=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= EDline Vol. 3, no. 28 (12 July 1998) Editorial mailing list Published by the Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Contents: Q & A---previous queries [2dy] On the subject of the word 'data' [2ei] Use of initials [2ej] Jargon and symbols Q & A---unanswered query [2eh] Usage---fine-grained sand, etc Q & A---new queries [2ek] More jargon [2el] Plurals FYI [3cq] The Impact of Electronic Publishing: free online book Business matters---previous posting [4ax] Tracing out of print books Business matters---new postings [*** SEE EDLINE 3.28s ***] [4ay] Position available: editor/writer [4az] Positions available: new media editors [5] Bookmarks [6] Just for fun [8] Administration =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ---[2] Q & A --------------------------------------------------------- ** [2dy] On the subject of the word 'data' Date: Tues, 7 July 1998 From: Lane Lester, llester@athens.net Miles Markus said about the U.S.: > They also talk about "pant" for "pants". I.e. in the US, this can > refer to trousers, not necessarily to the heavy breathing kind of > "pant". Come to think of it, it is indeed a single item of clothing > that is worn. One at a time. Except, perhaps, on a particularly > cold day in mid-winter. In defense of my countryfolk, we do say "math," but we =don't= say "pant" to refer to any piece of clothing. I suppose the "math" is singular because it refers to the single academic subject, but "pants" is an abbreviation of the expression "pair of pants." +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2eh] Usage---fine-grained sand, etc Date: Mon, 29 June 1998 From: Roger Jones, Publishing@rjpc.demon.co.uk Why "fine-grained sand" and "three-storeyed house", and not "fine-grain sand" and "three-storey house"? And is a "four-leafed clover" luckier than a "four-leaf clover"? +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2ei] Use of initials Date: Sun, 5 July 1998 From: David Ibbetson, ibbetson@idirect.com Robyn de Jong-Dalziel writes > Can anyone shed any light on an alleged English convention which > states that the names of people with only one initial should be > written in full whereas those with two or more initials may be > written with initials. > > I have never heard of any such rule but the (Dutch) author of a > text I am editing insists that this is what she was taught when > learning English at the university here. The rule is news to me > I would prefer the way the person signs his name. If I didn't > know I'c be guided by euphony, which tends to be personal, so > shouldn't be recommended. > > The question has arisen in the context of a guide to Dutch > museums. Each museum is represented by a very brief list of > details one of which is the name of the director. Incidentally, > one of the directors is a 'baron'. I have the feeling that it's > 'not done' to include such titles. What do you think? I would prefer to list only relevant academic titles. But some institutions have "big names" in such posts because "big names" are thought to be better at persuading people to give/bequeath money to the institution. In such a case I'd keep the title. ---------------------- Date: Sun, 5 July 1998 From: Simon Cauchi, cauchi@wave.co.nz The English custom is certainly to write "William Brook" or "W. G. Brook", not "William G. Brook" as the Americans do, even though his given names may be "William George". I was born and bred in England, and write my name variously as "S. J. Cauchi" (on cheques and other documents requiring a signature) or "Simon Cauchi" (in other contexts), but never "Simon J. Cauchi", although my given names are "Simon John". I don't know about the title "baron", but would be inclined to leave it in. The Netherlands is still a monarchy, after all, and such titles are presumably still recognised officially. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2ej] Jargon and symbols Date: Sun, 5 July 1998 From: David Ibbetson, ibbetson@idirect.com Jane Kerr writes > So, my question: the word for "that which may be differentiated" > - is it "differentiable" or (the equally ugly) "differentiatable"? If we're talking mathematics I'd use the shorter form "differentiable", which I think I have met in print and heard in lectures. David the ibid who fears that his memory is failing ---------------------- Date: Sun, 5 July 1998 From: Ian Kingston, ian@ikingston.demon.co.uk Jane Kerr wrote: > I always regard it as a bad sign when a manuscript includes the > words "paradigm" and "contextualise" on the very first page. It > looks set to be a long cold summer, since there are 999 equally > jargon-ridden pages following this one. > > So, my question: the word for "that which may be differentiated" > - is it "differentiable" or (the equally ugly) "differentiatable"? If it's maths we're talking about (and since Kurt Gödel is involved it probably is), then 'differentiable' is definitely the word. > Authors who love jargon also - apparently - love keyboard- > challenging symbols. So does anyone happen to know the name of a > symbol that looks rather like a "continental" number 7 (I feel > another lengthy discussion coming on here), written by someone who > is slightly the worse for wear? > > The context - in case it helps - is a quotation from a 1931 book by > Kurt Gödel saying "... any formal system [7] that can be finitely > describable, consistent, and strong enough to prove the basic facts > about elementary arithmetic: [7] is incomplete, and cannot prove > its own consistency", where [7] stands for the elusive symbol. That's Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem. I can't find this particular statement of it, but in another quotation from Gödel I found a lower-case Greek kappa used to denote a formal system. Does that look like your symbol? (Everybody refers to this theorem, but no one seems to quote Gödel directly. The original is in German, of course, but it *is* a famous and fundamental piece of mathematics!) ---------------------- Date: Mon, 6 July 1998 From: Kathleen Lyle, Kathleen@klyle.demon.co.uk In maths (where it's a common technical term) it's "differentiable" ---------------------- Date: Mon, 6 July 1998 From: Jenny Roberts, jennyroberts@compuserve.com Re Jane Kerr's questions about 'differentiable' and the odd symbol looking like a 'continental' 7. First, 'differentiable' is standard noun meaning 'able to be differentiated' and is very commonly used and quite accepted among mathematicians, logicians etc As to the mysterious symbol, I looked through a book on Godel's proof in vain and haven't got the actual original Godel work. But the mathematician/logician of the family suggests that it might be a capital F in German blackletter script, standing for 'any formal system' (as 'formal' is the same in German). Anyway, unless this is a very technical logic textbook readers will be puzzled too, so I'd query it with the author. ----------------------- Date: Tues, 7 July 1998 From: Eddie Kent, eddie.kent@mcr1.poptel.org.uk That which may be differentiated is differentiable, in the same way that that which may be seen is visible and not visionable, or that which is capable of undergoing fission is fissible and not fissionable, as I have seen many times in American texts. Godel used the symbols S and Z. S is any general system. Z is a system made consistent and sufficiently strong by appending the Peano axioms. What he proved was that if S contains Z then S (and therefore Z) is incomplete. Have a close look. A capital italic Z in some fonts could look like a french 7. ----------------------- Date: Tues, 7 July 1998 From: Naomi Laredo, naomi@smallprt.demon.co.uk Jane Kerr asked: > So, my question: the word for "that which may be differentiated" > - is it "differentiable" or (the equally ugly) "differentiatable"? If you must use a technical-sounding term, *please* make it "differentiable". This is defined in Collins Englis Dictionary as "1. capable of being differentiated; 2. _Maths_ possessing a derivative". "Differentiatable" is a quite unjustified back-formation from the verb. If plain English is OK I'd settle for "distinct" or "distinguishable". If you can write around it, how about using the Collins definition 1, or "capable of differentiation"? ----------------------- Date: Tues, 7 July 1998 From: C. Douglas Meekison, dmeekison@aspects.net Jane Kerr asked about the word for "that which may be differentiated". If this is in a mathematical context (as the last part of her message suggests), the word is almost certainly "differentiable"; I've never come across "differentiatable". The mysterious symbol [7] in "... any formal system [7] ..." is probably a script capital F. Mathematicians and mathematical physicists seem to be rather fond of using script capitals, in my experience. ---------------------- Date: Wed, 8 July 1998 From: Andrew Wyllie, andwyllie@compuserve.com On purely aesthetic grounds, surely "differentiable" rather than "differentiatable". I've been trying to think of any decent etymological grounds for this, but can't come up with a good parallel. As a long shot ­ very different etymologically, but echoing the sound, at least ­ "separate/separable". I've tried substantiate/substantiable et al, but I'm really not at all sure... If it remains intransigent, would the context bear "distinguishable" instead? ---------------------- Date: Fri, 10 July 1998 From: Sheila Chatten, SChatten@binary.demon.co.uk Jane Kerr wanted a name for a tipsy-looking continental number seven. The character sounds like an italic script capital F. Maths books containing stuff about logic and sets sometimes use these script style capitals to denote certain expressions or relationships. However, my (recently bought - and surprisingly interesting) copy of the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy just uses an ordinary italic cap S for Godels's first incompleteness theorem which "states that for any consistent logical system S able to express arithmetic there must exist sentences that are true in the standard interpretation of S, but not provable". +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2ek] More jargon Date: Wed, 9 July 1998 From: Jane Kerr, bywater@zetnet.co.uk You EDliners did so well answering my previous jargon-related queries (many thanks to all who contributed, BTW), so I thought I'd give you another shot, with medical jargon this time. 1. In UK English, is "tumourigenesis" correct, or should it be "tumorigenesis"? I've copy-edited so many medical books with US spelling now that the first version just doesn't look right! 2. Has anyone ever come across the word "negentropy" (meaning, presumably, the opposite of entropy, if such a thing is possible). Is it a legitimate term? +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2el] Plurals Date: Wed, 9 July 1998 From: Jane Kerr, bywater@zetnet.co.uk One coup d'etat, two ... coup d'etats, coups d'etat? Logic would demand the latter, I suppose, but logic doesn't always come into it. What do you think? ---[3] FYI ----------------------------------------------------------- ** [3cq] The Impact of Electronic Publishing: free online book Date: Tues, 7 July 1998 From: Adam Marshall, adamm@portlandpress.co.uk The Impact of Electronic Publishing on the Academic Community - available free online The Proceedings of the International Workshop organized by Academia Europaea and the Wenner-Gren Foundation which took place in April 1997 is now freely available online. < http://tiepac.portlandpress.co.uk/tiepac.htm > In The Impact of Electronic Publishing on the Academic Community experts from a wide variety of backgrounds discuss the plans for implementing electronic publishing in their specific subject areas. Topics covered include: * The present situation and the likely future * Legal and political issues * The content and quality of academic communication * Social and cultural issues * Digital libraries and archiving of electronic information * Access to scientific data repositories The online version of this book is fully searchable with links from the text to references and hot links to other web sites and e-mail addresses. There is a complete list of contributors and participants of the Workshop including contact details. Portland Press Ltd is the not-for-profit publishing subsidiary of the Biochemical Society. ---[4] Business matters ---------------------------------------------- ** [4ax] Tracing out of print books Date: Sun, 5 July 1998 From: Ian Kingston, ian@ikingston.demon.co.uk Chuck Hollingworth wrote: > Where can I lay my hands on about six copies of an out-of-print > book for crossword compilers, which I need for teaching in > October: > > Marshall, Evelyn (1988 and new edition in 1996 or so) _Longman > Crossword Key._ Harlow, Essex: Longman. ISBN 0 582 03782 4 (pbk). > > I know about BookLook in the USA. Can anyone suggest a likely > source in the UK? Maybe a specialist shop for puzzle fiends? The Internet Bookshop < http://www.bookshop.co.uk/ > once tracked down an O/P title for me. I'm not sure that they still offer the service (it was 18 months ago), but you could try them or one of the other online booksellers. ----------------------- Date: Tues, 7 July 1998 From: Eddie Kent, eddie.kent@mcr1.poptel.org.uk I don't know if they want me to say this, but Waterstones are very good. They will hunt around until they find what you asked for, then contact you with the price. ----------------------- Date: Sat, 11 July 1998 From: Jane Kerr, bywater@zetnet.co.uk Chuck Hollingworth asked about tracing out of print books in the UK. Bookdata specialises in information on out of print titles, and produces a CD-ROM on the subject, covering second hand and antiquarian books. They have a web site at: < http://www.bookdata.co.uk > Good luck! +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** See EDline 3.28s for the following two postings: [4ay] Position available: editor/writer [4az] Positions available: new media editors ---[5] Bookmarks ----------------------------------------------------- Date: Thurs, 9 July 1998 From: John Halliday, halliday@thenet.co.uk Society of Indexers I am pleased to be able to tell you that the Society of Indexers' web site is now on line at the following URL: < http://www.socind.demon.co.uk/ > Webmasters for sites related to the activities of the Society are cordially invited to link to the site. ---[6] Just for fun -------------------------------------------------- "Lines from the slushpile", no. 42 There was an "evil hint in the air," as a professional writer might put it. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ "Beguiling ideas about science", no. 13 There is a tremendous weight pushing down on the center of the Earth because of so much population stomping around up there these days. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ On the importance of the apostrophe Date: Tues, 8 July 1998 From: Jane Kerr, bywater@zetnet.co.uk A railway station, north of Oxford. Much renovation work in progress, as evidenced by the temporary hoardings, machinery and cabling lying around, although, at present, no sign of activity. A (perhaps honest) sign proclaims proudly: Railtrack: were working on your station ---[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 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. The sections of EDline are as follows: [2] Q & A -- questions and answers [3] FYI -- items of general interest [4] Business matters -- items of a business nature [5] Bookmarks -- useful Web pages [6] Just for fun -- time for letting hair down! [7] Miscellaneous -- odds and sods * Administration All messages of a subscription or administrative nature should be directed to Jane Kerr, at: bywater@zetnet.co.uk 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) 1998, by individual contributors Design (c) 1996, 1997, Iain Brown Compilation (c) 1998, The Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= END OF EDline 3.28 Next issue: 19 July 1998 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=