=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= EDline Vol. 2, no. 37 (14 September 1997) Editorial mailing list Published by the Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Contents: Q & A---Previous queries [2as] Commas in thousands [Was: [3aq] "Penguin Guide"] [2au] Program to manage editorial tasks? [2av] Beginners' books and courses [2aw] Optimum/optimal Q & A---New queries [2ay] Arabic names in reference lists [2az] Variant spellings in reference lists [2ba] Idle curiosity Business matters---Previous thread [4y] Jury service Business matters---New query [4aa] Rates for testing/proofreading software [6] Just for fun [8] Administration =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ---[2] Q & A --------------------------------------------------------- ** [2as] Commas in thousands [Was: [3aq] "Penguin Guide"] Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 From: Adriana Morris, 101607.3134@compuserve.com I have an added motive to use the thin space as a thousands divider, as it's to easy to make mistakes when translating both into and from English. I was disappointed to see that the sum function for table columns in Word (8 in my case, but I think the same goes for the 6 and 7 versions) no longer works [if you use spaces as thousands dividers]. The sum function is an easy way of "proofreading" a large list of numbers, so they don't have to be checked individually (only if they are correct). Is there an easy way round this[...]? --------------------- Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 From: Josephine Bacon, 100270.3224@compuserve.com I stand corrected. I have seen the absence of commas in computer books, but assumed this is because they were translations. I do not edit many scientific texts that is not my forte, though I work in certain areas of science, such as food chemistry, especially for translations. However, one rarely gets these huge numbers in food chemistry. As for commas and decimal points being confusing, I beg to disagree. However, I cringe when I see a comma used instead of a decimal point in advertising which has clearly been clumsily translated into English. The Swedish fashion firm, Hennes, did this recently, when they prominently displayed a price on one of their adverts in the underground. ---------------------- Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 From: Merle Read, ReadMA@aol.com Just to add to the commas in thousands discussion: the CBE manual on scientific style and format files this under 'incorrect and unnecessary uses' of the comma. On p. 196: In numbers of more than 4 digits, British and American practice has been to mark off groups of 3 digits ... with commas. In the European convention [ISO 31-0 (E)], however, the comma serves as the decimal point, and periods or spaces are used to group the digits of large numbers... To prevent confusion in an international readership, thin spaces should be used [with some exceptions, such as patent numbers]. This would seem to be one of those instances where convention must be sacrificed to ensure there is no ambiguity, at least in scientific if not in more general publications. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2au] Program to manage editorial tasks? Date: Thur, 11 Sep 1997 From: Gabriela Tenner, getenner@mail.retina.ar Jane kindly wrote: > I'm only guessing here, but if Gabriela simply wants to keep > track of what's been done/what needs to be done on each of her > jobs, she could simply design a form or checklist in any word > processor or spreadsheet program. Then it would simply be a > matter of having the self-discipline to fill it in and refer > to it when necessary. Well, I'm thinking about something more "friendly" and complete. It would be interesting that the information I introduce be part of a data base, for example. Besides, and here I go with what Martin Yeo writes, > Gabriela needs to specify the tasks that she wants to do before > assessing whether any system (electronic or otherwise) can assist! the tasks I want to do refers to the whole process of editorial production -or as people say here (and I dislike very much) the pre-press tasks- and COSTS: copy editing, design, proofreading, cover design, etc. etc.; and data about the publication itself as: author, schedules, manuscript's number of pages, final number of pages, etc. etc. (I beg you pardon, but my vocabulary!!) So I would be very thankful if you keep thinking. Oh, and what happens with the question WHY DO WE DO WHAT WE DO (in the editing world, of course)? I mean, didn't anybody read Gioia's article about poetry? [Bookmark in EDline 2.36] +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2av] Beginners' books and courses Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 From: Robin Faichney, r.j.faichney@stir.ac.uk Thanks very much to all those who responded so helpfully to my original query. But I now feel a little despondent at Gillian Clarke's remark: "...lack of in-house experience is a great obstacle to getting a toe in the door of freelance editorial work." I wonder whether anyone would like to qualify this. Regarding my own personal position, I have a fair amount of what I consider to be relevant experience, preparing academic books and articles for publication, as a Research Associate/Fellow in computer science and environmental economics. My total full-time postgraduate level research experience, involving more than a little writing and editing for publication, adds to more than 8 years. Won't that help? +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2aw] Optimum/optimal Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 From: Fiona Dix, fiona@hiraeth.com Jane Kerr wrote: > Has anyone any comments to make on the usage of optimum and > optimal, particularly in scientific contexts? My husband, who is a mathematician, says he would always use optimum as a noun and optimal as an adjective - "the optimal value", but "the value is at its optimum". He would never say "the optimum value". Values can also be sub-optimal, meaning they could be better (!) He also uses the verb, "optimize", which *isn't* in the Shorter Oxford, in the context of mathematical problem solving, looking for the best solution. For example, how to colour a map using the fewest possible colours is an optimization problem. Optimality is the state of having reached the best solution. I've also come across this in economics, in the term "Pareto optimality", which "exist[s] when the distribution of economics welfare cannot be improved for one individual without reducing that of another" (Concise Oxford Dictionary of Sociology). --------------------- Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 From: Norman Grossblatt, NGrossbl@nas.edu I try to restrict "optimum" to noun uses and "optimal" to adjectival uses, on the grounds that if both forms exist (and they have for quite some time), I might as well use them. Likewise with "maximum/maximal" and "minimum/minimal". My authors, who rarely use any of the "-al" forms, object to them about half the time, but I don't know why. To make things worse (in my opinion), a number of official designations use the "-um" form where I would have chosen "-al", such as "maximum permissible concentration" and "maximum available control technology". --------------------- Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 From: Kathy Ono, Kathy_Ono@classic.msn.com Would it be too American to suggest that optimum be used as the noun and optimal as the adjective in scientific writing? Scientific writing has, after all, different values and objectives than fiction or poetry. It is also read by a lot of non-native speakers who don't necessarily get all the nuances. ---------------------- Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 From: Joy Burrough, burrough@wnet.bos.nl I was confronted with a similar problem recently. A Dutch author wanted to know which was the correct adjectival form: "optimum" or "optimal". In Dutch, the adjective is "optimaal", and if you look up "optimaal" in the big Dutch-English Van Dale Dictionary, you will find that "optimum" is given as the translation, but the single example of usage is "optimal/optimum effect/action" - which is confusing! The raft of British and American dictionaries I consulted were of little help on the distinction between the two words.(_Collins Cobuild_ doesn't even list "optimal".) But _The New Fowler's Modern English Usage_ (ed. R. Burchfield, OUP 1996) - the much-needed revision of the 70-year-old Fowler Jane consulted - was helpful. It says that "optimum" and "optimal" are used interchangeably nowadays (and it gives examples). My Dutch author had been trying to apply the rule that an adjective ends in "-al" (e.g. farce (noun) , farcical (adjective)). As Burchfield points out, this doesn't apply to current usage of optimum/al. The noun is always "optimum". Incidentally, my Dutch scientists often use the verb "to optimalize" when they mean "to optimize". This is because the verb is "optimaliseren" in Dutch. My author also wanted chapter and verse on the difference between "minimum/minimal" and "maximum/maximal". I searched the _Shorter OED_, Webster, Collins, Longman, _Cambridge International Dictionary of English_ _Oxford Dictionary for Scientific Writers and Editors_, _Longman Dictionary of Scientific Usage_and _Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture_. Most don't even mention the possible existence of "maximal" and "minimal". The _Cambridge International Dictionary of English_ gives both, but doesn't explain how they differ from the "-um" forms. It was the _Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture_ that defined the two terms (and confirmed the meaning I'd attributed to them from my reading of science texts). "Maximal" means "the greatest possible" and "minimal" means "the smallest possible". So in this case, the "-um" and "-al" forms enable a useful distinction to be made; for example, between the smallest value measured in a particular experiment and the smallest value that is hypothetically possible. Bearing this subtle "-um" versus "-al" distinction in mind and looking again at "optimum/al" as used by scientists and as defined in the _Shorter OED_ it's possible to discern a subtle distinction between "optimal" = the theoretically possible best and "optimum" = the best possible under the circumstances. But I think this is a case of the editor having to ask the author, before wading in to change anything. Given the interchangeability op "optimum/al" in common speech (see Burchfield), it's not worth making too much of a fuss. ---------------------- Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 From: Jane Kerr, bywater@zetnet.co.uk Thanks to all - including Chuck Hollingworth, who phoned me on this subject - for the helpful advice. I'm happy to note that you all agree on the noun/adjective distinction! +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2ay] Arabic names in reference lists Date: Thur, 11 Sep 1997 From: Lionel Browne, Lionel_Browne@sand-con.demon.co.uk I am currently editing a journal article written - in faultless English - by an Arabic author. I am not entirely sure how to handle the list of references, which contains a mixture of Arabic and non-Arabic citations. CMS14 is quite explicit on alphabetization, and on how to handle the Arabic definite article, _al_. What it does not tell me is whether I have to leave the cited authors' names in full, or whether I can abbreviate them to initials (which is the journal's style). Butcher 3 and CBE6 also appear to be silent on this point. I would be grateful for advice on how to handle these Arabic names. Please reply direct by email as well as posting to EDline, please; I am on a deadline! Some of the names already contain initials. For example: Abdulfattah, Kamal Al Hamdani, Abu Muhammad al-Hassan ibn Ahmad ibn Ya^cqub ibn Yusuf ibn Dawud Al-Zolfah, Mohammad A. Hakim, Besim S. Ismail, Adel A. [The ^c is my ASCII version of a superscript letter c, which in its turn is an accepted representation of the Arabic _ayn_ (CMS) or _ain_ (Butcher).] +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2az] Variant spellings in reference lists Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 From: Jane Kerr, bywater@zetnet.co.uk How do you cope with alternative spellings of the same author's name in an alphabetical bibliography? A book that I worked on recently contained several references by an author called Ro"mbke (i.e. the "o" has a diaeresis, in the LANGline convention), but in one case, in a reference co-authored by Ro"mbke and someone else, his name was spelt Roembke. I queried this with the authors, who informed me that in the original source, the name was spelt in this way (probably because the publication was unable to produce the accented character!). Now, the problem is that the Roembke and Bloggs reference appeared in the bibliography *before* all of the Ro"mbke references, although by rights it ought to have followed them. The question of consistency also arose within the text of the book, because the authors discussed several of R.'s works within the same few paragraphs, and it seemed a little odd to have two different spellings of what was clearly the same author's name so close together. I was tempted to "normalise" the aberrant spelling to Ro"mbke, but thought this might lead to problems with citations indexes, and cause frustration for readers if they attempt to chase up this particular reference. (A quick experimental search on COPAC found two references for "Rombke" (i.e. with no accent, since it's impossible to type one in the search box) and none for "Roembke"; Socrates gave me a reference by a totally different author, whose name was spelt "Re/ombke" (i.e. with an acute accent on the first "e"), in response to a search on "Rombke" and, again, nothing for Roembke.) Any suggestions? +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2ba] Idle curiosity Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 From: Merle Read, ReadMA@aol.com Alex Salmond wrote in the Herald recently: life peers are largely a mixture of has-beens and have-never- beens Now, should that not be 'has-beens and has-never-beens' or 'the have-been and have-never-been'? Or what about 'have-beens and have-never-beens'? None* really sounds right. Don't have much argument with the sentiment, mind you. *which brings me to another point. I was taught that 'none' [= 'not one'] should take a singular verb, but Fowler (1st ed.) says 'it is a mistake to suppose that the pronoun is sing. only and must at all costs be followed by sing. verbs...' Is there an accepted 'rule' on this? Does it matter? ---[4] Business matters ---------------------------------------------- ** [4y] Jury service Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 From: Corinne Orde, 106330.1445@compuserve.com Martyn Yeo wrote: > I assume that Corinne has deducted what she earned reading > proofs in the waiting room from the compensation she has claimed, > and that she believes her clients got good value for money > having their proofs read in such an environment! Mr Yeo is lucky if he has never had to work on proofs in a noisy office when the phones are ringing and fellow staff are talking. A conscientious proofreader should be able to make the distinction between tasks that require total silence and tasks that can be done in a noisier environment. Furthermore, there were long stretches during my time in the jury waiting-room when it was blissfully quiet. As for deducting the money earned reading proofs, that argument does not enter into the equation since I am getting a flat fee for the job, regardless of when I do it. The only thing I shall have 'earned' is time (i.e. if I am lucky I will hand the job in one week late instead of two). I had to turn down work while I was on jury service, and that, in my view and that of my accountant, is what I am being compensated for. Mr Yeo claims not to earn enough to employ an accountant. Not to employ one could be a false economy. My accountant's (very reasonable) fees are more than offset by the extra allowable expenses against tax and financial advice he has been able to secure for me by dint of his expertise. He has even passed some work my way! --------------------- Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 From: Sarah Barrett, westowe@dircon.co.uk Following Corinne Orde's remarks on jury service, Martin Yeo wrote (a little sanctimoniously, I thought): > I assume that Corinne has deducted what she earned reading > proofs in the waiting room from the compensation she has > claimed, and that she believes her clients got good value for > money having their proofs read in such an environment! I have been known to work in a (parked) car, on a train, in a hotel room ... Obviously I prefer the comforts and resources of my own office, but there are times when a commitment or a crisis intrudes on my work schedule. On these occasions I just put some work in a bag and take it with me. I wouldn't attempt to work on a very complicated book in this al fresco way; but - like Corinne, I imagine - I think the work I do on these occasions is up to my normal standard. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [4aa] Rates for testing/proofreading software Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 From: Kati Hamza, The_Word_Factory@compuserve.com This is partly an editorial query, partly a computing one. I'm occasionally asked to proofread and test CD-ROM software. Does anyone have a sense of what the 'going rate' might be? [We had a similar query recently, which went unanswered. Surely someone out there has done this type of work? If so, please send a reply. If you're coy about revealing your fees, I will treat your message in confidence and publish it anonymously. JK] ---[6] Just for fun -------------------------------------------------- "Worst analogies ever written in a high school essay", no. 18 His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free. [We realise that this series has now lost all credibility, but we thought you wouldn't want to miss this one!] ---[8] 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 either Jane Kerr, at: bywater@zetnet.co.uk or Iain Brown, at: i_brown@compuserve.com 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 2.37 Next issue: 21 September 1997 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=