=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= EDline Vol. 3, no. 48 (29 November 1998) Editorial mailing list Published by the Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Contents: Q & A---previous queries [2ft] Capitalising Spanish characters [2fx] Missing information [2fy] 555 [2fz] Time FYI [3dl] Spaces and units Business matters---previous postings [4br] Seminar leaders wanted [4bt] Rates of pay [4bv] Desks and desktops [Offshoot of [4bs] Doors as desks] [6] Just for fun [8] Administration =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ---[2] Q & A -------------------------------------------------- ** [2ft] Capitalising Spanish characters Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 From: Mandy Macdonald, 100754.3643@compuserve.com Simon Cauchi wrote: > 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. Sorry; brainstorm. What Butcher actually says (p136 of the 1979 edn) is: 'Names naturalized in Britain or the United States are usually indexed under the prefix: Goethe, J.W, von *but* De Quincey, Thomas 'Some indexers put the preposition at the beginning of the entre but do not count it in the alphabetical order; this is an acceptable option.' Presumably this is *not* referring to English-naturalized names such as De Quincey, but to the rest. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2fx] Missing information Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 From: Elaine Firestone, elaine@calval.gsfc.nasa.gov John Champness wrote: > Can anyone inform me of the origin and meaning of the word > 'noology'? I found it in an Israeli dictionary but nowhere > else! According to my Webster's Third New International Unabridged, it comes from the Greek 'noos', or 'nous' meaning "mind" and it means "the study of mind: the science of phenomena regarded as purely mental in origin". +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2fy] 555 Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 From: David Ibbetson, ibbetson@idirect.com Ian Kingston wrote: > I've just finished watching tonight's episode of _The X-Files_, > and it reminded me of something that's been bugging me for > ages. > > Whenever a telephone number is shown on screen, it always > begins '555'. Is this an editorial convention to signify 'this > is not a real telephone number, so don't try calling it' and > to prevent the accidental use of a real number, with the > consequent annoyance that it might cause? > > I'm pretty sure that I've seen this in other US TV shows, but > I could be mistaken. "1 + Area Code + 555 1212" is directory enquiries for an area other than one's own. I think the whole 555 exchange is used internally by the telephone companies. I've been told that if one needs several dummy numbers, Bell, or whoever, will supply a list. For some reason, whatever number is quoted, large numbers of people will call it. If a real number is accidentally used it's owner may have to go ex-directory or get a new number. As Americans are litigious . . . ---------------------- Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 From: Michael Janes, lexicraft@lexicraft.demon.co.uk I can confirm that 555 is exactly as he suspects, simply a non- existent number in the U.S. Its use is widespread (TV, theatre, books, etc). I can claim this on the authority of my wife who is American. ---------------------- Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 From: Deborah Shaw, shawd@mindspring.com You've almost got it. It's actually "this is not a real telephone number, you moron, so don't try calling it." The convention started when too many people did, and the people who really held numbers that happened to be written into scripts objected. The phone companies agreed not to ever assign that exchange. There is at least one exception: information can be accessed either with a local three-digit number (usually 411) or by dialing 800 (or any other area code) 555-1212. ----------------------- Date: Tues, 24 Nov 1998 From: Caroline Mackenzie, cmack@club-internet.fr It is indeed a convention though whether for the reason you give or not, I don't know. When I was working in Rep doing American plays in Geneva, the numbers dialed were always 555-****. Ever since, I've noticed it every time someone dials a number in a film or TV serices. I think it comes from the early days of television and I have a vague idea that it was originally the number for Burbank subscribers, where all the TV studios of the 60s were. ---------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 From: Gillian Clarke, 101625.3601@compuserve.com It's not just telephone numbers visible on screen but spoken numbers as well that have the exchange 555. As far as I can recall - and there may be scores of responses from the USA on this - it is to prevent idiots from ringing a phone number mentioned or shown and driving the subscriber insane. The 555 exchange doesn't exist for this very reason. ---------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 From: B. J. Sutton, jastext@mnet.fr I'm sure you'll get a tsunami of responses to this, so I'll try to be brief. The '555' prefix is not used anywhere in the US, and is therefore the standard screenwriter's telephone prefix, particularly in television. I believe there is some sort of regulation that prohibits the use of a potentially "real" telephone number on screen, though I have seen potentially real numbers used in novels. This convention is in place to protect the telephone subscriber's privacy, and to guard against the (unfortunately quite probable) threat of crank calls from over- credulous viewers. ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 26 Nov 1998 From: Sean & Anne Waddingham, Waddingham@compuserve.com Yes, Ian's absolutely right to suspect that the use of '555' in films and TV shows is to avoid using a 'real' number, because there is no area code 555 in the US or Canada - apart from Gotham City, Metropolis and Smallsville, USA. I don't know where the idea originally came from, but it has even been used as an 'in-joke' in 'Last Action Hero', starring Arnie Schwarzeneggar. The teenage protagonist, who has fallen through a cinema screen into the celluloid world of the eponymous unconventional policeman, seeks to prove its unreal status to him by asking other characters, at random, for their phone numbers. For him, the fact that they are all 555 area code is incontestible evidence of their fictional nature. Arnie just thinks it's a coincidence. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2fz] Time Date: Thurs, 19 Nov 1998 From: Eddie Kent, eddie.kent@mrc1.poptel.co.uk Jeremy Humphries wrote: > How do you write the time in copy - 7 o' clock or seven > o' clock? Is it different for 11 and 12? How about 25 to six, > or similar? I don't seem to have a reference in any book. Does > it appear in Hart or Butcher, which I suppose I ought to get > one or more of? I can't find Hart and never had Butcher. Speaking purely as a private person I would write 7 o'clock (no space) and 12 o'clock, but twenty-five to three since that is a colloquialism. ----------------------- Date: Tues, 24 Nov 1998 From: Simon Cauchi, cauchi@wave.co.nz Hart is silent on the matter. My copy of Butcher is on loan at the moment. The Australian Government Publishing Manual recommends spelling out "in narrative and descriptive work if this suits the context" and adds "Quarter, half and even hours in particular may be treated in this way". Its examples include "quarter to eleven" and "ten to six". Words into Type similarly has this: "In straight text matter it is usually better to express time of day in words whenever the expression is simple." Its examples include "four-thirty", "five o'clock", "twelve noon", "quarter to three". Pam Peters, however, in the Cambridge Australian English Style Guide comments in a parenthesis that "The convention of writing _five o'clock_ has largely given way to _5 o'clock_". (I don't believe her.) I'm sure I've seen "twenty-five to six" often enough in print, but can't find an example of it in my style books. NB: "o'clock" has no space after the apostrophe. Thus not only Words into Type but the Oxford Spelling Dictionary, Harrap's English Punctuation and Hyphenation, and the Penguin Guide to Punctuation. ---[3] FYI ----------------------------------------------------- ** [3dl] Spaces and units Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 From: Roger Jones, Roger.Jones@rjpc.demon.co.uk The following was a response to a LANGline posting about spaces between figures and [abbreviated] units. It may be of interest to EDliners. This message is just to note that a thin space is normally recommended and to alert anyone who doesn't know already that the actual width of the thin space varies considerably. In PageMaker it is a quarter of an em, which in in my opinion is too thick; in FrameMaker it is a twelfth of an em -- too thin; in Ventura it is the width of a full stop, or an eighth of an em, which to my eye is about right; given Quark's distaste for anything technical, I wonder if it knows about thin spaces (I guess it does, given its OTT typographical controls). This is not to recommend Ventura, only to wish that PageMakers didn't have to sub-/superscript their thin spaces and FrameMakers didn't have to double them -- as many do. ---[4] Business matters --------------------------------------- ** [4br] Seminar leaders wanted Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 From: Mandy Macdonald, 100754.3643@compuserve.com 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 ... As an editor in Britain who does a majority of her work for clients who are not primarily book publishers (mostly reports, editing and translation for overseas development agencies), Denyse's seminar sounds very promising. I hope the results or a summary will appear in EDline in due course! +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [4bt] Rates of pay Date: Tues, 24 Nov 1998 From: Nancy Duin, nduin@dircon.co.uk Lionel Browne wrote: > 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. B. Southwa then wrote: > More to the point, the NUJ rate quoted, if applied to 46 > working weeks per year of 40 hours each, would bring in the > freelancer an extra GBP2760. I think this is enough to maintain > a computer set-up of the standard needed to do most publishers' > work. In fact, since computer prices have fallen, it is > probably enough to replace your computer and printer, and > upgrade your software, once a year, should you wish. > > The question remains of whether freelancers can actually get > the NUJ rate for every job, but that's another story. As one of those who established the NUJ minimum recommended rates, I was interested in the ongoing discussion about the GBP1.50/hour extra for onscreen work, especially B Southwa's GBP2760 for a year at this rate (although I think a 40-hour week of actual work would be a killer - I seem to spend half my time doing administration, severely cutting into actual remunerative working time). The figure of GBP2760 is especially intriguing since we never calculated the rate in this way. Frankly, we just felt that we should acknowledge this expenditure on behalf of freelances in some simple way - so the GBP1.50/hour was purely notional. We were waiting for other freelances to approve or tell us different - and I guess that's what has happened. By the way, I think the rate will soon rise to GBP1.55 or 1.60 (the method of setting the rates has changed within the NUJ so things are not as certain as they used to be). Finally, I get paid the NUJ rates and I know other freelances who have been paid them, too. They are not 'pie in the sky', although there is an element of aspiration to them. As they say, if you don't ask, you don't get. ----------------------- Date: Tues, 24 Nov 1998 From: Mary Fox, mary@mfox.demon.co.uk B. Southwa wrote: > More to the point, the NUJ rate quoted, if applied to 46 > working weeks per year of 40 hours each, would bring in the > freelancer an extra GBP2760. I think this is enough to maintain > a computer set-up of the standard needed to do most publishers' > work. In fact, since computer prices have fallen, it is > probably enough to replace your computer and printer, and > upgrade your software, once a year, should you wish. I find there are a lot of hidden extras to take into account apart from capital cost. Other costs are insurance, maintainence etc. and a lot more time is used not directly earning, much more than when it was pen and paper: e.g time spent upgrading, trouble-shooting,learning/keeping up to date. So the real cost is greater than a simple calculation would show. ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 26 Nov 1998 From: Eldo Barkhuizen, aared@clara.net Anne Waddingham wrote: > Lionel raises an interesting point when he illustrates how we > undervalue our onscreen work. > > The clients who come on my Editing On Screen course at the > Publishing Training Centre tell me repeatedly that they have no > end of freelance editors but what they really, really want is > good *onscreen* editors. If we're so thin on the ground, why > doesn't the law of supply and demand come in? Is it because > we're too timid to ask for a premium rate? I suspect that's > partly true but it's the clients attitudes that are largely to > blame - most can't see any reason why onscreen work should > attract a 10% increase, let alone anything more substantial. I > hope the fact that they've spent the day with me learning how > woefully inadequate their skills have been and how an efficient > onscreen editor can save them time and money might convince > them, but many just see it as substituting a red pen with a > keyboard. I completed an SFEP on-screen editing course in Edinburgh at the beginning of this year, and later received my first on-screen project (an academic title on Karl Barth's theology). When attempting to negotiate rates I was shocked when the client insisted on paying me their normal copy-editing rate (GBP10 per hour). When I pointed out that they were making a substantial saving through on-screen editing they said that all they were saving was 50p per page. I also mentioned that I had to bear the cost of expensive computer equipment, software and electricity, but they were adamant about the GBP10-per-hour rate. Is this situation common? ---------------------- Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 From: Naomi Laredo, naomi@smallprt.demon.co.uk B. Southwa wrote: > the NUJ rate quoted, if applied to 46 working weeks per year > of 40 hours each, would bring in the freelancer an extra > GBP2760. ... I am afraid this calculation bears no relation to the reality of freelance life. Even those of us lucky enough to be offered more work than we can accept could not spend 40 hours of every week doing productive work at a computer. If we tried, we would go barking mad, as well as suffering from RSI, eye strain, back ache and family breakdown. The actual figures for me, as a full-time freelance editor, are as follows: 1. I work at least 40 hours per week, but can only charge about 30 direct to clients. The rest is spent on: - admin: filing, maintaining records, doing accounts and paying bills, ordering stationery etc., answering door to postwoman - marketing and getting work: mailing, phoning and visiting potential clients, quoting for jobs that never happen - professional development: training courses, conferences and meetings, reading (including EDline and Bookseller) - downtime: waiting for late jobs, cancelling next job due to over-run of late job, sickness (own/family's) - plus, as a computer user: buying, installing and maintaining hardware and software (no IT department!), IT training courses and reading, extra (unchargeable) time spent on jobs during familiarisation with new software. 2. Of the chargeable 30 hours, a maximum of 20 is spent doing on-screen work. The rest is: - development editing (reading and commenting on drafts before on-screen copy-edit) - proofreading and collating - occasional 'on paper' copy-editing. 3. The potential extra earnings of GBP2760 have therefore halved to GBP1380 (46 weeks x 20 hours x GBP1.50). I do not consider this a generous allowance, considering that frequent updating of hardware and software is a necessity, not a choice. The sum has to cover: - purchase of hardware: printer and modem* as well as computer - purchase of software: virus protection (updated quarterly) and Internet software* as well as word-processing etc. - running costs: maintenance contract or cost of repairs (e.g. new power supply, printer parts), electricity, toner, paper and floppy disks (these expenses not chargeable _in addition_ to GBP1.50 supplement), Internet access* - cost of IT training: courses, books, magazines (_time_ for training accounted for above) - cost of borrowing: say a 2-year loan of GBP2000 to get started (we pay for hardware/software up front, but only recoup cost gradually after installation and familiarisation). * Access to the Internet is now taken for granted by most of my clients, for communication with author/publisher and for receipt/despatch of files. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [4bv] Desks and desktops [Offshoot of [4bs] Doors as desks] Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 From: Roger Jones, Roger.Jones@rjpc.demon.co.uk I have recently rejigged my home-office work surface and am so pleased with the efficiency of the result that I am inclined to share the details of this B&Q solution. I have simply overlapped one length of standard kitchen worktop on another. The overall depth is a metre (600mm + 600mm minus 200mm overlap). The rear surface is the higher and it accomodates my monitor at an ergonomically sound height and distance. The overall depth allows me to store my most frequently used reference books at the back, within easy reach but well out of the way of other activities. The overlap (which can be smaller, of course) creates an adequate front work surface, a barrier to the movement of papers towards the back of the whole surface, and a good place to put my graphics pad. ---[6] Just for fun ------------------------------------------- Pet editorial peeves Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 From: Roger Jones, Roger.Jones@rjpc.demon.co.uk I have now compiled the list of pet peeves/hates that I called for on this list and the US CEL list. It's too long to post to either list, but if you would like a copy then contact me direct. Those who have seen it already seem to have found both amusement and comfort in it. --- Moderator's note: Roger has kindly said we can upload the list of peeves to the Electric Editors' Website. I will do this in the next day or two; the URL will be: < http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/ibrown/peeves.htm > Another service from the Electric Editors!---IDB +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Run that by me again? no. 7 Date: Thurs, 26 Nov 1998 From: Jane Kerr, bywater@zetnet.co.uk A helpful footnote, thoughtfully provided by the authors of an economics textbook: "In this chapter, we use the phrases _non-renewable resources_ and _non-renewable resources_ interchangeably." +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ "Beguiling ideas about science", no. 33 A blizzard is when it snows sideways. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ "It CAN be done", no. 17 Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau. --- Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929. ---[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/ > 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 3.48 Next issue: 6 December 1998 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=