I can’t find an online article to illustrate the point, but I’ve seen headlines that read “I like apples, oranges” where it is meant “I like apples and oranges”. I’ve never seen that construct in other literature, just headlines. Why is that?
[QUOTE=Dog80]
I can’t find an online article to illustrate the point, but I’ve seen headlines that read “I like apples, oranges” where it is meant “I like apples and oranges”. I’ve never seen that construct in other literature, just headlines. Why is that?
[/QUOTE]
“Saves space,” sources say
A comma takes up a lot less space than an and, or even an &. That lets you put the rest of the headline in a larger font and still convey the same information.
Answers Simulposted, Lemur Enraged
Saves space, keeps meaning.
Writing headlines is an art: you need to fit the information in a set space. So headline writers have to come up with ways to get the gist of the story in as few words as possible. “And” is often superfluous, so they use the comma.
Their semicolon key is broken?
[QUOTE=Rysto]
Their semicolon key is broken?
[/QUOTE]
Most people can’t be trusted with a comma, let alone a semicolon.
Besides, writing headlines is not the time or place to be grammatically correct.
[QUOTE=Rysto]
Their semicolon key is broken?
[/QUOTE]
We don’t need no stinkin’ semicolons. We’re journalists.
Besides. One would naturally use a comma in a list of more than two things – apples, oranges and bananas – right? Eliminate the “and” but keep the comma.
My favourite example of this is from The Simpsons:
“Local man loses pants, life”
[QUOTE=Rysto]
Their semicolon key is broken?
[/QUOTE]
Why would you use a semicolon instead of a comma?
This construction makes no sense:
The onion makes extensive use of this style, which was the first place I consciously encountered it. I don’t think UK newspapers use it much, if at all.
Glad we could give you a h,
Headlines, pah!
If you really want to abbreviate, try writing classified ads.
EOE
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
The onion makes extensive use of this style, which was the first place I consciously encountered it. I don’t think UK newspapers use it much, if at all.
[/QUOTE]
It is indeed a peculiarly US habit, but I don’t think it’s particularly space-saving. Our papers seem to do fine using the word “and”; indeed the Guardian’s very excellent styleguide actively opposes the habit:
Why is dropping “on” (or possibly “to”)* Ok, while dropping “and” is wrong?
*“Blair and Brown agree on euro deal” or “Blair and Brown agree to euro deal.” There’s a difference.
[QUOTE=Colibri]
Why would you use a semicolon instead of a comma?
[/QUOTE]
A headline like “Answers Simulposted; Lemur Enraged” would be grammatical, though.
[QUOTE=Alessan]
Why is dropping “on” (or possibly “to”)* Ok, while dropping “and” is wrong?
[/QUOTE]
That’s a good catch. US newspapers probably wouldn’t drop the ‘on’.
I think it’s probably very similar to the use (or not) of ‘and’ in spoken numbers; “two hundred and sixty five” I understand - “two hundred sixty five” sounds like a list containing two distinct number to me. Not that either is intrinsically superior to the other, of course.
[QUOTE=gotpasswords]
Besides, writing headlines is not the time or place to be grammatically correct.
[/QUOTE]
Use “grammatical”, save space.
[QUOTE=Alessan]
Why is dropping “on” (or possibly “to”)* Ok, while dropping “and” is wrong?
[/QUOTE]
It’s house style - arbitrarily chosen, as all house styles are, same as using the comma instead of “and”.