. . . plus c'est la meme chose.

[Jesse Sheidlower]

On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 06:10:19AM -0700, Laurence Urdang wrote:
>
>  Those who are interested may wish to look at today's
>  NYTimes, which introduces an editor who will answer---at some
>  length, apparently---questions regarding usage, questions
>  that are usually couched in a critical context.  Today's
>  "problem" was with whether none is a singular or plural.
>
>   I suppose it's comforting to know that there are still
>   some out there who know the difference and who care, but
>   it seems to me that undertaking detailed responses to
>   questions of English usage (while Safire is still about to
>   field such things) scarcely falls within the purview of a
>   senior editor.  Once again we see a demonstration of the
>   trivialization of what was once a good newspaper.

Safire doesn't control the Times' policy on stylistic matters;
Phil Corbett does.

This Q&A is one of a long series in which the senior editorial
staff answers questions from readers about their areas. I
think it's an interesting series, and I'm glad that Corbett is
up there explaining his decisions. The fact that many of the
readers are writing in with their pet shibboleths has little
to do with the trivialization of the Times, and a lot to do
with the--well, with the usual reasons why "educated" people
seem to want to complain about "hopefully", even still.

Jesse Sheidlower
OED

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org