"AP Style tip: New to the Stylebook: over, as well as more than, is acceptable to indicate greater numerical value."
With those fewer than (or less than) 140 characters, the AP (Associated Press) waved its magic wand and changed the definition of a word. In this age of tweeting, seflies and twerking, I imagine it is OK (or okay?) for a news service, whose style book is the Bible for many news organiziations and businesses, to make that change for a good reason. So why did they do it?
As lexicographer Peter Sokolowski of Merriam-Webster tweeted:
"Under" can also mean "less than" in @APStylebook. 'Overwhelming evidence' is cited. 'it's futile to fight the tide.'"
It's futile to fight the tide? Gimme a break. The tide is what you fight when it comes to the English language. The English language arose in the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of England and that was, well, a long time ago! The language has a long tradition and needs to remain clear in its words and the differcences among (yes among, not between) them.
I am not a grammarian nor an expert on language. I have been, for my entire adult life, since starting journalism school in the 1960s, a devotee of AP style. I have preached it everywhere I have worked, saying, in effect, it is the most acceptable of the "style books" out there, it isn't pretentious and you have to be consistent in writing -- so follow a stlyle so you can be consistent. And the AP style has universarlly been most accepted.
I know that dictionaries are adding words all the time, words that I don't necessary agree are real words. But the "less than/over" debate was over (not taller then, but done, finis) a long time ago. Then again, thanks to the AP, it's not more than, uh, over with yet.
Sokolowsi said there were audible gasps (can a gasp be inaudible?) when the change was announced.
Me too, more than that, i can say I won't get over than it.
With those fewer than (or less than) 140 characters, the AP (Associated Press) waved its magic wand and changed the definition of a word. In this age of tweeting, seflies and twerking, I imagine it is OK (or okay?) for a news service, whose style book is the Bible for many news organiziations and businesses, to make that change for a good reason. So why did they do it?
As lexicographer Peter Sokolowski of Merriam-Webster tweeted:
"Under" can also mean "less than" in @APStylebook. 'Overwhelming evidence' is cited. 'it's futile to fight the tide.'"
It's futile to fight the tide? Gimme a break. The tide is what you fight when it comes to the English language. The English language arose in the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of England and that was, well, a long time ago! The language has a long tradition and needs to remain clear in its words and the differcences among (yes among, not between) them.
I am not a grammarian nor an expert on language. I have been, for my entire adult life, since starting journalism school in the 1960s, a devotee of AP style. I have preached it everywhere I have worked, saying, in effect, it is the most acceptable of the "style books" out there, it isn't pretentious and you have to be consistent in writing -- so follow a stlyle so you can be consistent. And the AP style has universarlly been most accepted.
I know that dictionaries are adding words all the time, words that I don't necessary agree are real words. But the "less than/over" debate was over (not taller then, but done, finis) a long time ago. Then again, thanks to the AP, it's not more than, uh, over with yet.
Sokolowsi said there were audible gasps (can a gasp be inaudible?) when the change was announced.
Me too, more than that, i can say I won't get over than it.
RSS Feed