HD: Women in the Grauniad
Posted: 17 October 2014 04:19 AM   [ Ignore ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6275
Joined  2007-01-03

Is it an adjective?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 October 2014 11:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3945
Joined  2007-02-26

FWIW, I too prefer to use “female” in such cases: not for reasons of sexual politics, nor grammar, but because I find it more elegant.

In some cases, I suppose, it could also be less ambiguous. Someone somewhere, perhaps a Republican senator, might think “woman doctor” means gynaecologist.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 October 2014 11:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  468
Joined  2007-02-17

There’s a missing comma after The Guardian (which shouldn’t have the article italicised) in the first paragraph, and a similar one after ‘1200’ in the third paragraph, which vaguely worries me. I’m hoping it’s just oversight rather than a trend I hadn’t noticed.

As for the issue at hand, I’m not fond of the usage, but don’t know whether I’d ban it in my ideal style guide. Probably not. I might come up with a better defence of my preference at some later stage.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 October 2014 01:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6275
Joined  2007-01-03

I’ve added the commas. That was error on my part, not a linguistic trend. Thanks.

But I don’t see why the article in The Guardian shouldn’t be italized. It’s part of the name. Chicago style, which is my default, is to italicize the article in titles.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 October 2014 02:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  292
Joined  2007-06-14

The Guardian seems correct, but the web site has some ambiguity, or confusion, or just variety.
The publisher sometimes uses “theguardian”, all lowercase.  Other ways of naming itself include
“The Guardian on iPad”, “...read the Guardian and Observer as they were printed, “ “This is the guide to writing, editing and English usage followed by journalists at the Guardian, Observer and theguardian.com.”
When I was a kid, it was called the Manchester Guardian.  I don’t know if the article was part of the title in those days.
If we have to depend of the Guardian’s own style guide, they don’t make it any more clear whether the article is part of the name,
but they do express a preference in the entry for the:

lc for newspapers (the Guardian), magazines (the New Statesman),

source: http://www.theguardian.com/guardian-observer-style-guide-t

Edit:  Anything the Guardian or The Guardian says in its own style guide is highly suspect,
as they begin entries with lowercase letters, as you may see above.

[ Edited: 17 October 2014 03:02 PM by cuchuflete ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 October 2014 04:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6275
Joined  2007-01-03

Corporate brands often use odd capitalization, orthography, and fonts to render their trademarks distinctive. They want people to conform to their peculiarities because it helps keep those trademarks distinct and protected. But the rest of us are not under any obligation to follow their idiosyncrasies.

And style guides are for those who write for that particular publication. They have no authority elsewhere—unless a person or another publication chooses to adopt someone else’s style guide.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 October 2014 05:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4466
Joined  2007-01-29

Chicago style, which is my default, is to italicize the article in titles.

Nope.  It’s my default too, not to mention my bread and butter; I quote from 8.168:

An initial “the” in periodical titles. When newspapers and periodicals are mentioned in text, an initial the, even if part of the official title, is lowercased (unless it begins a sentence) and not italicized.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 October 2014 08:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6275
Joined  2007-01-03

Really! Then they need to look at the examples they give elsewhere in the 16th edition, which capitalizes the The in periodical titles.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 October 2014 09:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3945
Joined  2007-02-26

The italics can be useful to avoid ambiguity. cuchuflete’s opening sentence would have been confusing if it had started with “The Guardian seems correct”.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2014 05:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4466
Joined  2007-01-29

cuchuflete’s opening sentence would have been confusing if it had started with “The Guardian seems correct”.

Really?  How?  Bear in mind that newspapers almost never use italics, so that’s exactly how it would appear in, e.g., the New York Times.  I don’t see any confusion at all.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2014 06:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3945
Joined  2007-02-26

What I mean was that it could be taken to mean that The Guardian seems correct, ie that newspaper appears to have got it right for once.

EDIT: Actually, scratch that. The ambiguity I was referring to exists whether or not you use the italics in this case.

[ Edited: 19 October 2014 06:43 AM by OP Tipping ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2014 07:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4466
Joined  2007-01-29

Ah, gotcha.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2014 12:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Moderator
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  392
Joined  2012-01-10

FWIW, I find myself cringing at the constructions the author complains of here, including “woman doctor” and “woman manager”.  I strongly prefer “female doctor” and “female manager”.  This is partly a matter of stylistic taste, but it is not only that.

But I would not generalize this preference to all constructions.  I find myself preferring “women lawyers” and “women voters” to the “female” version of either construction.  But then, I prefer “female lawyer” to “woman lawyer”.  I may be influenced by the fact that certain well-known organizations use the “women X” construction, including organizations for women lawyers and women voters.  But, unlike the NAACP, where the use of “colored persons” in that organization’s title does not translate into a wider acceptability of the term, “women voter” is a perfectly acceptable construction in general, I think, and not just when referring to the “League of Women Voters”, for example.  I don’t know if there is a direct causal relationship between my preference for the phrase “women voters” and the existence and prominence of that particular organization, but I suspect it has played a role in shaping my preferences.

So, I find my preferences regarding constructions of this type to be idiosyncratic and variable, and to stem from the positive or negative associations particular constructions have for me rather than from any sort of logical or prescriptivist rule.  ISTM that that is what one might expect: terms with sexist or other negative associations are rarely “inherently” insulting or derogatory, the insult or derogation comes from patterns of usage.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 November 2014 09:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  468
Joined  2007-02-17

There may be a transatlantic difference here, but British usage seems clear enough. With certain papers, such as The Times or The New York Times, the article is regarded as part of the name. With others, such as the Guardian or the Independent, it isn’t. I have spent many tedious hours of my life checking this sort of thing.

A cursory search of the newspapers in question will confirm that they respect these conventions with respect to their own name and that of others.

Profile
 
 
   
 
 
‹‹ Pick-a-back      A wunch of bankers ››