=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= EDline Vol. 2, no. 24 (15 June 1997) Editorial mailing list Published by the Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Contents: Q & A---Previous queries [2qq] Grumble of the week [2rr] Geographical names [Was: Democratic Republic of Congo] [2ss] Resource for maths editing [2uu] Tautology [2vv] Proofreading/copyediting marks [2ww] Statistical format Q & A---New queries [2xx] Environment-friendly? [2yy] Genus/species names in headings [6] Just for fun [7] Administration =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ---[2] Q & A --------------------------------------------------------- ** [2qq] Grumble of the week Date: Sun, 8 June 1997 From: Lammasland@aol.com [John Bangsund] suggests that UNDER WEIGH is a mythical command. Ships of the Royal Navy weigh anchor - an order prior to raising the cable from the sea bed, an operation which results in the anchor being suspended from the bows until it is housed on board. The ship is under weigh, meaning that the engines must be running and the ship moving forward. It seems to me a logical derivation of underway. ----------------------- Date: Wed, 11 June 1997 From: Mandy MacDonald, 100754.3643@compuserve.com Under way vs. under weigh: I too would imagine it's under way (she said tentatively, having failed to find any hard evidence one way or the other in an idle trawl of her dictionaries at 1 am, not her sharpest time of day) -- 'Anchors aweigh', yes, unless you want to get rid of them altogether ('Anchors, away!'), but way is surely what you make once your anchors have been weighed. 'A propos (or apropos?), Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable has 'working under cover' and 'an under-cover agent'. Another case of Hyphen the Terrible? By splendid coincidence, as I passed through the living-room on the way to these reference books, I glanced at the television, just in time to see the banner headline 'Escaped Killer Enroute to ....'! ('Dillinger', Max Nosseck, 1945). This one will run and run ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2rr] Geographical names [Was: Democratic Republic of Congo] Date: Tue, 10 June 1997 From: Eddie Kent, eddie.kent@mcr1.poptel.org.uk I am no geographer - it takes me six months in a new house to learn the way from the bedroom to the bathroom without asking directions, so to me the idea that each place in the world should have just one name is very attractive. Imagine the joy when travelling and your ticket lists out your route and each time you come to somewhere you compare the word on your document with that on the signpost (or whatever these foreigners have) and they match. All the same, if Bombay now has another name, what are we going to call the film studio part. At the moment it is known as Bollywood, which seems daft enough to fit the case. Perhaps it will become Mullywood. ----------------------- Date: Tue, 10 June 1997 From: Christine Firth, chris@cfirth.demon.co.uk Lane Lester wrote: > I'm mystified by the changes over the years regarding Chinese > cities, e.g., Peking became Beijing. What's even more mystifying > to me is that so many of the names are not pronounced the way > they're spelled. After all, they're Anglicized spellings, anyway, > aren't they? I have just copy-edited a political dictionary of the People's Republic of China, and so I asked its editor, Professor Colin Mackerras, Head of Modern Asian Studies, Griffith University, Queensland, if he could help. Here is his reply: On romanization, it's like this. In the late 1950s, the PRC adopted its own form of romanization, called Hanyu pinyin, which means just Chinese spelling. In January 1979, this system was formally adopted for all PRC-published foreign-language publications which use roman script. Of course that includes not only English, but a large proportion of other European languages, I think all except Greek, Russian, Bulgarian and a couple of others. It is not so much anglicized, as latinized or romanized, since the Roman alphabet is one of the great gifts of the Roman Empire to European (and world) civilization. What had gone before 1979 in terms of romanization of Chinese words was a whole host of systems of romanization. Of these the one most frequently used in English-speaking countries was one called Wade-Giles, devised by a British nineteenth-century diplomat called Thomas Wade and a Cambridge professor called Giles. This was used in virtually all scholarly work on Chinese published in English in Britain, the US, Australia and other English-speaking countries and it was adopted also in the Republic of China, being used in Taiwan to this day. However, it is even more complicated than that. There was a formal system of postal spelling for place names which was based not so much on the standard Chinese spoken in the north, but on various local spellings. These included Peking for the capital, based on a southern pronunciation, not a local one, but romanized Beijing in pinyin, Canton, a mistake for the province (now romanized Guangdong in pinyin) but actually applying to the provincial capital city (now romanized Guangzhou) and Hong Kong, which is still used (it would be Xianggang in pinyin, and it will be interesting to see if this becomes widespread with the changeover of sovereignty at the end of this month). The tendency has been for Wade-Giles to be replaced by pinyin in scholarly, and other work, although I understand that the Library of Congress has declined to make the changeover, and it is just possible that the British Museum Library is the same. For them, the work of changing all the cataloguing in 1979 and onwards would have been quite gigantic, much more so than other libraries. The pinyin romanization includes some features which look very strange in English, such as x is pronounced more like sh than English ks, and q before i or u is pronounced English ch, and zh is pronounced English j. So the Qing Dynasty, the last of the imperial dynasties, is pronounced like English ching. This explains why some of them look so strange for English-speaking people, and it is quite possible that it looks similar to others who speak European languages, but I'm not sure about that. Also, there is the fact that pinyin is exclusively for Modern Standard Chinese, whereas the former postal spellings are not. Beijing sounds like what local people call the city, where Peking does not, it is based on Cantonese pronunciation of the city's name. There are still some words which have not changed, and are not likely to. They include names like Sun Yat-sen and Chiang Kai-shek. Nobody in English-speaking, or other European- language-speaking countries will recognise Sun Zhongshan or Jiang Jieshi, it will just look silly. These are also based on local, southern pronunciations, not on Modern Standard Chinese, which is itself based on the pronunciation used in Beijing. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2ss] Resource for maths editing Date: Tue, 10 June 1997 From: Eddie Kent, eddie.kent@mcr1.poptel.org.uk > a good (printed) resource for maths editing? Don't bother. I am serious about this. I have a thick pile and they're all useless. Find out what is expected (from something else by the same publisher) and hope the author bothers to actually proofread. Of course it wouldn't hurt to have a Dictionary of Mathematics. Collins is Ok. I know one of the authors. He not only has a BPhil in mathematics but has taught an arts course and edited a philosophy journal. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2uu] Tautology Date: Mon, 9 June 1997 From: Mary Fox, mary@mfox.demon.co.uk Ian Kingston wrote: > I get annoyed by phrases like 'PIN number', 'ISBN number' or > 'SALT treaty', where the last letter of the abbreviation or > acronym stands for the word that follows. Strictly speaking tautology should be avoided but if the intended audience would benefit from a reminder I reckon it can be justified by our objective: to communicate. For instance in medical texts, 'HIV' (not 'the HIV') is used and understood whereas 'HIV' virus is appropriate for less technical work. By the way HIV was coined from 'human immunodeficiency virus' not 'human immunovirus' - I guess a lot of other abbreviations stem from terms that have been similarly contracted so I'd be wary of making decisions based on Ian's logic. ---------------------- Date: Mon, 9 June 1997 From: Steve Browning, steve@hiv-project.org.uk 'HIV virus' certainly does fall into the same category as 'PIN number'. Rather than 'common technical usage' it's a common mistake that many of us who work in the field spend a lot of time editing out. I suspect that one would encounter it more often in the media than in technical writing. I might add that 'HIV' does in fact stand for 'human immunodeficiency virus' and not 'human immuno-virus', which I would suggest would not mean much anyway. ----------------------- Date: Tue, 10 June 1997 From: Alison Woodhouse, 100444.315@compuserve.com Ian Kingston writes about HIV but incorrectly calls it human immunovirus. Its correct name is human immunodeficiency virus. In my experience most people refer to it just as HIV not the HIV virus. This applies to all viruses shortened to an acronym such as HSV (herpes simplex virus) in virology books and journals. Thus, we talk about 'people infected with HIV...' 'HIV-infected people' etc. ----------------------- Date: Wed, 11 June 1997 From: Andrea Cordani, andrea@nam.org.uk I think Ian Kingston is right to be concerned about the tautology of 'the HIV virus', although this expression is very commonly found. We publish a range of directories, a journal, databases and organise a monthly treatment workshops on HIV. In our resources we usually just refer to HIV, not 'the HIV virus'. Incidentally, the full name of the virus is the Human Immunodeficiency Virus, and as far as our medical panel (and our house style) is concerned, there is no hyphen. I agree that it is technically incorrect and thus irritating to have people referring to their PIN number, when 'number' is the last letter of the acronym. However, I think in fairness one has to be pragmatic: the expression was coined to be easy to remember, and there are other possible areas of misunderstanding if people were to refer to their PI number (are they Private Investigators referring to their licence?). The topic is an interesting one: PIN and SALT are memorable because they are easy to pronounce as a whole word, which is the point of them. On the other hand, I have never heard anyone in the HIV field (either lay or professional) articulate anything other than H-I-V i.e. spelling out the acronym. Nobody says HIV (to rhyme with 'spiv')! ----------------------- Date: Wed, 11 June 1997 From: Simon de Pinna, simondep@mail.nildram.co.uk Ian Kingston wrote: '...but then I considered what 'HIV' stands for ('human immunovirus') and decided that, since 'virus' doesn't appear on its own in the expanded form, it must be legitimate to say 'HIV virus'.' Sorry, Ian, but not quite. HIV stands for 'human immunodeficiency virus': the word 'virus' is not joined to any other. I am one of those people who find it irritating that commentators persist in saying 'the HIV virus' when they should use the name of the disease it causes, ie 'the AIDS virus'. It is a 'symptom' of a wider 'malaise', I think, namely the common confusion between diseases caused by bacteria and those caused by viruses. The media frequently resort to 'bug' or 'germ', whatever the pathogen concerned. ----------------------- Date: Sat, 14 June 1997 From: Moira Vekony, CharnEd@aol.com > However, somebody pulled me up short the other day over 'HIV > virus', claiming that this falls into the same category. I agree - as a virologist (and I used to work on HIV) - that HIV falls into this category. I edit/proofread for two virology journals, both of which would aviod the problem by writing 'HIV strain' or simply 'HIV'. On the other hand, in speech it is common to hear 'HIV virus' or HIV virion. My pet hate is PCR (polymerase chain reaction): I see pages of copy with PCR reaction all over it. My solution is to change it to 'PCR' or 'PCR' amplification (which is what this technique does), but then others would disaggree and leave it, to my mind, as polymerase chain reaction reactions were carried out... etc. ----------------------- Date: Sun, 15 June 1997 From: Ian Kingston, ian@ikingston.demon.co.uk Thanks to both Lourdes Maria Flores and Steve Browning for pointing out to me that 'HIV' stands for 'Human Immunodeficiency Virus', _not_ 'Human Immunovirus'. It's weird, but I used to know this - lucky I don't edit medical books these days! (Please don't transfer this thread to Faux pas of the week...) Still, as Steve says: > 'HIV virus' certainly does fall into the same category as 'PIN > number'. Rather than 'common technical usage' it's a common > mistake that many of us who work in the field spend a lot of time > editing out. I suspect that one would encounter it more often in > the media than in technical writing. What do researchers say or write? Are there any medical publications that allow the phrase? +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2vv] Proofreading/copyediting marks Date: Tue, 10 June 1997 From: Anne Waddingham, Waddingham@compuserve.com Just a snippet regarding Lauret Tipping's enquiry: I know moves are afoot to update the ISO standard for copy-editing and proofreading marks. Lesley Ward is the SFEP's representative on the international committee. I don't know how close they are to publishing, but I do know it has been going on for some years and the wheels of bureaucracy are grinding extremely slowly! ------------------------- Date: Thurs, 12 June 1997 From: Lesley Ward Here is Lesley Ward's reply to Lauret Tipping's enquiry. Lesley is the SFEP representative on the ISO committee. "There is already an ISO (5776) on proofreading standards. "The British Standard (5261 Part2) _was_ revised, and completed the draft stage during which it was open for public comment for six months. However, before it could be published, Belgium proposed that ISO 5776 be adopted as the European standard. It was not accepted (the UK considered it to be inadequate and clearly other countries agreed). However, as the issue of a European standard in this area had been raised, there now _has_ to be a European standard, either a revised ISO or a completely new European standard drawn up by a European committee. As soon as there is, it will automatically replace all the EU national standards on the subject. "So the state of play at the moment is this. The ISO is under revision (I'm on the committee) and will shortly be available as a draft for comment. When it is published, presumably Europe will reconsider it. Until then the old British Standard is still in force. But whatever happens, the revised British BS will never be published. "For an ISO, being 'in force' doesn't mean much. No nation is forced to accept it - they can just ignore it (as the Americans seem to have been doing quite happily with the current ISO). And as there is not, and is never likely to be, any national law enforcing its use (as there might be for some standards involving safety such as building standards) individuals are free to ignore it too (as with some editors who are still happily using the pre-1976 version of BS 5261 or a completely different system devised by the company they work for). "Does this mean that standards are a waste of time? I don't think so. Last time I got involved in an argument on the subject I was vociferously opposed by a lady who didn't use the BS symbols and thought they were a waste of time because in her experience typesetters _made so many mistakes anyway_. (She seemed totally disgusted by how useless they were!) It didn't seem to have occurred to her that maybe if she used the same system as everyone else the typesetters would (a) understand better what she wanted and (b) get tired less quickly and therefore make fewer silly mistakes. When I incorporate author corrections into master proofs, I am able to work more quickly and more accurately if the author understands and uses the BS symbols. Of course I manage if he/she doesn't, but I find the work slower and I have to be far more careful that I've understood what is meant - there is a much greater risk of misunderstanding. "I have no idea whether there is an American standard at present. When work on the ISO revision started, I was given copies of the relevant German and Chinese standards but no American one. There is no American involved in the ISO revision." +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2ww] Statistical format Date: Mon, 9 June 1997 From: Nick Round-Turner, Roundturn@agresearch.cri.nz Merle Read wrote: > Can anyone tell me what '1.234e-14' means in a table of statistics? > And is this format correct (i.e. roman e, closed up, hyphen)? One of my statistical colleagues advises: "I believe it means 1.234 x 10^-14 where ^ means superscript (i.e. ten to the power of -14), and has possibly been patched in directly from some output. It would be more normal in a table to write for example: Distance (x 10^14 m) 1.234 2.345 etc I don't really think it's acceptable notation as there's another 'e' that has a different meaning." ---------------------- Date: Mon, 9 June 1997 From: Ralph Hancock, hancock@dircon.co.uk It's the way Basic (or in this case probably some Basic-like routine or macro in a spreadsheet) writes '1.234 times 10 to the minus 14'. Such an unexpectedly small number may be the result of an error, and should be queried. The correct way to write it is '1.234', multiplication sign (spaced either side if that's the style), '10' and then, all closed up and all superscript, '-14' (it may be style to use a hyphen or an en dash for the minus sign). ---------------------- Date: Mon, 9 June 1997 From: Lyn Imeson, lyn@prestel.co.uk I would take this to be a number written in 'standard index form', also known as 'scientific notation'. This is a method used on scientific calculators for expressing very small or very large numbers. Usually the format is 1.234E-14 (upper case Roman E, minus, closed up). The number preceding the E is the mantissa. The number following the E is the exponent and is the power of 10 by which the mantissa is to be multiplied. Thus 1.234E-14 = 1.234 times (10 to the power -14) = 0.000 000 000 000 012 34 This question has brought to mind something that has been niggling me - why the move towards lower case, especially in the scientific community? I'm all for minimum capitals, but I've recently come across 'cartesian' and 'euclidean', isn't this taking things a bit too far? Am I being old-fashioned by changing these to 'Cartesian' and 'Euclidean'? ----------------------- Date: Tue, 10 June 1997 From: Eddie Kent, eddie.kent@mcr1.poptel.org.uk > tell me what '1.234e-14' means in a table The is known as scientific (or exponential) notation or standard form. It gives numbers in floating point form as multiples of the largest power of the base less than the given number. You can assume this base is 10 (if it were anything else you would be told) and so the example given can be read as One point two three four times ten raised to the power of minus 14. (The 'hyphen' is a minus sign.) There is usually a thin space between the number and the letter E (not e - by convention, from early computing days). Ten to the minus 14 means 1/100000000000000 which is a small number. Multiplied by 1.234 it becomes 1234/100000000000000000 which doesn't make it a lot bigger, just clumsier. So you see the notational advantage of scientific notation. To take a simple example it has been estimated that our Galaxy contains about a hundred billion stars. And by chance there are something like a hundred billion galaxies (what I was taught to call extra-galactic nebulae - but that is out of fashion now). We are talking American billions here, so this all adds up to a total of 10000000000000000000000 stars. If you miscounted there I can tell you there are 22 noughts. This can be written as 1 E 22. As Robert Morley writing to The Times last Saturday implies, if each star was a golf ball and you could dump them on to the United Kingdom, you would have to build a wall around the coast to keep them from falling into the water. How high should it be? The answer is 2000 miles; I expect that is more or less right, though he doesn't say what packing method he used. Just think, if only one in a million has planets there is still a good chance that somewhere out there some fool is sitting writing rubbish like this. ----------------------- Date: Sun, 15 June 1997 From: Ian Kingston, ian@ikingston.demon.co.uk > And is this format correct (i.e. roman e, closed up, hyphen)? You may need to consult your client - if you're trying to match the computer's output it's correct, but if you're trying to produce something for humans to read you should convert to the second form. Some tables that I've seen contain hundreds of such numbers. And since persist in supplying tables using single-spaced 6pt text, the editing can be time-consuming and difficult. The typesetter might accept a general instruction to convert. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2xx] Environment-friendly? Date: Tue, 10 June 1997 From: Barbara Shapland, nlnovbas@ibmmail.com Can anyone help me answer the following question: In a text which discusses 'experiences of new, environment-friendly heat pump working fluids' I would be inclined to change this to 'environmentally-friendly...', but I can't find any other references to check this. Anybody used the term before? +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2yy] Genus/species names in headings Date: Sun, 15 June 1997 From: Jane Kerr, bywater@zetnet.co.uk I am currently editing a book on diseases, which has some upper case headings. What I want to know is how I should deal with genus/species names such as _Vibrio cholerae_, which, of course, should be italic, with an initial cap for the genus name/l.c. species epithet, when they occur in these headings. I'm reluctant to change such names to all caps. ---[6] Just for fun -------------------------------------------------- _Faux pas_ of the week Date: Mon, 9 June 1997 From: Merle Read, ReadMA@aol.com The following copy-editing/translation challenge is taken verbatim (honest!) from a packet of tea a friend brought me back from Shanghai: Anxi oolong Tea is a treasure of in the oolng tea, it has a long history and well--known at home and abroad. it fassed our factory perenial cultivafe and plantand refine made of tradition craft come into being unique magical Lingering charm, the fragrance is sweet smell, the taste and refreshing are delicious, it possessed effect of refresh yourself and dispel the effects of alcohol, dispel summer heat and slake theirst, remove the wornment and greasy, lessen fat and beauty. Method of brew and drink: Choose the ceramics small tea-pot, passed the boiling-water with boiling hot, add oolong tea to just the right amount, then use the bolilng-water of brew tea, it's on brew at drink, it may brew 6--7 times, still has fragrance by one" Just as well I already have a fair idea how to make a cuppa, although I reckon a bit of experimentation will be in order to work out 'just the right amount' of tea. I'll let you know if prolonged indulgence does remove the wornment and lessen beauty... Meanwhile, would any Chinese specialists out there like the phone no. of the company in question so they can offer their services?! +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Date: Mon, 2 June 1997 From: John Bangsund, bangsund@g130.aone.net.au [The following is an extract from an e-mail that I sent five weeks ago to the _Australian_ newspaper. It has been auto-acknowledged but not otherwise responded to. Anyone interested in reading all 88 lines of the doggerel referred to should send me an e-mail with "Send doggerel" as the Subject line.] In _The Australian Magazine_, 26-27 April, Frank Devine writes re politicians' liking for the word "resile": The vogue for resile cannot be more than two years old and appears to be confined to Australia. I can't comment on overseas usage, but the word was certainly popular in the Federal Parliament twenty-five years ago. I was a Hansard sub-editor in 1972-75, and often heard and saw the word in that time. I referred to it in a long piece of doggerel that I published in late 1972: "What means 'resile'?" "What's OTC?" They cry, and someone's brain Yields up "Like in resilient" And "O'erhead Travelling Crane". +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Date: Mon, 2 June 1997 From: Eddie Kent, eddie.kent@mcr1.poptel.org.uk If you want some more rubbish, here is an elaborate simile I saw in a Readers Digest about 50 years ago: As imaginary as the tremendous impression he constantly behaves as though he thinks he is making. -------- Do you want some index entries? Little, Eric or Little By This pairing appeared in a reference book: Mill, John Stuart ----- On The Floss -------- After I published these in some low journal a correspondent wrote in with: Bloggs, Mr Justice; his great mind ... p. 211 And the text on p. 211 reads 'Mr Justice Bloggs said, 'I have a great mind to commit you to the assizes.' +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Re: The great mistakes, no. 3 Date: Sun, 8 June 1997 From: Hilary Powers, 72120.1324@compuserve.com Re the catch on the back cover of David Baldacci's bestseller "Absolute Power", which refers to a burglar watching a through a "two-way" mirror that has been called a "one-way" mirror through the text... It was indeed an editing problem to have the two different terms in use. But at least in the United States, "two-way mirror" is the usual name for such an item - so called because from one way it's a mirror and from the other it's a window. I raised the question on Copyediting-L (an unmoderated editorial discussion group; great stuff if you don't mind half a dozen 20K digests a day) awhile back. The overwhelming consensus was to leave the author's two-way mirror alone. Maybe the cover copywriter was working from the original, and the copyeditor changed the text? +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Re: Worst analogies Date: Wed, 11 June 1997 From: Mandy MacDonald, 100754.3643@compuserve.com Not strictly speaking a 'worst analogy ever ...', but a common phrase over which I've puzzled from time to time: 'That joke went down like a lead balloon' -- meaning that the joke went down extremely badly. But a lead balloon goes _down_ extremely well -- going up is where it falls down, if you see my point. Shouldn't the phrase be, therefore, something like 'That joke went down like a helium balloon'? +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Date: Mon, 9 June 1997 From: Simon Cauchi, cauchi@wave.co.nz I enjoyed Joy McKellen's "If it ain't baroque, don't fix it", but what does it mean? And what can we do to stamp out the erroneous pronunciation? "Baroque" rhymes with ROCK, not BROKE. ---[7] Administration ------------------------------------------------ EDline provides the opportunity for a weekly online discussion of matters editorial and editorial business. * POSTING MESSAGES TO THE LIST All messages to be posted to the list should be sent to Jane Kerr, at: bywater@zetnet.co.uk Include as the subject line, "EDline [topic]", where [topic] is the subject under discussion. Topics might include areas such as Grammar, Spelling, American English or Punctuation. Messages should be pertinent to the basic premise of the list; they may be withheld, or redirected if more pertinent to one of the other mailing lists. The spelling and grammar of messages will *not* be corrected, but some editing of length may be undertaken. Quoting from previous messages: quote as much as you need to make the context of your reply clear, but no more. * Administration All messages of a subscription or administrative nature should be directed to Iain Brown at: i_brown@compuserve.com with "EDline ADMIN" in the subject line. * To subscribe to Grapevine To subscribe to Grapevine, the discussion list concerned with matters computing, please e-mail Electric Editors at: ElectricEds@bigfoot.com with [Subscribe Grapevine] in the subject line. * To subscribe to LANGline To subscribe to LANGline, which discusses modern languages, translation and editing in non-English languages, please e-mail Electric Editors at: ElectricEds@bigfoot.com with [Subscribe LANGline] in the subject line. *Homepage and back issues: Visit the Electric Editors at: < http://www.ikingston.demon.co.uk/ee/home.htm > Back issues of all three mailing lists are available on the Mailing Lists archive page. --------- ** The views expressed in this mailing list are strictly those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the moderators or of the Electric Editors. ** Articles (c) 1997, by individual contributors Design (c) 1996, 1997 Iain Brown =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= END OF EDline 2.24 Next issue: 22 June 1997 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=