Rants from a non-recovered Grammar Nazi

OK, I know we are all cool, anything goes, descriptive rather than proscriptive, linguists, but I still can't stand when language changes without my personal say so. You know how David X says he wants to be a dissolute dandy when he grows up? I want to stop being a curmudgeon, but I can't seem to.

My beef of the day: When did "nauseated" and "nauseating" leave the language?

"Nauseous" is the only word left standing now - so it means BOTH "something vomit-inducing" and "I feel like I am about to barf," and this is just plain WRONG! It can't possibly be used for both! Yet it is. Every time I hear it used now it bothers me. And it gets used a whole lot.

Post grammar rants here. If any of you cool postmodernist linguists have anything to say. Or maybe you can just use this space to take my judgmental ass to task.

When told that Silent Cal Coolidge had passed over Dorothy Parker replied, "How could they tell?" When all is nauseating we're just plain screwed. The republick will go under if "Barnakee" (Those who saw STRIPES will remember "Barnakee" is removed from his Federal Reserve impersonation!? In a nutshell: Wall St. will cure Wall St. Of course he must stay. Nauseated? Nauseating? Nauseous? All that and more.

Over/more than. You jump over a log. There were more than 50 people in attendance. Back in the day you would never write "over 50 people." Now nobody makes the distinction and the usage has apparently become acceptable. (Would you more than a log?) No less than Patricia T. O'Connor, former editor of the NYT Book Review and "grammar journalist," has included the demise of the difference in her book Woe is I in a chapter on grammar changes titled "The Living Dead." I don't care. It should be "more than one million sold" and I'm sticking to it:)

>3 theaelizabet: And don't forget about fewer/less than!

One that's been bothering me lately: using "that" for "who."

Get this, people of the world! It's "a person who" and anything else "that."

I am a person who likes to use grammar correctly.
My dog is an animal that doesn't care about grammar as long as food is involved.
And - most importantly - My couch is a piece of furniture that has no feelings about grammar or food.

As a good descriptive linguist, I refuse to participate in this thread:)

BUT I HATE when people use "harsh" and/or "brutal" to mean "generally shitty", and it's always the kind of guys who use "generally shitty" to apply to, like, the meek, nerdish man at the back of the bus, and so they say things to him like "You're harsh, buddy! You're brutal!" in loud, mocking voices. I hate that.

3: Woe is I sounds funny. It makes me think about this other thing that bothers me: The overcorrection where people say "Do you want to go out to eat with Paul and I?" Just say "me"! It's not automatically ungrammatical everywhere in a sentence!

4: Yes! A lot of people who are very attached to their pets would use "who" for certain animals and not others, though. Anthropomorphization is alive and well (like "fur baby" and other nauseatingly saccharine phrases regarding pets).

Nauseated; not nauseous. So says David Foster Wallace, so say I.

fur baby????????? you kidding me?

Scratch scratch vicious scratch if anyone calls me that!

The one that bothers me is using the word "itch" to mean "scratch." Although my descriptivist instinct started to accept its usefulness when a student explained to me that, in her dialect, scratching is painful and leaves red marks whereas itching brings relief.

It still bothers me though, and I refuse to participate.

Side note: those sorts of (pseudo?-)monoxymorons actually seem to be rather common (itch, nauseous, learn). I don't know if anyone's collected examples from across the world, but I'm sure I've encountered quite a few over the years.

9: Yes, I agree that "itch" is a noun and "scratch" is a verb.

I have another one that REALLY annoys me that I get from political e-mails all the time: the homonym confusion of "Reign in". For Pete's sake, reigning is done by kings, over subjects, and reining in is done by cowboys to horses. Because it is done by pulling on the REINS. They are not "reigns." Anyone who knew the two words could not possibly confuse them.

(I am also annoyed by "tow the line" but that one is so ubiquitous that I've basically given up on it.)

And "rein" is easier to spell than "reign" so why do people always use the more complicated spelling? Is it an overcorrection like "would you like to go to lunch with Paul and I?"

Argh! This is really a red letter day for homonym confusion in my inbox! My daily poem from Rumi includes a version that says "Bearing my breast, I ..."

The other two versions of the same Rumi passage have the right spelling. I have to stop reading my e-mail or I will get an aneurysm.

I carry my breast with me everywhere I go. Don't you?

13: That was exactly what I was saying to myself, wishing the translator who spelled it that way could hear me.

I can't bare being bare whilst I bear the bear skin rug.

>anna

"Toe the line" is such a sweet phrase. "Tow the line" is more . . . goofy. Like "bear my breast." But where do you stand on "home/hone in"? I am mellowing on hone.

Okay, okay, here's one: you're in the coffee shop, you're in line, you're not paying attention (or Canadianlike, politely waiting your turn even though you're clearly up), and the person behind the counter goes "Can I help who's next?" I mean, I was a coffeeslinger meself; I understand the factors that give rise to this abomination (the perceived informality or rudeness of "whoever", the unwieldiness of "can I help the next person in line?" the fact that your swininsh boss would get all upin your face if you just went "Who's next?"), but I still hate it abidingly.

16: I have never heard "hone in." Wow. That's really weird.

Yes, I've also heard "can I help who's next" and it does sound kind of funny. And wrong. Did I mention wrong?

I agree with you that it is a compromise between having to find out who's next and having to use polite cashier language. Here in Portland we are all told to have a nice day - in the hipper stores, they say things like "have a great one" or "hang in there" or whatever but it's the same thing. I don't mind it; sometimes it may even be sincere - who am I to judge. I managed to get through 40 plus years without ever working retail and I have enough gratitude for that that I can afford to be forgiving.

>17 anna_in_pdx: it makes me wonder whether it's a Cascadian thing. I say "have a good one" meself, but when my one Alberta friend (bluff, burly, crass, hilarious fellow) says "take care" it can't help but seem insincere, or at leas incongruously effeminate. "Have a nice day" I suspect just sounds too incorrigibly Wal-Mart.

Backeasters? Thoughts on service lang?

I try to bid everyone to "be careful" when I'm leaving a place and words are called for. I don't see anything wrong with "Have a nice day". Of course I remember using it before Wal-Mart was more than a gleam in old Sam's eye. So Wal-Mart may have expropriated it, but it isn't theirs, not by a long shot.

>19 geneg: "Be careful" is the most adorable thing I've ever heard. You're like my mum:)

It's also very Chinese. 'Xiao Xing!' is what we say when someone leaves. it means exactly that: be careful.

19: I do say "take care" a lot, but "be careful" is indeed sweeter.

I've seen this thread and bypassed it for days because of its off-putting title: Rants from a Non-recovered Grammar Nazi. I mean, who wants to get into politics? I thought. And yet this is exactly my kind of thread, obsessed as I am--professionally and otherwise--with such great issues of the day like: to hone (home) in on ... to the manor (or manner?) born ... to reign or rein, and be among or amongst (not to mention--well why not mention?--amidst) the madding (or maddening?) crowd.

And (deserving its own paragraph) the truly alarming spread of really, which can be placed before almost anything, or used as an interjection anywhere. I could have said, for instance, "the really alarming spread ... " and no one would've blinked more than once. I will lose a copyediting gig (or two) one of these days because I delete so many reallys from so many manuscripts. Seeing them makes me insane.

And then there's the most common spelling mistake I find, over and over again, to the point where I expect the language itself will change to accommodate it (maybe Webster's 14th, ten or so years from now): donut. Thank you, Duncan, for that.

23: What can I say? Really, you have said it all. Welcome to the ranks... LOL

If 'donut' is not in it already, Merriam Webster's collegiate dictionary lacks the authority I expect of it.

Robert

Thomas Pynchon gives a marvelously funny parody of the (over)use of 'really' in Vineland, where the characters are constantly saying 'rilly' to each other.

It's rilly rilly hilarious.

I finished editing a book by Alison Weir last week (mainly unanglicizing it, for an American audience), who is a scholar of sorts and this time was detailing the adventures of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine in the twelfth century, and she has Eleanor saying really this and really that, and Henry asking if this or that is really so, and Thomas Becket reallying about that or this as well. I mean, what's next? Moses telling the Israelites that these tablets really are the real thing?

How do you unanglicize a book about 12th century England? And why would you want to?

There can't be too many 12th century pavements and lifts to worry about.

I can see that you might want to unanachronize it.

Probably just fixing the spellings (Z for S in specialize, organize, etc.)

Stripping extraneous "u"s from most (All?) nouns ending in "or".

An exclusive, you might say: the style section of my "style sheet" for the upcoming Weir book. I'm responsible for compiling a style sheet with every book I copyedit. It also includes sections on Vocabulary and Characters, though in this book the latter is called "People." The style sheet does not include directives on the Americanization of quotes outside periods (not inside) and similar Anglic stuff since such changes are implicit in deanglicizing any book.

Numbers: spell out up to two words

Punctuation

serial comma with and and or

interjectionary comma as needed; not around internal or before terminal too, either; with however and (interjectionary) then; for clarity with introductory adverb (Unfortunately, Instead, ... )

comma after intro clause and between independent clauses, unless latter closely related

no comma after intro phrase, unless eight words or more; to separate facing proper nouns (In January, Henry ...), to separate self-reference (Behind him, he ... ); and if needed for clarity

one-em dash for interruptions and to set off asides

three-point ellipsis for pause, words left out, etc. (no four point ellipsis)

Miscellaneous

NOTE: text follows American punctuation, spelling (honor not honour, center not centre, traveling not travelling, etc.), and follows usual style rules for capping titles (detailed below). See Vocabulary for some further details

capitalize:

honorifics: Master Secretary, Lord Chancellor (see Vocabulary for some specifics)

one-of-a kind (unique) titles: Pope, Emperor, King, Queen, Empress, Emperor, Archbishop

full titles: Duchess of Aquitaine (but the duchess), Count of Anjou (the count)

titles synonymous with specific people: the King, for Henry, Louis, etc.; the Queen, for Eleanor

cap for office: (the office of) Archbishop; proclaimed Duke

do not capitalize modified titles (the young king; but it is Young King for Henry III); "nonunique" titles (duchess, countess, duke, etc.); also see Vocabulary, "People," for exceptions

lowercase after colon, but initial cap for quote, thought

italics for direct unattributed thought and unbidden thought (voices one hears); foreign words (but note that words in Webster's are considered English and thus rom, as well as proper names, unless indicated otherwise in Vocabulary)

rom quotes for both quoted speech and written text (not italics), but no quotes in extracts

s's for possessives: Louis's

>31 copyedit52: 'slike poetry.

Oh my god, it's such an honor for an amateur grammar freak like me to have a real live copyeditor on my humble thread. I'm not worthy! /Waynes World

>32 MeditationesMartini: I'm proud of my style sheets. The divisions and format are mine, as are the style decisions themselves, like capping full titles, one-of-a-kinds, honorifics, and so on, though I refer to the bible for some of these: The Chicago Manual of Style. At times I come across the style sheets of other copyeditors who've done, let's say, a series author but opted out (or were not called upon) to do the manuscript that gets sent to me. To my eye their style sheets often lack simplicity and elegance, and, stylistically, go by the book too much.

>33 anna_in_pdx: I don't know if you're putting me on or not, Anna--really--but I'd point out that it's a certain kind of grammar. I still have no idea what a subject or predicate are, or transitive vs. intransitive verbs, and so on. This is a copyeditor's grammar, which I expect would fail most academic tests. But it works.

I've run across a few intransigent verbs myself. Mostly while studying Greek.

34: No, I am not being sarcastic. Silly, yes, but not sarcastic. I am a proofreader at heart so it is fun to have a dialogue with a real one.

I used to be a proofreader, and then I got serious. Perhaps this is the kind of remark I should have placed in the new thread everyone is talking about: Saloon de la Boue:

http://www.librarything.com/topic/84530

Bravo, Peter!! I've changed the name. You're gonna have a difficult time convincing me to change the logo, though. That tranny has lots of sentimental value for me.

>31 copyedit52:, 34 Anna: I don't want to hog your thread--really. But I just have to add this to my style sheet offering, above. An homage, of sorts, to an old friend:

On the "unless eight words or more" introductory phrase rule: You won't find this in Chicago or Words Into Type, or any other source I know about. It was devised by my mentor, Allan Gale, who worked in the editing department at Dell-Dial-Delacorte when I did my first copyediting job (a Harlequin Romance, for another outfit), and whom I knew as a proofreader.

On their style sheets copy editors usually say something like "unless the phrase is unwieldy," or the ubiquitous "for clarity" (I use this copout phrase myself sometimes), for the phrase comma. And copy chiefs and departments follow a similarly vague style. Allan must have researched it for years and then gone with his sense of when the reader absolutely had to have a comma break to digest the meaning of the phrase. And it is absolutely uncanny: eight words it is! (Try this at home for yourselves, kids, and see if it's not true.) A discovery in the nitty gritty world of editing that, to my mind, rivals that of Gallileo's.

>39 copyedit52: I add a comma after three words, a habit which I recognize is pernicious and petty. I'm wondering where I picked it up now. Certainly not from CP/AP--maybe the MLA? I'm going to become a devotee of the "Allan Method".

Fascinating stuff.

A further note on style, in order to situate it in actual prose: The importance of the comma phrase resides in its enforced division of the line. Too many and too quick, and instead of a flow from here to there the reader, out of habit, pauses. A writer might want this, or might not think about the comma's effect on the reader. Sometimes you want choppy, and sometimes smooth.

The same goes, too, for interjections. Or: The same goes too for interjections.

". . . mainly unanglicizing (n Alison Weir booK. . ." (27)

"How do you unanglicize a book about 12th c entury England. And why would you want to?" (28)

It's trivial, but also annoying, to read about people in Manhattan in the 1960s "ringing off" instead of hanging up, when they end a telephone call. (The example is from a Rex Stout novel.)
The anglicisms that have survived into completely American contexts aren't the ones well known to most Americans. No "lifts", no "knickers" (unless they mean men's knee-length pants of the 1930s), but there are things like "ringing off", which most Americans understand but would never think of saying or writing. I don't know much about the printing process of that time, but I've read that the reason for "ringing off", etc. was that the same plates could be used for both the British and the U.S. editions. Or, things could be "unanglicized" or "unamericanized" provided it didn't entail a change of the whole page.
I can conceive of a need to "unanglicize" for the American ed. even for a work on the 12th century.
Speaking of the 12 c., I always thought it a very inept criticism when a (was it 1990s?) movie version of Ivanhoe was ridiculed because some of the characters had "an American accent" --centuries before there was a U.S. But, since the people of Ivanhoe's time spoke Norman French or Old English, and didn't even speak Middle English yet, still less Modern English, what difference does the accent make? The language coming from the screen is already so far from the actual language of the time that the comparatively slight differences of accents within Modern English are trivial.

>43 rolandperkins: Yeah! Testify! And as far as Old English goes,it's probably closer to American English in accent anyway--insofar as such very, very tetchy lines can be drawn at all. Rhotic /r/, at any rate.

Auugh!! I hate the very idea! Scandal! Are the books undergoing such "un"anglicisation at least marked as such? How does one know what's the original version? Just going by the publisher? Gah!

#43

I disagree, about the "ringing off" and Ivanhoe. In the former example, who's talking--a British character or the American narrator, and what was the status of the phrase at the time the book was written? Modernised Chaucer is one thing, but Rex Stout? It is multiple murder--of the period language, of the writer's language, of the writer's idiosyncrasies, or even mere errors (who's to say now?) If Rex Stout, a Kansan and one-time expat in Paris has someone ringing off in Manhattan, then by golly let them ring off.

Modern accents in Ivanhoe--it's less about attaining verisimilitude no one can gauge, then making an effort to distance the spectacle and make it seem foreign, different, belonging to another time. Peter's remark about the "reallys" in the 12th century pertains exactly to this--don't make a 12th century person sound like a Valley girl, because it kills the sense of authenticity.

>43 rolandperkins: A note of clarification: When I'm called upon to Americanize a book written or already published in the UK, I'm expected to change the anglic quote marks so they appear outside periods and not within them, add a "point" after Mr, and Dr, change the -re, -our, double l, and other such constructions in words like centre, honour, travelling, and so on.

But in order not to undo the "Englishness" of a manuscript or book, I'm called upon to use my judgment with such as lifts, windscreens, loos, queues, knickers, and "ringing off" too. The common sense rule is: if the average reader will recognize the British term or expression, or it's understandable in context, leave it alone. There's an in between area with some words, like "plimsolls," and then there's the example I cited on another thread a while ago about editing an English police procedural in which the "surgery" was important.

I was baffled, couldn't figure out what the character's problem was that he needed surgery, in which sense I was not unlike a typical American reader. So of course "surgery" had to be changed to "physician."

#46

Why not add footnotes or a glossary instead?

46: I can't imagine any context in British English in which "surgery" could be replaced by "physician". What was it, if you don't mind me asking? (Searched, but couldn't find that other thread.)

I've always read "surgery" in English novels as meaning something more like a doctor's office than a doctor.

One thing that strikes me as most unusual between American English and British English is the addition or dropping of the definite article "the" before nouns in certain usages: he went to hospital rather than he went to the hospital, and so forth. What, if anything, do you do with that Peter?

> 49 I'd probably leave it be, and almost definitely if it appears in dialogue, where the line between allowing anglic speech is much friendlier than making changes in the narration.

> 48 I wish I could remember, desultory. (The thread it appears on is the one for underappreciated writers in December--that was me. It's a humongous thread, but appears early, in an exchange between third_cheek and me.)

I edited that particular manuscript a while ago, and I edit one book after another, so the particulars often get lost. But yes, I did change "surgery" to "doctor's office," as Gene says, now that Ithink about it. That cleared up any possible confusion; though for Gene that clarification obviously wouldn't have been necessary.

> 46 It wasn't that kind of book, Lola. And if it were, we freelancers can only suggest that kind of addition in a memo. The design and other elements of the book are predetermined when the unedited manuscript is tossed into my driveway or downloaded from my computer. It was a police procedural, as I said. Something like Inspector Dalgeish (I'm pulling this name out of the air); certainly not a scholarly work.

"Modernised Chaucer is one thing, but Rex Stout?" (#45)

You seem to have understood me to be pleading for (#43) the use of "hanging up"
as an Americanization of "ringing off"--the latter having been Stoutʻs own way of saying it. A far-fetched attempt to apply to Rex Stout what translators of Chaucerʻs Middle English apply to Chaucer? Not at all. I was only questioning the intrusion of "ringing off" into a completely U.S. context.

You raise a good question as to "whoʻs talking: a British character or the American narrrator?" The answer is: definitely the narrator. (and itʻs third-person narration), so I suppose you might be justified in thinking it was Stoutʻs own diction. For all I know, Stout may have regarded "ring off" as standard and "hang up" as dialect. Anyway, I donʻt think I ever read that a Stout character was SAYING "ring off".

I didnʻt know that Stout was a Kansan; I thought he was a Hoosier who later settled in New York City. But Kansan or Hoosier, his English would be basically American mid-western English. An "ex-pat in Paris" might leave there with a knowledge of French, but probably would not pick up too many nuances of difference in his own language. I was for six years what they call in Oceanian English an "expatriate" in Tonga. I came back to a U.S. state, knowing some Tongan, but without much change in my Bostonian Irish- American English

I think I read in Le Ton Beau De Marot that the process is now and then also applied the other way round.
Author travels through Europe, picks up contemporary American novel published by English company, anglicisms all over the place, f.e. gaol for jail.

Had to add this footnote describing a film made by James O. Incandenza from Infinite Jest, to the discussion:

"Union of Theoretical Grammarians in Cambridge. B.S. Meniscus Films, Ltd. Documentary cast; 35mm.; 26 minutes; color; silent w/heavy use of computerized distortion in facial close-ups. Documentary and close-caption interviews with participants in the public Steven Pinker-Avril M. Incandenza debate on the political implications of prescriptive grammar during the infamous Militant Grammarians of Massachusetts convention credited with helping incite the M.I.T. language riots of B.S. 1997. UNRELEASED DUE TO LITIGATION"

I want to start the Militant Grammarians of Oregon. Anyone with me?

My rant of the day concerns the new verb, now beloved of policy-wonk writers everywhere, "to incent." It's being used in place of "encourage" in sentences such as this one, taken from a report on the Department of Housing and Urban Development:

"There are a host of related and complementary steps and strategies laid out below that the government could take either to further incent servicers and investors to more aggressively pursue modifications or to acquire the mortgage loans themselves in order to gain control of them and carry out modifications directly."

I am waiting for the stroke of 5 so I can stop reading this bureaucratic gobbledegook and go out to the bus stop and start reading Infinite Jest again. I have about 15 minutes to go....

"incent" is making me incensed!

Completely off the subject but I can't find a thread for this: I was just assigned a book of Chekhov short stories to copyedit. I cannot even imagine what this means, unless there's some introductory text preceding each story. But there you have it. I can add Chekhov to my resume.

There is a subtle difference between "to encourage" and "to incent" that is symptomatic of our troubled times. encouraging someone helps them to stretch beyond what they thought they could do. To incent essentially means to arrange the situation such that people will do what they should do, and certainly are capable of doing, through self-interest. This pushes the idea of doing things that are the right thing to do out of the realm of the right thing into the realm of if you do this, you'll get that.

What a crock of scheiss (or for all you geologues out there, schist), and without the slightest need for it. I'm telling you, our language is being re-ordered around Randian radical individualism instead of the sort of communitarian language (love thy neighbor, do unto others, you know, that namby-pamby talk) I grew up with. Just another sign that America is a declining country, chasing its hoops with a knife.

Preach it brother!

You almost sound like you missed me!

Vote Geneg in 2012!

That's the last thing he needs.

Boy, Peter, you said it!

I have never heard 'incent'. If one of my students said it, I would correct them. After slapping them.

Stop slapping your students tomcat!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfiua_jsohY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1D58WolILLk

Shame on you!

Is that you in the video?

lol
er....
no.

my slaps involve claws.

@64 and 65...hmmm, slapping, eh?...with claws, eh? I've been wondering what would be the best response from me, as an American teacher, when my Japanese students say "...but I wanted a British accent!"

But, all joking aside, I just found this thread today and love it, particularly the style sheets from Copyedit52... Lately I've been tutoring elementary ESL students who use books from both the UK and the US, so they have to learn that the Japanese "wan-pisu" (a loan-word from English "one piece") is a "dress" as well as a "frock". There are a lot of these types of words, adding to the general confusion of learning another language.

On another note, I'd like to recommend The Prodigal Tongue by Mark Abley, for a fascinating global ramble through our quickly changing English language, examining the influences of technology, geography, colonialism, politics, etc.

Cheers, everyone!

Here's another style sheet, this one for a science fiction/fantasy book by Anne McCaffrey and Elizabeth Scarborough (just the styling section, not the Vocabulary and Character listings):

Numbers

Spell out numbers up to two words

Punctuation

serial comma with and as well as or

interjectionary comma with however, though, as needed for clarity with then and with adverb opening sentence (Naturally, my vocabulary … )

comma after intro clause and between independent clauses, unless latter closely related: When he left he had known almost everyone …

no comma after intro phrase, unless eight words or more, or if needed for clarity

one-em dash for abrupt break, interruption, and for narrative asides

… three-point ellipsis for pause, fading speech or thought; to imply continuation of speech; for unheard part of conversation (as in a transmission)

Miscellaneous

italics (no quotes) for:

• emphasis (but caps okay in narrative; see below)
• sounds: prrr, mrowled, mew, blaaat (but rom when within quotes)
• direct, unattributed thought
• names of vehicles, space craft (see Vocabulary for specifics)
• "thought-talk" between cats, cats and people, cats and rats
• nonspeech: Jubal understood him to say, Come off it.
• written notes: Gone fishin'
• word as word: Variations on me and ow.
• words seen on a screen

stet caps for emphasis (in narrative only): LOTS of ships (otherwise italics)

rom quotes for:

• dialogue between cats (but see "thought-talk" exception below) and between people, but not between people and cats, rats and cats

speech (and thought-talk) style for cats, people, rats:

• rom quotes between cats and between people, but:
italics between cats when they are "thought-talking" to each other at a distance
• italics no quotes between cats and people, cats and rats
• note that people might speak aloud in rom quotes yet be understood by cats

names ending in s take an apostrophe s ('s): Sandy Britches’s

lowercase after pointing colon (but cap if colon introduces dialogue or thought); for common nouns in direct address, such as: miss, madame, boss

repeat initial cap for stutter: "L-Look ... "

Which of the books is about thought-reading cats? Because I might just put that on my to be read list...

66: My kids grew up in Egypt where the ESL books were British. They learned quickly that "rubber" does not mean "eraser" when they came to the US.

#51

Yeah, well, why not leave Stout's English be what it is? He was an educated man and a great writer, with as terrific an ear for language* as eye for period detail (not that I imagine he thought of these as "period" at the time of writing"). I'd even rather have his mistakes (if that's what they actually were), than some random busybody's "improvements" and "modernisations". (Not directed at you, Roland; generally.)

*Just look at how skillfully he characterises even the minor players by language.

Peter--same remark applies, I know you're just doing a job, and I'm just sayin', generally... :)

It's not just scholarly editions that occasionally get footnotes and glossaries where I come from. Don't many ordinary English editions include such stuff too, when it comes to explaining archaisms, references etc.?

Anyway, I'll just repeat (for the record! Forever!) that I think it's a horrible practice, this piecemeal, hidden (unmarked) translation between British and American English, horrible in every way, artistic, educational, philosophical... Such books aren't in any language, at the end, meant as they are to merely "strike" Americans as "British", and vice versa--but not too much, and not actually BE British (or American). Shallow, ugly, confusing, unaesthetic, and therefore WRONG WRONG WRONG it is and I don't care how widespread or ordinary etc. a practice it may be.

Can't be good for people who think they can learn English, either version, from general lit either. Ugh.

JMO, of course.

67: What are rom quotes?

Funny thing, Lola: I have a book on my computer now, to edit, with implicit directions not to deanglicize the text. So far I've had to restrain my usual response to the following: honour, theatre, grey, and words ending in s (toward, afterwards); and I'm sure there'll be more to come.

>68 anna_in_pdx:. This book is the second in a series called the Barque Cats (I've previously done a few in a series by the same authors that includes talking beavers, transmutable children who become seals, etc). The first Barque Cat book was called Catalyst (don't pay attention to the touchstone), it's by Anne McCaffrey and Elizabeth Scarborough and I'm sure it's in bookstores; McCaffrey is quite popular. I told Tani over on the nature thread that I wouldn't divulge the title of this current one to anyone but her, but it won't be available anyway for at least a few months.

rom quotes are professional shorthand for roman type with quotes: "roman type." As distinct from ital: italics.

Here, from the same book, the vocabularly listing I'm expected to compile with every book I edit (as well as a character listing). With many books, the vocabulary merely notes prevalent, unusual, and preferred spellings (Webster's often has two accepted spellings, with one "preferred," as with theater and theater). With science fiction there's a lot of leeway when it comes to vocabulary because words and proper capped names are often made up; an acceptable convention for the genre. The point, of course, is to guide the proofreader in the next stage of the process so he or she knows how these words should be spelled in galleys.

Vocabulary

aboveground
air lock
afterlife
Alexandra Station
Apeplets
atmo
attracker

backward (no s)
Barque Cat(s) (but Barque kittens)
Bast (cat god)
belowground
broken-colored) (adj)
Bubastis (aka the planet Mau)

catalog
cat-fashion
catling (lc)
cat mint
Cat People
Cat Person (CP)
cellmate
{} centric (close up)
as in catcentric
City of the Nobel Dead
com
comming
Crane Academy
crewmate
crew member

dammit
Earth (planet)

fairy tale
farther (distance)
further (degree)
Federated
finder’s fee (not finders' fee)
fishy (not fishie)
force field

Galactic
Galactic Council (but the council)
Galactic Government
Galipolis (not Gallipolis)
Galport
gases (not gasses)
GGoons
good-bye
Grania (ship)
gray (not grey)
Guard, the

headlamp
hightail
hork
inquiry (not enquiry)

kefer-ka (lc)
keka bug
kittycat

Leavetaking
{} like (close up)
litter box
litter sister
littermate

Maine coon
Makarska (ship)
Mau, Planet
Mau-Maat
Molly Daise (ship)
momcat
mouse hole (noun)
mouse-hole (adj)

Nome Station
non {} (close up)
nose cone

off world
Old Earth
on shipboard
Ontario (ship)

part-time
paw pad
polydactyl
pounce, to
pounced on

Quanah Parker (ship)

Ra-Harahkty
re {} (close up) as in reemerged
résumé
Reuben Ranzo (ship)
riverbank

Sherwood Station
shipboard (and on shipboard)
shipsuit
short-hair(s)
sim (for simulation)
-sized (as in cat-sized)
spacer
space station
spaceship
spaceway
Standard (language)

Tao Station
tawniness
Tesoro (ship)
trapdoor
Trudeau’s Landing
two-legged(s)

Valley of the Royal Dead
viewscreen

wide-open
wild looking (no hyph)
wormhole
worshipped

Your Majesty

Talbin: BLESS YOU!!! Even Garner seems to have given up on this one. But we shall fight the good fight!

The most misued, common metaphorical expression, in my not so humble opinion, is "to pan out," as in: "It didn't pan out." Meaning, in popular culture, that things didn't go the way you wanted them to. But when you're shaking a panlike sieve, looking for gold, you don't want the gold to pan out. You want to see a few nuggets left in the pan.

So the downhearted expression should be: "Things panned out."

And the expression of joy should be: "It didn't pan out!"

>75 copyedit52: It means what it means because when people say it, that's what they mean. Failure? It didn't pan out.

You are just trying to be logical. Language so often isn't.

Well, okay. If things are used often enough, that becomes the language. whatever the origin. I understand that. But in fact I was offering the etymology of the expression, not just a logical opinion. "To pan out" in the Gold Rush meant you didn't strike gold.

And parallel to "pan out/DIDNʻt strike gold" and "pan out/succeeded" is "up to par". In ordinary speech "not up to par" means "not as good as might be expected." And "par for the course" (often said sardonically) means "just about (as bad) as might be expected." (I had a boss --the worst thing he could say about anything or anyONE was "TYP-ical!" -- in other words "par for the course".

In golf par is a norm or standard --but a very high one, out of the reach of most players most of the time. It canʻt be defined as "perfect" because it is possible to do better than par -- a birdie, or even an eagle. And it canʻt be defined as "average", because the average player canʻt get it.

So if you call me "not up to par" then by strict golf definition, I have the right to say, why should I be? Iʻm an amateur not a pro.

>70 LolaWalser: bravo and well said Lola.

Just when I was beginning to be able to calmly read or hear "to gift" with the meaning of "to give a present", I was gobsmacked today to read in a couple of different places on the internet the use of "to cover" with the meaning "to appear on a magazine's cover." One was "Tom Hanks covers Time Magazine", and since the other involved Kate Gosselin I won't even bother to quote it. (You can be sure that it wasn't The Economist she covered!)

Anyone else whose teeth clench when encountering this usage, or is it just me? It's not as if the verb "to cover" doesn't already have too many meanings.

I don't like any of those made-up verbs derived so lazily from nouns. Among the books I edit, I do business-oriented stuff for McGraw-Hill and so regularly come across the now commonplace use of "grow" as a verb: To grow a company. To grow your portfolio. I grit my teeth while letting it pass, the justification being: everyone who reads these books actually speaks this way, in their boardrooms or wherever, and that's the audience the author is writing for.

Correction: I left my head behind in trying to make a point. Grow is in fact a verb. But it's use in the above case is still an excrescence.

I have never heard "cover" used that way, 80! And I thought I'd heard all there was to hear about that sort of talk here in local government land!

81: I agree about "grow a company." Does it need watering? Anyhow it has plenty of fertilizer...

>81 copyedit52: don't you think there's something pleasingly ambisexual in playing fast and loose with transitivity like that?

>ew ewwwww! I have never heard that "cover" and it makes me illlll. Just when I thought I was out, the prescriptivists pull me back in for one last job.

I do like fast and loose, books, and made-up words on the fly. I confess, however, that my sense of playfulness has something to do with who's doing the playing. When it comes to growing a company, I picture ... well, guys in suits and ties sitting in a boardroom. Or, another example, advertising types sitting in their rooms, talking about "creative," as in, "Send that to Creative and let them kick it around," or maybe to let them "grow it."

OK, I started this thread so I can go off-topic. I thought some of our local editors might enjoy this example from an editor friend of mine.

"Consider for instance a situation in which, as a bystander, you encounter an unfamiliar person walking into a store, his face expressing some nervousness. He may be an innocent *costumer* in a hurry, or he might have criminal intentions."

Is there supposed to be something editable about your example, Anna? Something wrong with it? Seems okay to me.

Well, I was assuming that the sentence was not about someone who designs costumes for a living... perhaps that's an unfair assumption to make.

#84
As long as he doesn't get "fitted up" he'll be ok!

Why would you, or anyone, assume that this person designs costumes for a living? Was there something else, some backmatter, that this editor friend of yours added?

Peter, do you need another cup of coffee or are you just jerking my chain? :) I've edited the post in case it's the former...

Oh, I see! A proofreading mistake. I was looking at a forest and you were referring to a tree. Still, of course I should have caught it. I am abashed.

91: OK, this has now become a very interesting topic worthy of its own thread - the different types of editor and their relative tasks. Let's discuss it! I don't really know how it all works. My friend is a freelance editor of some sort.

Okay, good idea. But I have to take a ten-mile bike ride now. The temperature is an optimum 75 degrees, not too hot, not too cold. I'll ruminate on the subject while rolling along and be back in a while.

>84 copyedit52: way to play to my prejudices! I'm joining the anti-"grow" party. Let's firebomb Morgan Stanley.

Militant Grammarians of LT Unite! We have nothing to lose (NOT "loose") but our chains!

>94 MeditationesMartini:. Sorry to be such a bad influence, books. My upbringing made me do it.

>93 copyedit52:. There's so much I can say about "the different types of editor and their relative tasks." Too much, so I'll break it into parts, which gives the rest of you the option to tune out and turn off, to recoin an old phrase.

I'll begin with editors at daily, weekly, and monthly publications. In fact, many of them do no hands-on editing at all, at least once they graduate to such positions as editor in chief and managing editor, and, on a big newspaper or magazine, department heads. These editors are in essence managers, issuing assignments, dealing with the "public," fielding phone calls from muckety mucks, and so on.

At book publishing houses, acquisitions editors (who acquire, of course), might give the equivalent of big picture advice to a writer once a book has been accepted for publication, but they don't actually do any editing either. The lengendary hands-on editors who shepherded writers through the process, dispensing advice, hand-holding, and doing actual editing (Maxwell Perkins is the best known, editor at Scribner's for Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald and Thomas Wolfe) is now a fiction.

So who does the copyediting at large non-book-publishing operations? There are rewrite editors on newspapers, and department heads might copyedit (sports, fashion, business, etc.). So far as I know, however, only among book publishers are freelancers used to edit copy.

Back to magazines and newspapers: for a small pub, the above-mentioned managerial and public relations editors might well also actually edit copy. I did this for two different newspapers, one a labor weekly (which I eventually discovered was a front for a racketeering operation to strongarm poor saps into buying inflated ads, a la the Sopranos), the other an underground newspaper in the late sixties, where I assigned the tasks, edited the stories, and wrote a column as well.

A small publication will usually not hire freelancers to edit, because, like so-called mom and pop stores, their labor is what keeps them in business (these are not lucrative operations). But larger pubs, and perhaps even some well-heeled small ones, will hire freelancers to proofread, an operation that usually takes place once the stories have already been edited and printed and gone to galley form, though it's quite likely this operation is different now, given the computer technological advances. It could be there are freelancers editing electronic copy from home. Still, I can't imagine they're proofreading copy that hasn't already been edited and ready to publish. More likely, such freelancers are still only involved in the next to last step.

One more note on freelancers, and the reason so many of them exist: health coverage. That is, freelancers are work-for-hire employees, with nothing taken out of their checks: not taxes, not unemployment or disability, and certainly not health coverage. As in many other modern businesses, the cost of health coverage is a good percentage of operating costs, and hiring freelancers saves employers a lot of bread.

Peter - Thanks! So more on the issue above: You were indeed correct, the piece was already vetted by a copy editor. My friend apparently works freelance for academic publications. She wrote back to me (when I commented on the sloppiness of the typing after she had caught three more silly typos):
"Anna, it's even worse than that: these are typeset, "copyedited" articles that I am "proofreading". So many scre quotes because: (a) the copyediting is done by a Filipino company, using a software program to catch mistakes and style errors, and (b) I do more than actual proofing to catch all these errors. Of course, if the publisher hadn't outsourced, then they wouldn't have to pay for inadequate copyediting and a copyediting/proofreading hybrid."

Between Xlibris, who published my book, and the tech people at Hewlett-Packard (I'm throwing that piece-of-junk computer away and starting over), I've spoken to more Filipinos in the last six months than Americans, even if you count virtual people.

On my end of editing, in cutting down on the proofreading phase, to save money, the people I deal with basically expect me to be a hybrid copyeditor/proofreader, and I've already proven (see customer/costumer, above) what the result of that might be.

In terms of copy editing quality, probably Filipino people are greatly preferable to editing software, whether US or Phillippines based...

I agree. What with the emphasis on my being both a proofreader and copyeditor, most notably for HarperCollins, where I had a rocky end of the year because of things I'd missed--even though I used spell-check, which sees nothing wrong with form when it should be from, among other often typoed words--I began to use the grammar check too, after I finished editing the electronic manuscript, since that will pick up some misspellings via sentences that don't make sense. So far, that seems to have raised my stock again.

But still, I'm concerned about typos I might miss in my own book--the one I just finished. The copyediting won't be a problem, but I could use a good proofreader.

Stuff like "costumer" just literally jumps off the page at me. I think proof readers must be taught to skim. I've seen probably a half dozen proof reading errors in your book, Peter. I can't remember the last book written in the last ten years or so I've read that didn't have a bunch of proof reading errors in them. I suspect the word for word, line by line diligence required in proof reading is a lost art. I would have made an excellent proof reader, given that sometimes I run across stuff so nonsensical I have to put the book down for a moment to recover my reading mojo.

Having taken a stab a time or two at various forms of extended writing, revising, editing and so forth, the scut work of the writer's trade, I can appreciate how proof reading errors get left in manuscripts by the author, it doesn't take but two or three re-readings before one just glazes over while re-reading that last time, but one would think the final proof reader who, ideally, comes to the text fresh, without preconception, without memory of phrases and turns of language, would see every flaw, every blemish, every misspelled word, every wayward attempt at revision as I see them: the monster on the page. If one thought that, one would most obviously be incorrect in one's assumptions.

You offering to proofread my latest book, Gene? I could e-mail you the text if you're game.

I'd give it a shot. I make no guarantees, but I'd give it my best.

Let's do it, then! The main thing about good proofreading is to have a good eye. You say you do, and I believe it.

I'm excited about this, Gene. I love it when the unexpected enters the ordinary.

We can discuss the details through profile comments.

And all because of my innocent costumer! :)

A funny paragraph from a proposal I had to read yesterday. No actual grammatical errors, just a funny syntax confusion.

"Nonprofits and government agencies today are being increasingly asked to operate more like traditional businesses. In most cases, this creates a certain level of cultural uncertainty and fear. Will they lose the very values that have guided their success to date? Will they jeopardize their public trust? Will they still be able to reach and meet the needs of diverse and sometimes underserved populations? The answer is YES!"

I don't know what you make, but I think you deserve a raise, having to read such things.

AAAAARGH

In my e-mail inbox from the OREGON PTA - not just anyone, but an organization that is supposedly all about education - an e-mail about an upcoming event: "Your Invited!"

There are no words. I feel so alone in my ability to understand apostrophes, as if I am the only remaining speaker of a dead language.

I'm almost mad enough to send the Oregon PTA this link:

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/SpellingRage.html
(Note, this is a very "Not Safe For Work" link)

Hopefully a parent, not educated in Oregon, wrote that one.

Anna, are you really Avril Incandenza? Come on girl, 'fess up, now.

@54: It gets worse. My boss uses "incentivize" FAR too often; and no matter what I do in my role as copy editor/proofreader/grammar Nazi, I cannot convince him that "impact" is not a verb don't anybody try to change my mind, either -- Stout would fight you, too nor that people don't stand AT a podium but ON one AT a lectern even though Garner waffles on that one.
And I nearly came to blows with a colleague yesterday about the mis/abuse of "hopefully" -- he was trying to convince me that if it serves as an "independent clause" his words, as in, "Hopefully, that oncoming truck will not run over our dog," it's a perfectly valid use. I kept vainly trying to tell him that "hopefully" is ONLY an adverb that modifies a verb, and that in the example sentence, there is nothing hopeful in the truck's mind about running over the dog. But he insisted that, since the adverb has become "standard" English, it's perfectly OK to use it that way.
I despair.

109: Maybe I'm Luria P! Ha ha! You'll never know.

110: Welcome home, brother! You are among friends.

However, I have to admit I have started using "hopefully" like your boss does. This is because I spent many years in the Middle East and am now culturally conditioned to say something tentative before making a statement about the future (it's almost superstitious, this feeling). Since overtly religious language (as in the Middle East, "in sha' Allah," God Willing) does not feel culturally appropriate here, I substitute "hopefully," while remaining aware that this is grammatically incorrect. I am trying to break the habit, but I need a substitute for the Middle Eastern need to be tentative.

Any suggestions from any of you grammarians?

I use "in sha' Allah" with my Orthodox Jewish inlaws, to drive them up a wall.

Re the use of 'hopefully' meaning 'I hope that...' or 'Let's hope that...' or 'It is to be hoped that...': It's pretty standard usage in this neck of the woods now.

How about the use of 'interestingly' as in, e.g., 'Interestingly, he didn't mention that fact that...'. Is there a problem with that?

109> Tomcat, your internilization of IJ characters gives me goosebumps. Your review was de Nuclear Bomb...and being obliterated/atomized, by your knowing blast of all IJ blasts never felt so good; sheer Nirvana it was, yes.

Have you seen Anna's profile pic, btw.? Good Allah if she's not the spitting image of Avril too! (as described and characterized in IJ), no?

By golly, yes I think you're right! Anna, how tall are you?

And thank you Reeeeeeeque. I have but scratched the surface, I know.

Anna, you and my wife would get along famously. Misplaced, misused apostrophes are her bailiwick. Me, not so much, but I know the difference between your and you're. I think your is one of those things people get wrong because they aren't thinking in words but in sounds. If they thought you are, it wouldn't be a problem. Once they've made the mistrake their spell checker doesn't catch the error so they go blithely forth into the storm. Just another sign that literacy, even among the educated, is staggering toward Babel.

>110 frogprof:
Remind me never to be alone in a room with you. You were ready to go to blows over the use of 'Hopefully'? The use of this as an adjunct is quite acceptable, and well attested.

Anyway, you think you got problems?

Check out these:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pargon/sets/72157623594187379/

>110 frogprof:, 117 oh yeah, I should note my membership in the Murr Party on this one. hopefully is well established as a phrasal adverb, so it's not even like this is one of those weird things we have to swallow about language not living up to our prescriptive ideas--"hopefully" actually makes grammatical sense.

The two style sheets I presented above, for the Alison Weir historical book (#31) and the Anne McCaffrey science fiction (#67) had the same style for numbers, merely: Spell out up to two words. But some books require a more elaborate number style; military-adventure type books, for instance. And sports books.

First, the number style I devised for the military-adventure book:

Numbers

Spell out up to two words, including ordinals (twenty-first century), though stet for more as manner of speech ("a hundred thousand rounds of ammunition") or POV expression (a good fifteen hundred feet). BUT numerals for more than one word for weight and speed (67-pound bomb, 100 knots), and always for the following:

• distance in thousands ( narrative): 2,000 feet but "two thousand feet"
• planes and numbered equipment: UM/F-9, F 22C, B-1, EB-52
• gun names and calibers: M2, MP-5, M-16, 50-millimeter, 25mm (close up)
• time with A.M and P.M. in narrative (10:00 A.M.)
• addresses in narrative (number 19), floor numbers on an elevator (He reached over and hit 23; punched the number 3), route and room numbers (narr. & dial.): Room 4
• temperature (70 Fahrenheit), and Gen 4 night glasses, generation 3 glasses, Mach 5

Also, spell out vehicle and ship numbers (Tiger One, Snake One), as well as hangar numbers: Hangar Five, etc. (see Vocabulary for specifics)

And here's the numbers section of a style sheet for a memoir centered around basketball (in the Philippines, where basketball is apparently very popular). The main challenges in devising a number style were (a) to distinguish between the use of everyday numbers (e.g., for age), and the sport numbers; and (b) to present sport numbers so the reader wouldn't be overwhelmed with numerals:

Numbers and Time

General rule: spell out two-word numbers, as well as:

• people’s ages
• periods of time (a span of years)
• game numbers: games four and five
• channel numbers: channel seven
• note that dollars is part of the two word rule, so: twenty dollars but $400

numerals for:

• numbers in the thousands: 8,000 … $10,000
• all percentages: 83 percent
• years; but spell out decades (lowercase): 1980s, the eighties
• abbreviated numbers: 90 million people
• time with A.M. and P.M.: 10:00 A.M.
• points, in game (34 points on the board), and as an average: 24 points
• game statistics: points, rebounds, assists, blocks;
but a three-point shot, nine-point lead, trailed by ten points, won by thirty points
• game scores (a 13-1 lead) and series games won (2-1)

I find these style sheets fascinating. No joke.

I also occasionally edit business-type books for McGraw-Hill, slick: mutual fund investment, starting an Internet business, and so on. (You need a lot of clients to make a somewhat living as a freelance editor.) And M-Hill has its own house style for numbers: spell out numbers up to (but not including) 10; numerals for all percentages. That's it. You probably wouldn't find those style sheets fascinating.

Why would you stop at nine? Just because ten is a two digit number? Seems that, like Spinal Tap, you would go until 11!

Yeah, I don't care for it. And now that I think about it, their house style also calls for numerals for time, which creates the following ugly-looking numerals: 9 A.M.

That was taught to me in elementary school. Spell out single digit numbers, and use numerals for multiple digit numbers except at the beginning of a sentence. I must say that I use a lot of what I learned in elementary school, but I vary a lot of it too; numbers is one area in which I vary. I wish people would be reasonably consistent, though, and not cheap with key strokes.

Robert

I guess you could say that though it doesn't make sense to spell out numbers only up to nine, the McGraw-Hill in-house style at least has the virture of simplicity. Here's how the number section of an M-Hill style sheet typically looks:

Numbers

Spell out numbers one through nine, ordinals (eightieth, not 80th), and in general usage (tens of millions of clients), and note the following:

numerals for:

• abbreviated sums: $1 million, 4 billion people
• percentages; and spell out percent (not %), except when percentage is cited in endnotes
• time with A.M. and P.M., but (as per M-Hill style) without :00 (10 A.M., 1 P.M. )

I think maybe we didn't pay much attention to the exceptions in grade school. Sophistication was beyond both teachers and pupils. When I was young millions and billions were not in common parlance. Percentage and ordinals (which hardly got mentioned) were in arithmetic not in English. If we had occasion to write about time we probably used numerals regardless of how many and just ignored the rule because that was the way we did it, but I don't remember concretely.

I am in favor of your being deliberate.

Robert

Thank you, Robert. I forgive you. Though I still don't remember what you did to piss me off.

That happens a lot. That's why I stay away from people.

Robert

I am in awe of your obsession with detail, copyedit.

". . .Millions and billions were not in common
parlance"

Right, I remember that. "Millions" only meant
"a lot". So did "Thousands" and "hundreds".

A character in a Pogo episode thinks up a hair-brained scheme, and says of it, "We can make millions on this -- maybe even thousands!"

"The Battery Clerk" in See Here, Private Hargrove is asked by Hargrove, "Do you actually DO anything?"

Clerk: Are you kidding? -- I have thousands of
rosters to draw up every day!

hargrove: (skeptically) THOUSANDS ?

Clerk: Well, hundreds, anyway.

Hargrove gives up the argument but boasts to the reader: "I could have gotten him down to ʻdozensʻ!"

When I was at school the American billion hadn't won the position of common usage. A billion was one million million (1,000,000,000,000), not a mere thousand million.

Also, a trillion was a million million million.

The Oxford Dictionary of English now refers to these usages as, Brit. Dated

What has become of the world?

PS copyedit52, I love the style sheets you're posting.
When I worked in a large services firm our house style for numbers was, spell out numbers up to twleve, then numerals.

Further evidence of the decline (and fall) of standard English vocabulary (from today's Vancouver Sun)...
"(Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart) have seen quite a lot of each other lately. To celebrate her 20th birthday, Kristen travelled to Budapest to visit her man, where he's been filming the periodic drama Bel Ami with Uma Thurman and Christina Ricci."

I guess that only certain parts of Bel Ami will be a drama - perhaps the balance will be a tragedy!

>130 QuentinTom:. Spell out numbers up twelve and then numerals? What sense does that make?

On British numbers, sometimes I'm called upon to deal with that in the unanglicization process (whose logic is that the American reader will not comprehend it otherwise). This is most common with tonne, which, if I remember right, is 2.2 of our tons.

>132 pgmcc:. I both pride myself on it, tomcat, and it is also the bane of my life; things accrue to me that I'd rather forget.

I like it! After twelve, the numbers fall into the pattern that remains in force thereafter: thir-teen, twenty-three, one-hundred three and so on. Eleven and twelve are orginals, like the first ten.

133: It took me two tries to figure out "periodic drama". Wow. That is ugly.

I am in agreement with slick as to the write out up to twelve thing.

I am so happy to have the style sheets. They are wonderful. I am a detail oriented person myself (this is why I am a financial analyst in the work world) and I am loving them!

You could probably show cause for some of the distinctions in writing out or using numerals to represent numbers, but it is largely arbitrary. Spelling out one to a dozen doesn't seem to me to be foolishly arbitrary as would, say, spelling out odd numbers and using numerals for even numbers, or spelling out all numbers except the primes.

It think the most important rule should be that the arbitrariness be uniform or uniformly applied.

Robert

"I think the most important rule should be that the arbitrariness be uniform or uniformly applied."

This is what I always say when a good descriptivist (like my long suffering SO) takes issue with my narrow grammar biases. I realize English is full of randomness. I realize language evolves. I still think it has rules that help us all say things more clearly and with more precision and meaning.

King Hengist the Horsehaired, the king who established the names of the numerals in English had twelve fingers.

Get OUT of TOWN! Is that true?

Perhaps we can blame it all on the Mesopotamians - after all they gave us the duodecimal number system (with 12 as the base). They probably wrote a long-ago destroyed style sheet in cuneiform establishing that numbers up to twelve must be spelled out (in wedges).

Rowena Spitrack Bagstock has firmly established in her monograph on the subject of numerals, that....

"King Hengist . . . had 12 fingers. . ." (139)

"Hengist was coarser than Horsa
--And Horsa was AWFULLY coarse!"
-- ancient English rhyme of which the historical impact renders the 12 (excuse me, twelve) fingers of Hengist a mere footnote to history.

>137 Mr.Durick:, 138. Yes. The first rule in editing is: Be consistent. Whatever style you have, whatever variation in spelling or usage, once you make your decision, you have to stick to it.

It's good that you like my style sheets. l've been doing these things in isolation for so long--just me and the copy departments and the authors, of course (they get to see it too)-- that it's like a secret I have that no one knows. When I get back from Seattle, and thus to my computer--and its style sheets--maybe I can find something style sheet exotic to post. And/or a few memos I'm sometimes called upon to write to explain particularly tricky style decisions I made; an age-old white collar worker's ploy to cover his ass before he gets fired.

When style sheets alone don't do the trick, or, as noted, I have to cover my ass in a manuscript (ms.) replete with changes (thereby annoying in-house editors, who always want "light editing," and then don't use you again because you didn't edit enough; or peeving bad writers), it's sometimes necessary to write clarifying memos. This one touches on a few other things as well, like:

On cutting down the size of ms.

I was asked to delete about 60 of the 400 pages in this ms. That’s a lot, and though I didn’t keep track, I doubt I cut that much. With an eye toward the final printed product (where a chapter number and title starts a new page), I did eliminate two chapters, and one part title, though I only deleted the text of one of these chapters (a smallish one), and transferred the text in another.

The first time I went through the ms. it was clear that the text could not be cut in five or six page blocks, though I did make a few two- or three-page cuts. The author’s anecdotal-type style—many small and short stories, bits and pieces of which are referred to later—precuded that kind of cutting. Instead, I had to delete a sentence or two here or there, sometimes a paragraph, so the missing text wouldn’t come back and bite us. Author does have a tendency to add to a humorous comment or aside with several follow-up sentences, in a comic riff. With apologies to her, in order to cut any text at all, I occasionally had to cut the final sentence or two from these longer riffs.

On commas and attributions

Author employs a style in which a character can laugh, sigh, grin, frown, etc., in dialogue, as in: “I don’t know, “ she laughed/frowned/sighed. It’s possible to sigh a phrase, if it’s not too long, and since I didn’t want to undo author’s style altogether, I used the same logic with laughing, grinning, etc. Thus, a person can frown, laugh, grin, etc., a phrase if it’s not too long—no more than two or three words—and in such cases the attribution itself can’t be more than two or three words.

Some examples:

"Yes," he grinned. I smiled back.
but: "I believe it’s midnight." He grinned. I smiled back.

"Hey, Sue," she waved. "Check me out!"
but: "Hey, Sue, here I am." She waved. Check me out."

And, from a different book:

"Those Chicago assholes must’ve taken the journals," Mike sighed.

Became: Mike sighed. "Those Chicago assholes must’ve taken the journals."

Or (less elegantly): "Those Chicago assholes must’ve taken the journals," Mike said, sighing.

On a similar subject, there are usually commas before names in phrases like:

"Hey, Sue."
not: "Hey Sue"

"Well, ladies, this is it."
not: "Well ladies, this is it."

But I did stet "Oh God," and Oh God (narrative), and a few others, following the common sense rule that some utterances are actually made in a single breath. I dealt with these on a case-by-case basis.

Has paying such close attention to the nuts and bolts of language usage ruined you as a pleasure reader to any significant extent? Has it hampered or developed (or some of both) your writing abilities?

Yes, and no.

Yes, I have a hard time reading a book for pleasure. All kinds of things pop out at me. I'll note the two main reasons for this in the next post (two more memo items).

No, I don't think it has any influence on my own writing, plus or minus, except (negatively) I sometimes become too mechanical in applying commas in accordance with the rules I use in copyediting. I noticed that in the psychedelic memoir and subsequently made an effort to decommatize (?) the prose in the book I just finished.

Overuse of had and had been, and misunderstanding the implied third person point of view (POV) are the most common problems I have to deal with in a manuscript. It also makes it difficult for me to read for pleasure, since I find this misuse and misunderstanding all the time.

From a typical memo I wrote after editing a book:

On editing changes made throughout the manuscript:

On editing had or had been constructions (he'd or she'd in contraction form), it's not necessary (and can be tedious) to repeat the construction once it's established in a sentence or even in successive sentences.

Examples:

On msp. 16: But she'd had a short memory, and just a few years after the divorce she'd married another man who ...

Was changed to: But she'd had a short memory, and just a few years after the divorce she married another man who ...

On msp. 49: It had been designated years ago, when the city coffers had been full.

Was changed to: It had been designated years ago, when the city coffers were full.

On POV problems. In narrative, when the text is in a character's implied POV (which is usually the case in this book), that character should never refer to him- or herself as an "other," or third person.

Examples:

Ellie's POV (msp. 45): Other law enforcement and social agencies might be called upon to help ... and that made Ellie's job difficult.

Was changed to: Other law enforcement and social agencies might be called upon to help ... and that made her job difficult.

Ellie's POV (msp. 46): Ellie was on her own.

Was changed to: Ellie knew she was on her own.

Julia's POV (msp. 63): Julia had obviously said the wrong thing again.

Was changed to: Julia realized she had obviously said the wrong thing again.

NOTE: Sometimes (actually rarely), when there is no way to avoid confusion between several characters, the name of a character whose POV it is might have to be used. But this usually means a bit of rewriting, as opposed to simple editing, has to be done to avoid making the implied narrator an "other."

For a little light relief, some of you may wish to pop over to the discussion below and add a few grammar nazi comments. New, meaningful punctuation is being created and honed for use.

http://www.librarything.com/topic/89571

Oh, I have one! "Addicting" for "addictive", as in "an addicting game". So pointlessly clumsy.

One more style sheet. This one has a bit of everything, in the numbers, italics, etc. categories. It styles a vampire/werewolf/shapeshifter, etc., book--of which there are a ton--so I suppose you'd have to say it's in the scifi genre.

Numbers

Spell out up to two words (narrative and dialogue), but numerals for:

• routes and highways (I-94)
• narrative time with A.M. and P.M. (3:30 A.M.)
• proper names (as with games): Vampire Love 2
• number as number: the number 69
• caliber markings: a .45, 9mm, a Model 12-gauge
• 8½ by 11 spiral-bound notebook, Freshman 15, Motel 6

Punctuation

serial comma with and as well as or

interjectionary comma with though, then, not around internal or before terminal too, either, anyway; with intro adverb for clarity, but always with Suddenly, Instead, and In fact

comma after intro clause and between independent clauses, unless latter closely related

no comma after intro phrase, unless eight words or more or if needed for clarity

no comma if clear without for compound modifiers: large flowing script, large retro sunglasses

-- one-em dash for abrupt break, interruption

... three-point ellipsis for pause, fading speech, unheard side of phone conversation, and to imply continuation of talk as narrative cuts away from dialogue

Miscellaneous

italics for:

• sounds: There was another whoosh … a dull crack
• writing, but not texting (seen on screen), which is small caps
• recollected speech (no quotes)
• shouts, emphasis in dialogue (not caps)
• video games: Vampire Love

rom quotes (not italics) for quoted or recollected words: "When you had the drop on me before, you said she knew we’d come running. Who’s 'she'"

small caps for seen signs (a sign that read: VIP ROOM), text words on screen (He looked at the screen to find the word PROPHET blinking)

lc (lowercase) after colon, except to introduce dialogue

close up a to mean "of" after mighta (not might'a), woulda, etc., except with clashing vowels: one'a

cap for ongoing nicknames but not offhand or commonplace names or expressions: Bloodhound, old man

initial cap:

• repeat with stutter: "Wh-What?" (but not with pause: "Wha … what's going on?")
• to set off: … the Ignore button, a Condemned sign
• for car gears: slapped the car into Drive
• to call out, emphasize: the Christmas Party Incident of '02

A very amusing and interesting article to add to the discussion:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/why-cry-over-split-milk?nopager=1

It sings the praises of the work proof readers do, and I agree with it.

Apropos the weeklystandard article: though the proofreading of books occurs in galley form, after I'm finished copyediting a manuscript, I take it personally when I miss a typo or a wrong word (which is not a typo, but an egregious a mistake) when the book comes out.

In fact, I usually don't see the finished product, but I did request a copy of a war book I'd done not long after I began copyediting, because, as a freelancer, my parents had no idea what I did, suspected I didn't do anything worthwhile, and I thought that if my father--a former U.S. Marine, who liked reading about war--could actually see one of the books I'd worked, I would seem at least more reputable. So I proudly gave him the published book, about the air war in Europe in WWII, and when I saw him next, he told me he'd enjoyed it, but ...

Turns out--on the first page!--I came across the word formally, in a sentence that made no sense, because it should have been formerly.

153: Great story!

I'm seeing an lot more of this kind of mistake, as well as a other kind, similar yet related. Are we not teaching the difference between the article a and the article an?

The article a instead of an is okay if you're Ring Lardner ("It's a hour till sundown"). Otherwise, no.

I met a former school chum last year. I hadn't seen him for over 30 years.

My fond memories of him include a phrase he was often heard to use: "You're a eejitt, wee boy!"

He's still using it.

:-)

Next time you see him--if you live that long, or he does--correct him, in the name of good grammar. Tell him: "No, I'm not a eejitt. I am an eejitt, thank you very much."

#158 Thank you for putting me on the path to self-knowledge and assisting me in developing my assertiveness. I'll teach him to get a article right and talk like what I does!

(Makes you cringe, doesn't it?)

Actually, no, or maybe yes, but in a charming way ... or perhaps in compensation for my own manner of speech, which clips words and leans heavily on contractions, and which virtuality can scrub clean whenever I like.

#160 which virtuality can scrub clean whenever I like.

Is that something like Jif or Cillit Bang?

You've lost me, pgmcc. They do occasionally pay me to deanglicize books for the American market. Is that what I'm encountering here? An Anglic problem. (Apologies in advance if you're Irish and bear a grudge against Saxons.)

Is it true that jute was invented by the Angles and the Saxons?

#162 (Apologies in advance if you're Irish

As it happens, I am Irish, but there was no need to apologise.

My problem is usually the opposite of yours. Computers here tend to default to US English, rather than UK or Irish English. (In case you're wondering, Irish English would have more accents, etc... to allow for typing Irish names, without having to go into a totally Irish font or dictionary.) Also, many of the books I read would be US in origin.

There is an American living in my house, and we have agreed that the best way to deal with the different versions of English is to simply regard them as separate languages and adopt the usage as per the part of the world in which one finds oneself, or one's audience.

Cillit Bang and Jif are cleaning products. I was being facetious in relation to your, "can scrub clean", comment.

Ah, good. Now I understand everything ... except I'm puzzled about what the Yank slipped in above. Jute? According to my sources, it means: a long, soft, shiny vegetable fibre that can be spun into coarse, strong threads. (An English source, obviously.)

Was that your intended meaning, Gene? Vegetabobble fiber? To weave? To smoke?

Jute would be the plant used to make the fibres (obviously Irish source) for sackcloth.

It's my understanding that the English are the descendants of the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. It was supposed to be a pun, a play on words.

Aha! I thought you had more than "fibre" on your mind, Gene.

#167 geneg

One lives and learns.

So the Jutes sacked Britain? Alles clar!

Aw right, let's hear it from you guys: I just agreed to edit the new afterword for the Sarah Palin book, Going Rogue; 28 pages. Someone wanna make somethin' of it?

171: Hope you don't have an aneurysm.

#171 What operating system do you use? I was just wondering if you could see Russia from your Windows.

I was at her house for a dinner party. You can read all about it and see some pictures on my livejournal entry, here .

#171
By the way, all joking aside, congratulations!

Having nothing to do with Ms. Palin, of course, it's good to know that the people for whom I freelance will entrust me with a job that can get anyone fired at a moment's notice. And no! I will not slip a career ending phrase into the afterword. How could you think I'd do such a thing?

>175 copyedit52: but messages can be hidden in such a myriad or ways.

I'm working on it now, and it turns out that four-fifths of it is just a transcript of the speech she gave to the Tea Party convention. I'm just gonna grit my teeth and "do this thing," as we editorial mafiosi like to say.

Mrs. Palin and I are related. We both have children from Mongoloidia. That makes us family. So stop dissin' the hot broad. I suggest, Pierro, you just put'cher yer hippie ideals aside for a sec and be a proofessional and do some fine editorial representin' for the parents of Mongoloidians everywhere; whether they're in Alaska, or other shores further south along the Pacific!

I think I've been respectful, Henri, despite my distaste for the lady's politics. So what're you goin' on about?

S.P. is a blight on the lawn of civilization. We have that blighter McCain to thank.

Okay, here's something to sink your teeth into and debate if you like.

The prevalent style for one-of-a-kind officials, which includes the U.S. President, is capitalization. The President said this, the President said that. Now, I don't make all the style rules, and I'm supposed to follow the prevalent ones. And in Ms. Palin's speech to the Tea Party yahoos she continually refers to the president. And we know why, don't we? She's talking about Obama, and she and her ilk consider him illegitmate. Guess why? We all know the why of that too, don't we?

But my style for this afterword is to cap President, which puts me in conflict with the extant text. It's an instance where my professionalism and my annoyance happen to be in accord. It's where I draw my line.

There's a good fellow.

Just treat it as a work of fiction and you should be alright. On the President thing, if they won't let you cap it, don't cap any of the references to one off politicians.

Wow, that's immature. Not you, the tea party discourse. Like grade school.

I've always wondered why English capitalizes I and not you. Other languages do the opposite (e.g., Spanish, at least for the formal "Usted") or have honorifics for "you" (e.g., Arabic "Hadritic" which translates roughly as "your presence") because we should be more polite to others than ourselves.

I donʻt know a lot of Japanese or Indonesian, but I think in those languages, politeness depends more
on what you call yourself ("I", "me") than on what you call the other person ("you", or archaic "thee").
Biblical Hebrew had something which can be translated as "your servants" for "we", if politeness was intended. And in Middle and early Modern English "You" was polite, and "thou" was informal.

Capitalizing "I" could be a holdover from the era of capitalizing ALL nouns. (Still in the 18th c., the "important" nouns were capitalized in English -- which involved something of a value judgement.)
German, which was still capitalizing all nouns in the 20th c., did not, however, capitalize the pronouns.

>183 geneg:. I can't wage a war against my employers, Gene. But I can take the high ground, which is what I did by going with precedent for President. Still, the final word always goes to the author, or in this case probably her lackeys, so it might well be restored to a lowercase p in the final version. When it comes out, maybe in June, browse the Afterword in the bookstore, the part that presents her Tea Party speech (I don't expect any of our gang will actually buy it) and see how it turned out: President or president.

Well, Gene can browse it in the bookstore, but I won't. I'd appreciate it if someone here tells me about it.

Robert

Once again, I gotta say, Robert, you are a kick in the head.

185: I learn something every day from this discussion group. I think i will start de-capitalizing (a new word!) "i" except at the beginning of a sentence. However, I will start capitalizing "You" everywhere. Starting ... Now.

Thank You for your erudition - i'm impressed.

Okay, so, i know that i have been under the influence of sedatives all day, but what is this crap i am seeing about the wicked witch of the north? Seriously, Piero? (is it one r or two in Pierro? i have been using one) A paycheck is a paycheck, but owie! And You stick to Your guns, il mio amico! The President is the President is the President!

I am sorry if my feelings for that worman offend thee, oh mighty dictator, but i for one find it as offensive that anyone in their right mind would consider her qualified to run Alaska, let alone this country. I can understand Your affinity to one who shares Your plight, but there is where i would draw the line.

My gawd! Are You kidding me? Sorry, this rant is officially concluded.

*Kinda like the new rule, Anna! And as You pointed out so eloquently the other day... You don't make mistakes, so here i am following Your lead.

Edited to fix pronoun capitalization. ;-)

People ask me if I get a lot of books to edit that I don't like. Usually they mean because a book is boring or poorly written. And I tell them, truthfully, no, I enjoy the editing, whatever the book. Every manuscript presents its own particular problems. Some need this, others need that, and it's a meditative experience to enter the text, so to speak--the style, the language, the intent--"become" the author (but with my own skills and editorial sensibility), and do what's necessary to make it the book it should have been, within its own confines.

But in fact there is a category of books I don't like doing. I don't like the reading part of books with a political attitude whose supposed facts are in the service of ideological commitment. (Admittedly, I dislike these books even more when I don't like the politics either.) Not all nonfiction either. Actually, more fiction than (supposedly) nonfiction. I've turned down books whose hero protagonists are militia members, books in the military genre whose authors take refuge in dialogue in order to talk freely about ragheads, as well as books about how the stock market works whose authors meanwhile convey the party line of the National Review, e.g., that Reagan was the Second Coming of Christ and FDR was Beelzebub.

And now I can add this little Sarah Palin afterword to the mix, because it was so wrong-headed and, in its way, so vile, beneath its fake cheeriness. It's one of those jobs where, after I've sent it off, I feel I've paid my dues and now I'm entitled to something good. And in this case, the good copy chief (who told me that in every stage of the process, in-house editors were competing with each other not to be assigned Going Rogue) might very well give me something sweet to reward me for taking this sour job.

Oh, I do so believe in Karma, Piero... you will get something awesome in return for taking on that vile piece.

Way to be a pro about it, Peter. I was completely kidding and being ridiculous way up above, btw, re. Palin.

Not that this is an interview thread or anything, but real quick, how long does it take to copy edit an average 250-300 page book?

It takes me about four days, but since I charge by the hour, I claim it takes me two weeks.

oooh! padding the invoice, eh?

I am going to crawl off and lick my wounds since geneg caught me in a grammar mistake on another thread. See You all later.

What no link? Aw C'mon, Anna?

She's just kidding. By definition, Anna cannot make a mistake.

hehehehehe! ;-) See, Piero! I can laugh without using capitals!

Is this still the thread for complaints? If so, "cache" instead of "cachet." Something about the imagined accent aigu makes me insane.

200: Wow, I have never seen that one. Seems to me that people who have enough chutzpah to use seldom-used, difficult, vocab words should at least check the (expletive deleted) spelling!

Today's manager jargon phrase: "The gift of time." Our director cancelled our all staff meeting telling us that it was a "gift of time" from her to us. As I told my boss, "Well, at least she seems to have given up 'Planful' for now" and he choked before he admitted that that one had really bothered him too.

I have seen a simulacrum of caché on a sign meaning cachet. I took it to be the past tense of cacher, so Club Hidden.

Robert

Planful! It is to weep. But I will confess to finding a poetry in "the gift of time".

And Robert, I would visit the hell out of Club Caché, after devoting several years to the study of the Kabbalah, the Rosicrucians, and the arts of estrellomancy, extipity and astral projection, and after a gothic descent into the Third Crypt of Hermes Trismegistus and a terrifying clairgustatory encounter with a Great Old One, finally discovering its location.

Like "Caméra Cachée"? Sounds reasonable to me! Let's all make that assumption whenever we see this error.

When I see cache, I don't supply the accent aigu or think of cachet, but of the place where I hide my dope.

LOLOL

Inquiring minds wonder about that all the time, P.

>205 copyedit52: 'zacly. Bastards.

I keep it in a nondigital film canister, but I won't tell you where I keep the canister.

If I had the cache I could buy a cachet of weapons but I had to cash in my chips the other day.

Great minds, Piero!

I don't believe I've presented an example of the memos I sometimes include along with the style sheet (Style, Vocabulary, and Characters) when I return the edited manuscript. I don't do it often, just when necessary, as it was with the 700-page book I just turned in. It was a mixture of fantasy and fiction, drawing upon Gaelic tales and legend.

MEMO

Handling made-up words and words that do and don’t appear in Webster’s

Words, both compound and single, that appear in Webster’s have been handled like any other manuscript. For instance, author had breech-clout and war-lord, but both are in Web, so I changed them to breechclout and warlord. Also (for a two word example), in Web it's shoulder blade, so I went with that rather than shoulder-blade. On the other hand, author had warband throughout, which does not appear in Web, and for consistency of style was changed to war-band.

When words did not appear in Webster's, I went with author’s constructions, for such as leaf-bud, death-rite, etc. Sometimes I added the hyph when author didn't, so the style was consistent throughout. This is most prominently true of the made-up word sunseason, which appears in text as well as in some chapter titles. To make it consistent, I changed it to sun-season, as with leaf-fall and leaf-bud.

There are some exceptions to these guidelines, which I note in the style sheet, most notably with the capped terms Thisworld and Otherworld. In fact, no capped term in the ms. is hyphenated.

Many of these and other instances of changes and usage are noted in the margins, and many are also noted in the Vocabulary section of the style sheet.

Confusion in text

This is a very well-written book; the author obviously knows what she's doing. But there is a major problem in the birth scenes and reference to that birth on pages 612-618, and again at pages 618-619. I thought that Maeve was giving birth to the child she was carrying, but in fact those scenes refer to an earlier birth, when she lost a son (by Diarmait) when she was seventeen. It left me thoroughly confused afterward when she continued to carry the baby and then gave birth, again.

The logical thing to do is to italicize the text in those sections. That would solve the problem. In fact, I would have gone ahead and done that (after going back and studying the manuscript to figure out what had actually occurred and when), but it is a major change, and I prefer that the author and editor handle anything of that nature.

But I did included the change in the style sheet, as the last bulleted entry in Miscellaneous, italics. If in fact this change isn’t made as I suggest here, delete that last entry.

A loose end in text vis-à-vis backmatter historical explanation

In author’s explanation of the "pangs" that had to do with drinking ergot-contaminated ale in the final section of the book, it occurred to me that this is not clear in those sections of the manuscript where Conor's warriors are effected by the ale, Cúchulainn doesn’t drink it, and later when Ferdia is apparently affected by it as well. I don’t have the page numbers on this but I trust author will find them in order to insert a bit of text in those places if she wants the explanatory text to better echo the narrative.

This would all be more or less submitted as you've written it here, or is this, like, a summary for us? I'm not remotely a professional of your calibre, but the copyediting I have done, I've found that the authors respond best to a comment/query style somewhere between tentative and worshipful. This may be because I'm young, or because it's academia and I am low on the totem pole, or simply because it's academia full stop. I dunno.

(And, like, not to unfairly generalize.)

That was exactly the memo I submitted.

There is a certain collegiality in the business, among the publishers I stick with, at least. The ground rules, so to speak, are that the freelance copyeditor doesn't go ahead and make wholesale changes, but rather, queries significant changes, and also makes suggestions for improving the text, both of which I did in the memo, and also in the margin notes I made while editing. (This, by the way, is called in the biz, "flagging.") The in-house editors understand that freelancers are free to suggest while staying within those boundaries (no significant changes that can't be rejected), and the freelancers understand (or are supposed to) that whatever the in-house people and authors decide to do with the edited manuscript is their choice and not to be taken personally. When I've gotten flak for doing my job, as I see it, within these guidelines I've outlined, and it seems to be a pattern--rather than someone having a bad day--I look for another publisher, or for someone else within a different division of the same publisher. This also applies in the crass realm of in-house people questioning the bills I submit. I've been doing this for too many years to be nickeled and dimed.

I have heard, btw, that academic publishers are the worst, both in terms of how low they pay and, ironically, the lack of collegiality that most mainstream publishers observe. But I've never worked for them.

Interesting (and not surprising), thanks!