=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= EDline Vol. 4, no. 21 (30 May 1999) Editorial mailing list Published by the Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Contents: Q & A---previous queries [2he] Preferred usage [2hm] Pet hates [2hq] Parameters v. variables Q & A---new queries [2hr] 'Dumbing down' [Offshoot of [2hp] Australian English] [2hs] Word origins FYI [3em] UK telephone number changes Business matters---new posting [4co] Job opportunity: freelance book graphic designer [5] Bookmarks [6] Just for fun [8] Administration =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ---[2] Q & A --------------------------------------------------- ** [2he] Preferred usage Date: Tues, 1 June 1999 From: Jane Kerr, bywater@zetnet.co.uk Erratum: in EDline 4.20 B.J. Sutton's message included the following: "...there were perhaps as many as 2,200 distinct languages spoken in the pre-contact Americas. This includes between 200 and 300 languages spoken in what is now the US and Canada, and around 7350 in Mexico and Central America". The email gremlins must have got hold of that one: please note, the last figure should be _350_ rather than 7350. ---------------------- Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 From: Jane Lyle, jlyle@indiana.edu Sarah Barrett wrote: > Re: recuse. I sympathize with Helen; but this is a tide which > is hard to turn. I don't know who it was who said, 'Ain't no > noun can't be verbed', but it sounds like an American to me! While the specific U.S. legal sense of "recuse" dates only to the middle of the twentieth century, the verb "recuse" itself dates to the 1300s--hundreds of years before the United States existed. You can blame this one on the speakers of Middle English! ---------------------- Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 From: June Baker, bakerjune@hotmail.com Jenny Roberts wrote: > It's usual to say that someone 'has multiple sclerosis' or 'has > cerebral palsy', so why should quadraplegia be any different? Quadriplegia is defined by my dictionary as "paralysis of all four limbs, usually as the result of injury to the spine". Therefore, the difference is that multiple sclerosis or cerebral palsy are the causes, whereas quadriplegia is the effect. You would have to say someone "has an injury to the spine" or something similar to be able to make a true comparison of the three phases. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2hm] Pet hates Date: Tues, 25 May 1999 From: Omar Johnstone, omarjohns@pop3.naseej.com.sa Helen Kara wrote: > 'How does training impact on practice?' My Webster's dictionary > indicates that this is common usage in the US, but I would have > preferred 'What impact does training have on practice?' or 'How > does training impinge on practice?' The lovely 'impinge' seems > to be making a rapid disappearance from the language. Impact as a verb, and its sister, a noun used in the figurative sense of 'affect,' both appear to be hyperbolic American usages, and both are pretentious and obtuse. Can any true distinction be made between, say, "How does training impact on practice" and "How does training affect practice" or even better, 'What affect does training have on practice?" The simple and pedestrian is also clear and communicative. As for "impinge" it makes me cringe, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2hq] Parameters v. variables Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 From: Mark Levinson, mark@memco.co.il Anne Waddingham wrote: > Can anyone help with a statistics query? What's the difference > between a variable and a parameter? > > I have a paper in which the (Japanese) author studied smoking > prevalence in nurses in 14 hospitals. He surveyed five "things" - > number of patients per nurse; number of beds; bed occupancy rate; > revenue per population (he defines population elsewhere); and > expenditure. He calls these five things "parameters" but I think > they're variables ... They're parameters if they're used in calculation. For example, if you use number of beds and occupancy rate to determine probable electricity costs or annual subsidies, then the first two are parameters. More loosely, you could say they're parameters if they're used in decision-making. But they're variables regardless of whether they're used in calculation or decision-making at all. They're variables because in different instances they may refer to different numbers while retaining the same name. ---------------------- Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 From: John Woodruff, jwoodruf@globalnet.co.uk They're variables. In the general mathematical sense a parameter is a constant or variable that makes particular expressions specific. So if your author had some index I given by i = ax + by, where x is the number of beds and y the number of patients, i, x and y are variables, and a and b are parameters. If they're constants, which could be determined somehow, you'd have a value i for each pair of values of the variables x and y. In a purely statistical sense, a parameter is usually taken to mean a constant that appears in a frequency function in distributions such as the Poisson distribution, and your Japanese author's number of beds, etc. certainly don't come into that category. ---------------------- Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 From: David Ibbetson, ibbetson@idirect.com When at school another schoolboy defined a parameter as "a variable constant". e.g. it might have one value for iron, another value for copper, and still another value for limestone. Indeed it would have different values for every different material.Think of coefficient of expansion, or conductivity. Those are physics examples. Now let's look at your problem > He surveyed five "things" - number of patients per nurse; > number of beds; bed occupancy rate; revenue per population (he > defines population elsewhere); and expenditure. I wouldn't call these parameters. Like you I'd call them variables, even more so if he performs some sort of multiple regression analysis with these as the independent variables and smoking prevalence as the dependent variable. ----------------------- Date: Tues, 25 May 1999 From: Omar Johnstone, omarjohns@pop3.naseej.com.sa A parameter is a delimited area within which an activity may take place. The limits themselves are its perimeters. An encircling and enclosing fence is sometimes known as a perimeter fence. A variable is something that is not static, it is related to an activity and not part of a place. A Japanese author looking at smoking among nurses may be interested in gathering statistics to indicate, and to support, the conclusions of a study. Statistics could be gathered on the number of patients in the charge of each nurse, the number of beds on a beat, bed occupancy rates and so on. A scholar may well believe that these things are parameters but in fact they are not since they do not enclose or define the scope of the study: indeed, they are only several of many significant factors that one could choose to focus upon. A study about the incidence of smoking among nurses has well defined parameters. We will not talk about bus drivers because they are outside the scope of the study, even if they do occupy some of the beds in the cancer ward where our chain-smoking nurses are employed. When I say I am going to study how many angels can dance on the head of a pin I may be interested in how big the pin is and how small the angels are, or can become. Square dance or bee bop? These are factors, not parameters. A variable, in turn, is an aspect of a factor. There are twenty beds in my ward, fifteen are occupied, three by terminal patients, and I smoke forty cigarettes a day. When there are no terminal patients, I smoke thirty cigarettes a day. ----------------------- Date: Tues, 25 May 1999 From: Margaret Corbett, mcorbett@dial.pipex.com You're right. I hope you can change 'parameter' to 'variable'. This is a very common medical (mis-) usage. Your unfortunate author reads it all over the place. It is one of my pet hates. Parameter does have a meaning, but it is precise, mathematical, (not very clear to me) and hardly ever what the author really meant. Perhaps you could let EDLine know about the replies? I find this a frequent problem, perhaps I'm not correct, but I think I am. I'd like to know what others think. Sorry to shout, well, almost shout. ----------------------- Date: Tues, 25 May 1999 From: Eddie Kent, EDDIE.KENT@MCR1.poptel.org.uk A parameter is a variable that is not under consideration at present so can be regarded as constant. In the formula ax + b, a and b are parameters and x is the variable. > He calls these five things "parameters" In statistics they are all parameters except the one that is the current sample, which can vary. (Sorry, that was a bad joke!) A parameter is a quantity that is calculated from data and describes a population. So parameters are properties of the whole population (mean, variance, etc) as distinct from the characteristics of a sample drawn from the population. I should let him have his parameters. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2hr] 'Dumbing down' [Offshoot of [2hp] Australian English] Date: Fri, 25 May 1999 From: Karin A. Walker, K.Walker@hw.ac.uk Diana Boatman wrote: > Is our language being dumbed down, and if so, should we as > editors resist the trend, or should we take a more pragmatic > attitude and concentrate more on reflecting current usage > accurately? I'd be interested in hearing your views from around > the English-speaking world. I agree that there are signs of the English language being dumbed down. While reading even respected publications such as the Guardian or the Times I frequently come across constructions and new words that frankly make my skin crawl. Often, the use of new or unfamiliar terms is softened by using quotation marks, but this merely masks the fact that there was probably a better way of putting it, only the writer couldn't be bothered. Is this because they are under such time pressure to produce copy that there is often no time to reread the text, and detect style and grammar mistakes? I know this is the job of the editor, more often than not, but the increasing size of the section on corrections shows that they are possibly overworked. The reach and intellectual weight of these publications means they have a reasonably strong influence on general English usage, and so eventually these peculiarities enter the language proper. Interestingly, this dumbing down of the language is also happening in German. I have a subscription to Der Spiegel, a popular and respected weekly current affairs publication from Germany. I always thought to be reading what one would call "good German" (I am a native speaker), until a number of older German speakers pointed out to me that they are in fact one of the publications pioneering a new German style. I became aware that Spiegel uses an enormous amount of Germanised words, borrowed from English general usage, that 5, 6 years ago were not around. As for grammar, a teacher of German for English speakers has told me that subordinate clauses in German, which change the word order around, are increasingly remaining as they are in declarative sentences, e.g. Ich glaube, dass ich habe recht. (I believe I am right) instead of Ich glaube, dass ich recht habe. This sends a shudder down my back. Are there any syntax-informed EDliners following this and who could give their opinion? +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2hs] Word origins Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 From: Glen Wheeler, editor@greyowltutor.com It seems that 'be' as a prefix often follows the rules of grammar, for example in words such as belittle, befriended, becoming, begrudge, and bedevil. Nevertheless, I don't understand how the word 'beheaded' is connected to these sorts of words. Can someone explain how 'beheaded' (meaning cutting off the head) uses a prefix that generally means 'to make'. ---[3] FYI ----------------------------------------------------- ** [3em] UK telephone number changes Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 From: David Ibbetson, ibbetson@idirect.com Iain Brown wrote: > The UK's telephone numbering system is being reorganised > (again), with effect from 22 April 2000. Is that the date by which we must have changed, the beginning of a period of parallel working, or is everything to be changed at an instant? ----------------------- Date: Tues, 1 June 1999 From: Jane Kerr, bywater@zetnet.co.uk The period of parallel working started today, so in the UK we have approximately 11 months to get used to the new system before the old numbers become defunct. Apparently, there is to be an "extensive" publicity campaign, though I doubt this will extend as far as Canada. ---[4] Business matters --------------------------------------- ** [4co] Job opportunity: freelance book graphic designer Date: Thurs, 27 May 1999 From: Josephine Bacon, bacon@langservice.com I am looking for someone with lots of experience in publishing who is freelance and who could do the following: a) Pour text into Quark format from Word format b) Top-edit book translations in English c) Help with design of brochures, etc. Work can be done on freelancer's premises or in our office, but person should be willing to come in on an occasional basis to discuss projects, etc., we cannot work exclusively through email. Therefore person should be within a reasonable logistical distance of Kings Cross, or someone who comes to London on a regular basis. Person must have recent Macintosh and Quark 3.3 at the lowest. Rates to be discussed. Please email c.v. as .rtf file and state what hardware and software you use. ---[5] Bookmarks ---------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 From: Iain Brown, iain.brown@ucl.ac.uk Preditors and Editors A guide to publishers and publishing services, and a "simple compendium for the serious writer". Maintains what it calls a "warnings" page about those business or people who have been the subject of complaints: < http://www.sfwa.org/prededitors/ > ---[6] Just for fun ------------------------------------------- "Education, education and education", no. 16 Johann Bach wrote a great many musical compositions and had a large number of children. In between he practiced on an old spinster which he kept up in his attic. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ "How to write good", no. 14 Understatement is always best. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Run that by me again? no. 9 Date: Tues, 1 June 1999 From: Jane Kerr, bywater@zetnet.co.uk From _The Which? Guide to Women's Health_: "Cosmetic surgery can be a great investment if it leaves you feeling better about yourself but if it goes wrong, you can be left feeling worse than ever and have paid through the nose for it." ---[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 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. 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 Iain Brown, at: iain.brown@ucl.ac.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) 1999, by individual contributors Design (c) 1996, 1997, Iain Brown Compilation (c) 1999, The Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= END OF EDline 4.21 Next issue: 6 June 1999 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=