• all…what??
• apostrophes and complex words
• anymore v. any more
• anyone v. any one
• anytime v. any time
• awhile v. a while
• everyday v. every day
• Examination in Rebuttal Added 9/09
• its v. it's
• [inaudible] v. [indiscernible] in transcripts

• no one v. noone — and what about noplace?
• [sic] in transcripts
• sometime v. some time
• The "non-speaking verbs" conundrum: Added 9/09
  • And then I go . . . where?
  • And then he's like . . . what?
• What to do about "What . . ." Added 9/09

Turning complex or proper nouns into verbs—sometimes an apostrophe can help.

An expert witness has droned on and on, sinking ever further into complex jargon, and is finally interrupted when opposing counsel says:

Your Honor, now he's just Ph.D.'ing it to death.

One could type PhDing, but readers may stumble with the "ding" part.   PhD'ing does solve the "ding" stumbling block, but remember that readers are used to seeing those pesky periods in that title abbreviation, so....
Or consider Were you cc'd on this letter?   Typing it as cced just doesn't work.  If people need to read something two or three times before they "get" it, the construction needs attention.

Or consider We FedEx'd it yesterday.   Typing it as FedExed can work here, as the reader will likely not stumble over that construction.

Usage note:   anyone  v.  any one

Anyone is wide, general, generic, or indefinite:

Anyone with a conscience would have refused.

Has anyone ever heard of such a thing?

Any one is more specific — still unidentified by name, yet existing within a known group of possible persons:

Any one of these three could have done it.
If I hear any one of you speak, I'll know there's cheating going on.

And putting them together in a single sentence:

 Anyone on the planet could have done better than any one of you did.

It's the same with anybody and any body:

      Is there anybody in the morgue?  Is there anyone in there?
      Is there any body in the morgue still needing an autopsy?

Usage note:   awhile  v.  a while

Awhile refers to TIME, and means a short period.
        It's an adverb, and needs to associate with a verb.

Awhile ago you said you hadn't seen him.   [associated verb said]
Stay awhile.

It is NEVER used with a preposition.
Split it into two words after a preposition:
for a while,   in a while,   after a while.

Stay for a while.    —YES
Stay for awhile.      — NO

She will arrive in a while.    —YES
She will arrive in awhile.      — NO

After awhile the baby slept.      — NO
After a while the baby slept.    —YES

Format tip:  Witness called in rebuttal

Question:

A witness was called on the first day of a long trial and went through the standard DIRECT, CROSS, REDIRECT, RECROSS, and even FURTHER REDIRECT.  She was then excused.  Four trial days later, she was recalled as a rebuttal witness.  What examination should I start with?

Answer:

Start the exam back at square one, but this time characterized as

DIRECT EXAMINATION IN REBUTTAL.

Then continue with simple CROSS-EXAMINATION.  If the examination continues further, it would be REDIRECT EXAMINATION IN REBUTTAL, then RECROSS-EXAMINATION.

Why isn't this cross-examination also characterized as being "in rebuttal"?
Because, although rebuttal introduces new testimony, the cross-examination process is the same:  the cross-examining party is just doing its standard job, attacking this new information, as usual.  (And, like the proverbial rose, cross-examination is cross-examination is cross-examination.)

A note on indexing:

And you won't need to disturb the index page format on this rebuttal trial day — just let that page number fall in the DIRECT column, as with everyone else.  But when a reader gets to that point in the transcript, it's helpful to see this "IN REBUTTAL" refinement as a reminder that the witness had also testified earlier — not critical, of course, but nice.

Transcription Tip:

Inaudible means "cannot be heard."


Indiscernible means "unable to be discerned," unknown.


Unintelligible means "incomprehensible," akin to gibberish.

When you hear something being said but cannot make out the words, what is the best entry to make in your transcript?  Before deciding, consider the related case of seeing things, rather than hearing them:

Say we know two of the three people in this photo, but not the third.  Do we say the unknown person is invisible?  No, she's quite visible — simply not identifiable, at least for now.  (Remember that someone else may know this woman and can tell you her name.)

With that example in mind, and now returning to audio considerations, you may find that inaudible is generally incorrect — (you're hearing it, but just can't make it out).  And because unintelligible is a bit insulting, we recommend indiscernible as the best general choice for those spots where you absolutely cannot transcribe what is said.

But it is always wise to get a second opinion before giving up!  Even sounding out the words to a colleague over the phone may result in a helpful "Oh, yes, that's X Y Z" identification which will solve the problem.

Use either normal parentheses or square brackets to set off this remark:  (indiscernible) or [indiscernible].

Transcription Tip:   [sic] in transcripts.

Sic is Latin for thus.  It indicates that what the reader is seeing is what was actually said.  Use it when a speaker makes an egregious error that otherwise might be viewed as merely a flaw in the transcript.  In short, [sic] is a device which protects you from a charge of inept transcription.

Example:

Q.   How old are you, and when were you born?
A.   Well, I was born in 1897 [sic], so I'm . . .

But use it SPARINGLY.  Do NOT use it just to draw attention to a speaker's poor grammar or misuse of a word — unless, again, the error would likely be viewed as poor transcribing practice, or a typing error on your part.

Do NOT use it to mark a simple mistake in facts.  People recite incorrect "facts" all the time.  Thus, you would not need to use [sic] if someone mistakenly says the U.S. capital is New York.
BUT it may be wise to use [sic] if he says the capital is Wastington, 

 perhaps sardonically.  Why?  Because otherwise, readers will assume that the unorthodox spelling is yours, not the speaker's.

Usage note:   The "non-speaking verbs" conundrum:

A regrettable trend in American speech is under way:  the gradual displacement of our good old "speaking verbs" — say, said, remarked — with words entirely unrelated to speech— go, went, like:

So I get mad, and I go "What are you doing?" and he's like "Nothing."
And then he went "Don't bother me," and I'm like "Why not?"

              (Of course, nobody is going anywhere, and nobody is like anything.)Question:
If these are replacing "speaking verbs," should we treat them in the same traditional way, with commas before any subsequent quoted material?  There are two schools of thought, and either is acceptable here, although NOT using a comma had advantages:

And then he goes "Duh."
And then he goes, "Duh."Including a comma can draw unwanted attention to the original meaning of the word — in these cases best left unemphasized to avoid confusion.
NOT using a comma does no grammatical harm, and actually "reads" more smoothly.

But take care: