It's been a long week

A news story landed on my desk yesterday including the information that a felon had been jailed in July 2006 but is due for release on 20 December.

Nothing wrong with that but I found myself wondering why the month gets an 'in' while the day gets an 'on'.

Then I thought, Apus old chap, it's Friday evening. Go home.

Words our colleagues hate

All writers and sub-editors have their personal writing bugbears. If you read this blog regularly, you will be familiar with many of Apus's and mine - I, for example, have unresolved issues with the word 'new'.

Today I asked a few of my colleagues (designers, subs and writers) for the bugbear words and phrases they hate to see appear in the pages of our publication. Here's a selection - and note that I don't necessarily agree with all of them:

• Together with. No! Just use 'with' or 'and'.

• Interestingly. No! If it's going in the magazine, of course it should be interesting - you don't need to tell the readers so.

• Of course. No! If it's obvious, why are you mentioning it? If it's not obvious, don't make readers feel small for not knowing something. Is it a sign of insecurity on the part of the writer?
  

• Back in (1996, for example). No! Just put 'in 1996'.

• Explains. Especially in interviews. For example: "We entered this sector because it is growing fast," he explains. It makes the interviewer look as if they're a bit simple.

• Smiles. For example: "It's a great place to work," he smiles.

Regarding the last one, I don't know whether it is better or worse than 'he said smilingly'. And today I came across 'he concluded indicatively', which is slightly too grandiose...

Smiles: we hate this