=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= EDline Vol. 3, no. 46 (15 November 1998) Editorial mailing list Published by the Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Contents: Q & A---previous queries [2fg] Adjectives in US English [2ft] Capitalising Spanish characters [2fu] Bookseller: French, German, or European editions [2fv] Saints [2fw] Trends in quotation marks Q & A---new query [2fx] Missing information FYI [3dk] Trademarks as dictionary entries Business matters---previous postings [4bq] E-mail charges [4br] Seminar leaders wanted Business matters---new postings [4bs] Doors as desks [4bt] Rates of pay [5] Bookmarks [6] Just for fun [8] Administration =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ---[2] Q & A -------------------------------------------------- ** [2fg] Adjectives in US English Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 From: Josephine Bacon, bacon@langservice.com Jane Kerr wrote: > A footnote to the -al/no -al thread: one of my (American) > authors styles himself "Professor of Urologic Oncology", and > gives his department as "Urological Surgery". There's a box of > chocolates in it for anyone who can satisfactorily explain > this distinction! Not all urological surgery is performed on cancer patients. For instance, not all prostate glands need to be removed due to carcinoma. The detection of cancer, at the early stages, is highly specialised so there is a distinction between urological oncology and urinary surgery. ---------------------- Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 From: Cass Peterson, cpete@nb.net It might not be his choice. Departments are not named by professors. Sometimes even professors are not named by professors. Maybe *he* should get the chocolates. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2ft] Capitalising Spanish characters Date: Thurs, 12 Nov 1998 From: Simon Cauchi, cauchi@wave.co.nz Mandy Macdonald wrote: > ... In the Anglophone countries index entries usually begin > with the prefix (Butcher cites De Quincey), but can be counted > in the alphabetical order under the inital letter of the > 'main' element of the name. ... I haven't been able to consult your source, the 1979 edn of Butcher, but I find this suggestion very puzzling. Indeed, I'm not sure if I've understood it properly. "De Quincey, Thomas" is placed among the Ds, not the Qs, in the five reference books on my shelf which include him. Are you saying the index heading "De Quincey, Thomas" can be placed among the Qs, or alternatively that the heading should be "Quincey, Thomas de", also among the Qs? Either choice would be most unusual, and I find it hard to believe that Butcher makes such a recommendation. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2fu] Bookseller: French, German, or European editions Date: Sat, 11 Nov 1998 From: Josephine Bacon, INTERNET:bacon@langservice.com Patricia Benet wrote: > Can anyone identify and name any publications similar to the > UK's _Bookseller_ that exist in Germany, France or on a > European level? France has Livres Hebdo, which is also on the Web. ---------------------- Date: Sat, 11 Nov 1998 From: Iain Brown, i_brown@compuserve.com Is the _European Bookseller_ still being published? +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2fv] Saints Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 From: Sven Wair, svwa@globalnet.co.uk Eddie Kent wrote: > Hart, as well as most commentators, recommends that street is > abbreviated to st. whereas saint becomes st (without a dot) > because st. is an abbreviation and st is a contraction. This > makes good sense. > > How, then, should one write the name of Lindbergh's aeroplane? > A glance at a photograph of the machine shows that the name is > painted on as 'Spirit of St. Louis'. Perhaps one should insert > an editorial [sic] after 'st.'. St. with a full stop (period) is correct in American English; the Americans apparently don't believe in contractions. So, with 'Spirit of St. Louis' being an American plane, a [sic] would be inappropriate (Louis is probably pronounced 'Lewis', by the way). I've just this day finished working on a book by an American author on Joan of Arc. It was full of Sts. The publisher is British, but as the author hadn't followed their house style it was decided that I should let everything American stay in. It's amazing how much difference there is. I also used the Chicago Manual of Style for the first time. It's quite a daunting book. You could probably fit ten Hart's into it. ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 12 Nov 1998 From: Roger Jones, Roger.Jones@rjpc.demon.co.uk Eddie Kent wrote "Hart, as well as most commentators, recommends that street is abbreviated to st. whereas saint becomes st (without a dot) because st. is an abbreviation and st is a contraction. This makes good sense." But why shouldn't "st" be regarded as a contraction of "street", since it uses the first and last letters of the word? +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2fw] Trends in quotation marks Date: Thurs, 12 Nov 1998 From: Roger Jones, Roger.Jones@rjpc.demon.co.uk Joy Burrough wrote: > It used to be that the default quotation marks in British > English were single, but in US English they were double. I now > see double quotation marks being used in various British > publications, so I'd be interested to hear from copyeditors > working in the UK to what extent they think this is the thin end > of the wedge. Are single quotation marks becoming unfashionable? I use double, and single within double, mainly because I have always been involved with books whose market is international, of which North America is often half or more. I like the Dutch use of single marks to indicate something different from double, but fear it is a step too far because of the primary need to identify quotes within quotes. That is, I suspect it would confuse most readers, and that's good enough for me to refrain from adopting it. ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 12 Nov 1998 From: Jane Lyle, jlyle@indiana.edu Joy Burrough wrote: > I was so confused by Michael Quinion's use of the two types of > mark in his otherwise excellent WORLD WIDE WORDS that I wrote > to him to ask what he was up to. This resulted in him > abandoning the use of " " to indicate italics, in favour of > underlines. But his use of quotation marks remains > idiosyncratic, and is incomprehensible to me. Here's an > example, in which he explains the word CACOGRAPHY: > > > We should use this word more, it's too useful and relevant to > > let it fade away. It derives from the Greek 'graphos', > > "writing", prefixed with 'kakos', "bad". We're more familiar > > with this as the beginning of 'cacophony', "bad noises"; > > despite the association of ideas, it has nothing to do with > > our 'cack-handed', which derives from Old English 'cack', > > "excrement". When 'cacography' began to appear in English at > > the end of the sixteenth century it did so with the sense of > > "bad spelling". It was beginning to be thought that the old > > way of spelling words by personal preference ought to give > > way to a standardised system; the introduction of printing had > > a lot to do with this. So 'cacography' was seen as the > > opposite of 'orthography', "correct spelling". In the following > > century it was also used to mean bad handwriting, as the > > opposite of yet a third Greek word, 'calligraphy', "fine > > writing". The word is marked as archaic in my dictionaries, > > though it still turns up from time to time. A typical usage > > was that by the horror writer H P Lovecraft, who described the > > manuscript of his novel _Quebeck_ as "136 pages of crabbed > > cacography" (in reference presumably to the handwriting rather > > than the spelling). Someone who exhibits either failing is a > > 'cacographer'. It seems to me that he is making a clear distinction between "words treated as words," for which he uses single quotes, and senses/definitions of words, for which he uses double quotes. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2fx] Missing information Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 From: John Champness, jhchampness@ozemail.com.au Can anyone inform me of the origin and meaning of the word 'noology'? I found it in an Israeli dictionary but nowhere else! ---[3] FYI ----------------------------------------------------- ** [3dk] Trademarks as dictionary entries Date: Thurs, 5 Nov 1998 From: Helen Moore, hmoore@deakin.edu.au [Moderator's note: A further cross-posting from Editorial-L (Australia) regarding the earlier thread on the Macquarie dictionary.---IDB] I thought you all might be interested in Susan Butler's further comments re the Big Mac. > I thought rather than patch my remarks into an already patched > email I'd start afresh. > > I'm glad we agree on our starting point which is to > distinguish between the responsibilities of the trademark > owners and the responsibilities of the dictionary editors. > > And I agree with you that a dictionary should always be > helpful and give whatever information is needed not just about > the meaning of the word but about the way in which it is used. > This is why we were so glad to have usage notes in the third > edition. > > The fact that the generic use flows from the trademark is > indicated in the etymology. If a word derives from Greek or > Latin or Chinese or Swahili, if it was coined by an English > poet or an advertising agency, those facts are given in the > square brackets at the end of the entry. Similarly if the word > derives from a trademark that fact is recorded at the end of > the entry. On the whole we have felt that that is as far as we > need to go. For example we have not checked every trademark > etymology to establish want their current status is as > trademarks - perhaps that is something that editors might find > useful and that we could look at doing for the next edition. > It is not strictly speaking dictionary information but more > like the sort of thing for which you would consult a style > manual? But then there is an overlap between the two reference > books already in the usage notes of the dictionary, so why > not? > > I don't imagine that editors consciously unite as a group to > take decisions on such issues as the treatment of trademarks > but they do join editors societies, they do exchange notes > through various channels of communication and they are > affected generally as a group by such issues. So I am not > suggesting a conspiracy here, just a general consensus reached > in the normal way. > > I am suggesting that most publishers (as editors have often > complained) pay no attention to the minutiae of editorial work. > > I am not quite sure I understand the next bit. The editor > occupies a not-always-comfortable spot between the writer and > the publisher. The editor's point of view about the quality of > the writing does not always coincide with the writer's. The > editor's point of view about the needs of the publication does > not always coincide with the publisher's point of view about > the importance of making money. The editor's goals can't > ultimately be at odds with either of them or the editor will > be out of a job. However the editor has a particular job to do > and a particular point of view on how that job should be done. > > The fear that galvanises the owners of trademarks is that if > their word becomes generic then they will lose their right to > it as a trademark. Obviously publication in the general > headword list of a dictionary is an indication that the word > has reached generic status which is why they want us to take > the words out. The trick as you point out is to make sure that > everyone knows that the word is yours at the same time as you > are taking steps to ensure that they know the word. One safety > technique is to make sure that everyone is aware of what the > generic term is - Coca-Cola advertised the generic term "cola > drink" as a way of protecting their trademark (I'm dredging > that one from my memory). Certainly cola drink starts to > appear on the corpus around the same time that Coca-Cola > addressed the problem of their trademark becoming a generic. > > I think this deals with the monopoly situation also. There is > a history of the first and best actually losing its trademark > status. Take the case of biro. The wise thing to do is always > to provide a generic along with the trademark. > > Susan Butler > Publisher, Macquarie Dictionary ---[4] Business matters --------------------------------------- ** [4bq] E-mail charges Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 From: Jane Kerr, bywater@zetnet.co.uk Helen Juden wrote: > I have just edited a substantial contributed book, and for the > first time I have made extensive use of e-mail to communicate > with the editors, contributors and client. Now I am wondering > how to charge the client for this expense. Have others been > through the exercise of estimating the cost? Yes. In the UK, via BT, there is a minimum charge of 5p for a phone call (even for a phone call sending an email, which can last all of 5 seconds), so I count the number of email messages, outgoing and incoming, related to a project (in practice, I do this by keeping them all in their own mailbox), then multiply the resulting figure by 0.05, then factor in a certain amount to cover (a) paying an ISP for my email account, (b) wear and tear on high tech equipment and (c) being smart enough to make use of this high tech equipment in the first place. (In practice, this involves rounding up to the nearest sensible whole number.) No one has complained yet, and any publisher who happily coughs up for phone calls is not likely to object to charges for email. Remember, the process of communicating by email is much, much cheaper and more efficient that using telephone, fax or, heaven forbid, snail mail; the benefits should be spread between you and your client, so don't be afraid to charge a reasonable amount for this legitimate business expense. ---------------------- Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 From: Ian Kingston, ian@ikingston.demon.co.uk I doubt that this is worth the effort unless large file transfers are involved. Sending or receiving a megabyte or two during peak call charge periods can add up to a significant amount of money. One quick way (if your mail client provides the information) to make a rough calculation of email costs is to add up the total number of bytes sent and received and then use the connection speed of your modem to calculate how many minutes those messages took to send and receive. You could then calculate the cost based on the telephone company's call charges (allowing for peak and off-peak calls). On most jobs, you would struggle to reach a total of more than 10 pence. ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 12 Nov 1998 From: Anne Waddingham, Waddingham@compuserve.com I tot up my connection charges from my itemised phone bill (not too difficult as I have a dedicated fax/modem line), then estimate what proportion of that connection time should be charged back to my client. In other words if I estimate I spent 50% of the past 3 months working for that client, I'd claim 50% of the connection charge (don't forget VAT). It's a bit 'finger in the air' but I reckon it's reasonably accurate. Otherwise I suppose you'd have to check back through your log of outgoing messages (if you've got one) to count up how many were on behalf of that client. ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 12 Nov 1998 From: Jenny Roberts, jennyroberts@compuserve.com Re Helen Juden's query about charging clients for e-mail costs, it's just the same as charging them for telephone calls. With Compuserve - and I dare say it's the same with other providers - you can see exactly how many seconds or minutes it takes to send an e-mail, and you just charge as you would for a phonecall of the same length at the same time of day. As it's very often a matter of seconds only, so the cost is minimal, I don't usually bother unless I'm sending huge numbers of e-mails, when the cost can mount up. ---------------------- Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 From: Virginia Catmur, Virginia_Catmur@compuserve.com I charge 10 pence (0.1 GBP) per e-mail. That covers the phone call and my monthly subscription to my ISP. It's a bit crude, as sometimes I send five e-mails in one session, but it's simple. I charge similarly for consulting the on-line library catalogues: 10 pence per query. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [4br] Seminar leaders wanted Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 From: Petra Kopp, kopp@zetnet.co.uk Denyse O'Leary wrote: > I am hoping to develop a one-day seminar on work opportunities > for book editors in fields other than book publishing. The > course, aimed at freelance editors and editing trainees, would > be given at a community college in the Toronto area. ... > > For example, I am looking for an editor who can speak from > experience on any of the following areas: > > 1. freelance editing and proofreading for corporations ... > 2. web site editing > 3. online editing and sending work via the Internet > 4. freelancing as an editor or proofreader for government > departments. ... > 5. acting as editor on special purpose curricula ... > 6. acting as editor on documents and publications of various > kinds for non-profit organizations > 7. preparing newsletters and inhouse magazines ... I have just a couple of suggestions to add to your list of seminar topics: - freelance editing on teaching materials (open learning, distance learning) for universities and other institutions - acting as an editor for research projects: outlines, proposals and reports. I don't know whether my experience is specific to the UK, but I have found that there are many opportunities in these fields - and the rates of pay are usually much better than those paid by "traditional" publishers. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [4bs] Doors as desks Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 From: Jackie Senior, Jackie.J.L.SeniorRogers@ams.Rabobank.com Was it Edline or Grapevine that had the discussion on desks and doors? Please pass on if I've got it wrong! On the subject of doors as desks: In today's Financial Times (13/11/98) there's an interview with Jeff Bezos, the guy who started amazon.com. Interesting reading. But one succint quote is When I worked at Bankers Trust people measured their self worth by how many ceiling tiles they had in their office. It was counter productive. Thus in the HQ of Amazon they all have desks made of old doors and prop up their monitors on phone directories. The door desk is a symbol of the fact that we spend money on things that matter to customers! I made my desk from an old wooden door more than 10 years ago, and yes, I prop up my monitor on a phone directory. Nice to know some editors have at least one factor in common with amazon.com! --- Moderator's note: Yes it was EDline that had a discussion of doors as desks. The thread, [4au] started in issue 3.20 (17 May 1998), but the most pertinent message was Jane Bryant's in issue 3.23. The entire thread was summarised by Christine Headley, and will be available on the Electric Editors' site: < http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/ibrown/4au.htm > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [4bt] Rates of pay Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 From: Lionel Browne, lionel.browne@sand-con.demon.co.uk Here's an interesting comparison. The NUJ minimum recommended MINIMUM (pardon me for shouting) rates included a supplement of "at least GBP1.50/hour if the work is performed on computer screen". This is to "reflect the high cost of computer hardware and software". It is roughly 10% of the basic rate, and (if you can manage to work 8 hours in a day) will bring in an extra GBP12/day for your efforts. A friend of mine is a freelance cameraman. He specializes in hand-held and tracking shots, and so he has a lot of very expensive equipment, which he has to buy, maintain, upgrade and insure. The current rate in the industry for using equipment supplied by the client on a shoot is GBP180/day. If my friend uses his own equipment on a shoot, that rate increases to between GBP600 and GBP800/day! Never mind the actual money involved (although it would be nice, wouldn't it?), just look at the percentages involved - an increase of between 233% and 344%! Comments, anyone? ---[5] Bookmarks ----------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 From: John Halliday, halliday@thenet.co.uk Indexers Available online The Society of Indexers is pleased to announce a major addition to its website. Indexers Available, the major resource finding aid for publishers and authors is now available online. It allows indexers to be sought on the basis of subsject specialisms, their experience of particular publications and media and their skills in fields other than indexing which are relevant to publishing. The Society's web site is at: < http://www.socind.demon.co.uk > and links are provided to the Indexers Available part of the site from the 'what's new' page, accessed from the site's home- page ---[6] Just for fun ------------------------------------------- "Beguiling ideas about science", no. 31 In some rocks you can find the fossil footprints of fishes. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ "It CAN be done", no. 15 Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action and reaction and the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react. He seems to lack the basic knowledge ladled out daily in high schools. --- 1921 New York Times editorial about Robert Goddard's revolutionary rocket work. ---[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 3.46 Next issue: 22 November 1998 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=