=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= EDline Vol. 4, no. 26 (4 July 1999) Editorial mailing list Published by the Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Contents: Q & A---previous queries [2hm] Pet hates [2ia] Who(m) cares? Q & A---new queries [2ib] Singular of competencies [2ic] Roman numerals [2id] Fowlers compared [Offshoot of [2hy] To and from] [2ie] "Disintermediation" and "reintermediation" FYI [3eq] Recruit Media move [3er] EDline Bookmarks index [5] Bookmarks [6] Just for fun [8] Administration =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ---[2] Q & A --------------------------------------------------- ** [2hm] Pet hates Date: Fri, 2 July 1999 From: Rene Hack, Rene.Hack@wxs.nl I'd like to revisit 'Millennium or Millenium?' The incorrect spelling with a single -n- may be triggered by the (correct) single-n spelling of 'millenary' and 'millenarian', meaning 'consisting of a thousand, esp. of a thousand years', and 'pertaining to a thousand years.' The etymologies of these latter two words do *not* have any baring with the word ANNUS (year), but with the Latin *suffix* -arius, which has become -ary (and -arian) in modern English. But, just as in modern English 'THE THOUSAND' may be easily understood as 'THESE THOUSAND YEARS', especially the word MILLENARY also became to mean 'A THOUSAND YEARS.' So, we will have to use 'MILLENNIUM' (-nn-) or 'MILLENARY' as correct spellings for the words that signify 'A PERIOD OF ONE THOUSAND YEARS' (if you agree to spell according to etymology, that is). P.S. I am the proud owner of a unique so-called binder's copy of the first print of the Unabridged One-Volume Edition of Dr. Ernest Klein's 'A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of The English Language', Elsevier Pub. Co., Amsterdam/London/New York, 1971. (I have worked for Elsevier's Science Publishers for some time.) Accidently, this is the first time that I *think* I found a little error in it. In my edition 'ANNUS' is said to mean 'YEARS' (plural), but I think the plural of ANNUS is ANNI. As in [Klein]: millennium, n., period of a thousand years. - ModL., formed on anology of L. biennium, 'period of two years', etc., from L. mille, 'a thousand', and annus, 'years'; see mile and annual and cp. Biennial.- Derivatives: millenni-al, adj., millennial-ly, adv. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2ia] Who(m) cares? Date: Fri, 2 July 1999 From: Naomi Laredo, Naomi@smallprt.demon.co.uk Jane Kerr quoted: > "In addition, he obtained subjective ratings from the > participants themselves on who they regarded as having the > best ideas in the group, who exerted the most guidance and > whom they liked the best." > > My instinct is to change that final "whom" to "who" and have > done with it. You may as well, but please, if you leave the final "whom" make the first "who" "whom" as well! Consistency is the last refuge of the editor. ---------------------- Date: Fri, 2 July 1999 From: Lou Burnard, lou.burnard@computing-services.oxford.ac.uk Coincidentally, this morning the following posting appeared on the Corpora and Linguist lists. (For anyone who doesnt know what the BNC is, see < http://info.ox.ac.uk/bnc >) Cross-posted from Corpora From: Carsten Breul, carsten.breul@ruhr-uni-bochum.de Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 Subject: Corpora: Query/Discussion: Prep+relative who Dear colleague I am writing a paper on relative 'who'/'whom' as complement of a preposition (e.g. 'the man to whom you spoke'; 'the man who you spoke to'). I am especially interested in the case where the preposition precedes the relative pronoun. The grammars ('normative', 'didactic', 'descriptive') seem to be unanimous in judging Prep+whom correct and Prep+who incorrect. The sentences listed below, which are from the British National Corpus, do not conform to this rule. What I would like to have your opinion on is this: Do native-speakers of English actually use Prep+relative who? In other words: Do you think that the sentences may very well be correct representations of the text-producers' usage? Or would you consider it likely that there are printing/typing (or transcription) errors involved here (omission of 'm' in 'who'), which distort the picture? (I think my question points to a, perhaps seldom relevant, but nevertheless interesting problem for corpus linguistics if low frequency features are concerned: How sure can we be that the corpus represents text- production authentically?) All but (8) are from written sources. (1) A passionate lover of the Savoy Operas, she was a founder member of the Bradford Gilbert and Sullivan Society, with who she had a long association. (C8G: 418) (2) It's almost impossible to put him down in the tackle, and there are few players about who you an [sic; probably 'can' is intended] say that. (CB2: 396) (3) They need to keep their bankers happy by reducing a £3 million-plus debt in the next few months, and Robson, in who Leeds are already showing an interest, will become their most disposable asset. (CBG: 305) (4) It has one senior bishop, two suffragans, one dean, four archdeacons, and 21 rural deans of who one is a woman. (ED9: 3029) (5) They must be treated as adequate because they reflect the statutory provisions in regard to appeals by persons upon who intervention notices are served by S.I.B. in the exercise of the intervention powers delegated to it by the Secretary of State (as to which see section 97 of the Act). (FD1: 413) (6) Instead, the sites are used by local residents, of who some 25 per or so come by foot and use the sites like an urban park, primarily to take a walk (Harrison, 1981). (FR2: 453) (7) Through its founder Molly Braithwaite, for who we held a heartfelt admiration, we feel an affectionate living bond with all those in positions of responsibility within the MEDAU SOCIETY. (HU8: 57) (8) I would also I think put in a word for the work of the joint [...] policy panel [...] which is shared between this committee and the social services committee because it seems to me that it is not [unclear] for us to be thinking that there is a group of children for who nursery education is necessary [...] or desirable and a different group of children for whom something else [...] is necessary and desirable, largely because of their parents' position. (JWA: 149) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2ib] Singular of competencies Date: Thur, 1 July 1999 From: Neville Hankins, nevhankins@compuserve.com If the plural is 'competencies' - as in the core competencies of a business organisation - what is the singular form? +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2ic] Roman numerals Date: Sun, 4 July 1999 From: Iain Brown, iain.brown@ucl.ac.uk Today I happened to look at a list of Roman numerals and their arabic equivalents. Then down the bottom of the list, I noticed a sentence which said if one puts a bar above a numeral, this indicated multiplication. Is anyone else aware of such methods? My trusty COD doesn't make mention of it ... although it does clarify that 1999 cannot be written MIM, as some newspapers wanted us to have it earlier this year. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2id] Fowlers compared [Offshoot of [2hy] To and from] Date: Thur, 1 July 1999 From: Karl Sharrock, karlbs@cix.compulink.co.uk David Ibbetson wrote: > It's worth noting that, after complaints about Fowler 3, Fowler > 2 was reprinted and is, I understand, being kept in print. Not having bought Fowler 3 yet, I am interested in what other people think about it compared with Fowler 2 (Gowers). What are its alleged faults? Is it worth buying if you already have its predecessor? Are there any good reviews of it anywhere? (I don't remember seeing one in, for example, SFEP's 'CopyRight'.) ---------------------- Date: Tue, 6 July 1999 From: Rachel Kress, r.kress@fss.uu.nl Curious about these complaints, to which David Ibbetson made mention in EDline 4.25, I made a brief www search, and came up with this extensive comparison of Fowler's 2 v 3 in the archives of The Atlantic Monthly. < http://theatlantic.com/issues/96dec/fowler/fowler.htm > Elegant Variation and All That: A modernized edition of a venerable classic of English usage brings changes that are vast and controversial -- and almost always sensible by Jesse Sheidlower I now know that what I like about Fowler's 3 is that it is generally descriptive as a opposed to prescriptive. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2ie] "Disintermediation" and "reintermediation" Date: Sun, 4 July 1999 From: Phil Agre, pagre@alpha.oac.ucla.edu Does anybody know where the word "disintermediation" originates? I'd thought I remembered it from George Gilder's "Life After Television". But it transpires that even though that book anticipated most of the bad cyber ideas of the 1990's, disintermediation is not one of them, at least that I could find. Also, does anybody know whether the word "reintermediation" appears anywhere earlier than Nicholas Negroponte's column in the September 1997 issue of Wired? ---[3] FYI ---------------------------------------------------- ** [3eq] Recruit Media moves Date: Fri, 2 July 1999 From: Daniell Morrisey, danny@recruitmedia.co.uk Recruit Media's Editorial Division Moves to New City Office Due to our recent expansion, we have opened a new city office. Based in Clerkenwell, Recruit Media's EDITORIAL DIVISION will move to the new location on Monday 5 July 1999. Our new contact details are: Recruit Media Editorial Third Floor, Northburgh House 10 Northburgh Street London EC1V 0AT Telephone: 0171 608 2552 Fax: 0171 608 2428 email: editorial@recruitmedia.co.uk web: www.recruitmedia.co.uk Your contacts at Recruit Media's Editorial Division: Daniell Morrisey MECI, Senior Editorial Consultant/Team Leader PERMANENT VACANCIES Rachael Mann AECI, Resource Consultant rachael@recruitmedia.co.uk FREELANCE VACANCIES Claire Thompson AECI, Contract Consultant claire@recruitmedia.co.uk +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [3er] EDline Bookmarks index Date: Sun, 4 July 1999 From: Iain Brown, iain.brown@ucl.ac.uk Compiled once again by Sue Lightfoot, the EDline Bookmarks index has been updated to include all issues to 4.25 (27 June 1999): < http://zeus.slais.ucl.ac.uk/idb/ee/vols1-4.htm > ---[5] Bookmarks ---------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 7 July 1999 From: Eddie Bonesire, eddie.bonesire@consilium.eu.int Terminological Information System (TIS): The terminological database of the Council of the European Union is on the Internet at: < http://tis.consilium.eu.int > ---[6] Just for fun ------------------------------------------- "How to write good", no. 19 Even if a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ "Modern phrases", no. 3 Sarchasm The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the recipient who doesn't get 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 4.26 Next issue: 11 July 1999 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=