can mean either "he is" or "he has" -- which is why I tend to avoid it. But, in the instance above, there's really no question as to which the writer meant, so I would have just left it alone.

However, I guess there's no harm in changing it, either. My general rule of thumb is that if the meaning of the sentence is clear, then the sentence has accomplished its most important goal.

 

[Ace]

Then what did you mean by sometimes we tend to overthink these things?

There's a guy on this thread who says there is no such thing as "buy one, get one free" -- to me, that's overthinking things.

I agree with that.

 

[Speedway]

I was always told that "first-ever" was a TV term used by people who couldn't figure out "first" ALWAYS suffices.

I hate that term almost as much as "first annual," which turns up in our copy more than it should.

"First annual" should never be used; instead use "inaugural"

 

[Some Guy]

There's no such thing as "first annual." In order for something to be considered "annual" it has to occur more than once.

 

[SF_Express]

I'm still of the school that "he's" means "he is" and will change it to "he has" in that context.

On first-ever, I'm not exactly in Rhody's camp, but I actually think there are instances where the simple "first" DOES cause confusion for the readers if not clarified. In some contexts, first could mean first this season, first this year, whatever.

So while I think first-ever is redundant most of the time, I sometimes think it works for reader clarity now and then.

 

[BRoth]

There's no such thing as "first annual." In order for something to be considered "annual" it has to occur more than once.

I think AP style has "annual" occurring on the third time of an event.

 

[lone star scribe]

Along the same lines, my two pet peeves are:

"different" as a modifier or explainer, as in "seven different players scored touchdowns." Seven players is sufficient.

"unanswered" as a synonym for consecutive. If the Knicks scored 14 unanswered points (OK, we know that can't happen), the Clippers then can't score for the rest of the game (OK, that could happen).

They're both broadcaster crutches, and they don't make it past me. Ever.

 

[forever_town]

I agree with lono. "First ever is redundant." "First" gets the point across.

Perhaps you could write, "first in franchise history" if you want to get the point across without being redundant.

 

[Some Guy]

I'm still of the school that "he's" means "he is" and will change it to "he has" in that context.

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.

 

[SoCalDude]

I'm still of the school that "he's" means "he is" and will change it to "he has" in that context.

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.

 

[SF_Express]

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.)

:)

 

[rtse11]

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

 

[MTM]

"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.

 

[CarltonBanks]

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.

 

[RedCanuck]

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

 

[Ace]

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!

 

[Editude]

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.

 

[albert77]

I also hate "complete-game shutout." If he didn't complete the game, he wouldn't have the chance for a shutout. It's redundant.

I'm less stringent on this one.

It is possible to throw "seven shutout innings" so throwing "complete-game" in there helps in terms of specificity.

Seven shutout innings is not a shutout unless it is a seven-inning complete game.

A shutout, by definition, is a complete game

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.

 

[2muchcoffeeman]

I also hate "complete-game shutout." If he didn't complete the game, he wouldn't have the chance for a shutout. It's redundant.

I'm less stringent on this one.

It is possible to throw "seven shutout innings" so throwing "complete-game" in there helps in terms of specificity.

Seven shutout innings is not a shutout unless it is a seven-inning complete game.

A shutout, by definition, is a complete game

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.

 

[spnited]

2MCM... WFW!

Albert needs a good editor to help him