=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= EDline Vol. 4, no. 8 (28 February 1999) Editorial mailing list Published by the Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Contents: Q & A---previous queries [2go] US English [2gp] Decimal points [2gq] American versus US Q & A---new query [2gs] Standard for citing electronic publications FYI [3dx] Technical editors web site [6] Just for fun [8] Administration =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ---[2] Q & A --------------------------------------------------- ** [2go] US English Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 From: Elaine R. Firestone, elaine@calval.gsfc.nasa.gov Jane Kerr wrote: > While I agree that it is impossible for a non-US-resident to > pick up *every* local nuance, it is equally unlikely that the > resulting text will be entirely incomprehensible to the > American reader. "Disaster" is too strong a word for the > presence of the occasional idiosyncracy in a published work. Very true Jane, but it can be very disconcerting when an American (yes, that's what I said--- more later) is reading a book set in Montana or Wyoming and a phrase such as "He had to be taken to hospital" or "She went to university" comes up without an article before the noun, such as is the case in British English. I read such a book a while back and it really annoyed me. I had to read the phrases over at least once because it took me aback. When I read books set in the UK, though, it doesn't even make me blink too hard . ---------------------- Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 From: Ian Kingston, ian@ikingston.demon.co.uk This cuts both ways, of course. Last night I watched a splendid episode of _Star Trek: Voyager_ which was marred by the choice of the name 'Annorax' for the chief enemy alien. The presence of a single British voice in the production team would probably have prevented the use of such a ridiculous name. More seriously, I'm often asked to make texts 'transatlantic'. That means either US or UK spelling, but with cultural differences removed. Thus there would be no references to 'Fifth Grade', 'O Levels', 'this country' and so on. I agree that an editor who has lived on both sides of the Atlantic is ideal, but I also think (as Ronne Randall pointed out) that we in the UK are sufficiently exposed to US culture (books, TV, movies, music, sport) to be able to do a good job. I don't know whether the opposite is true, although I suspect it is in some areas. We also have to remember that knowledge of the subject matter is very important: there's no point asking a historian to Americanize a physics textbook. The supply of suitable Anglo- American editors must be limited. In areas of doubt, we always have EDline and other Internet resources from which to obtain opinions. I also have friends from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa to contact when I need to check that a phrase is really independent of cultural bias within the English-speaking world. ----------------------- Date: Thur, 25 Feb 1999 From: Josephine Bacon, bacon@langservice.com Jane Kerr wrote: > "Disaster" is too strong a word for the presence of the > occasional idiosyncracy in a published work. I am afraid I cannot agree. As a professional translator and interpreter, I am well aware of the dangers of "faux ami". Derange in English and deranger in French spring to mind. So does the American meaning of "certified" and what the British generally take it to mean. If you are not thoroughly familiar with the other culture you cannot know if you have made a blunder. When I went to America, I knew that a "pavement" was a sidewalk, but I did not know that there was a perfectly good word "pavement" in the U.S., and that it meant the roadway. There are also local words in American that you won't necessarily find in a dictionary, such as "flat" in Chicago which means the same as "flat" in British English. Above all, there are DIY and gardening books which are very hard to "translate" between British and American English and you have to know both subjects thoroughly in both languages in order to be able to "translate" between them and sometimes point out to the publisher where something is not suitable. I once wrote a cookery book (cookbook) in both British and English [sic] styles. However, the publisher decided to add an introduction written by someone else which he did not show to me. It had a bad "Briticism" it, so bad that the American co-publisher, who read the intro first, told the English publisher he was pulling out of the deal. If that isn't a disaster I don't know what is. It certainly was for me. ---------------------- Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 From: Jane Kerr, bywater@zetnet.co.uk I'd be inclined to suggest that this particular disaster was more one of a contractual nature than a UK versus US English one, since both versions of Josephine's text were, one must presume, correctly localised to their respective audiences. The contract must have been very shaky indeed if the presence of one error gave the US party sufficient grounds to withdraw entirely from the deal. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2gp] Decimal points Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 From: Lane Lester, llester@mindspring.com Lyn Imeson wrote: > The language of maths is international. Except that in the U.S., it's called "math." And yes, we don't put the period in the right place, either! ---------------------- Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 From: Simon Cauchi, cauchi@wave.co.nz Lyn Imeson wrote: > The language of maths is international. In the specialist mathematical journals, perhaps so (I wouldn't know). But in other contexts there are distinct regional variations in the way numbers are written down. On the continent of Europe, I understand, the comma is generally used as the decimal point. Thus in France 263,8 means what in the UK is written 263.8 -- and I have heard a South African speak of "two comma five", for example, meaning "two point five". No doubt there are other variations. In such circumstances it makes perfectly good sense to write or speak of a "British" decimal point. ---------------------- Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 From: David Penfold, penfold@eps-edge.demon.co.uk Lyn Imeson wrote: > Incidentally, there's no such thing as a *British* decimal > point. The language of maths is international. True, in one sense, in that the whole English-speaking world tends to use a full point as the decimal delimiter. However, I seem to have spent a considerable amount of my editorial life changing the commas used by most Europeans as the decimal delimiter to full points and the full points, used by most Europeans to separate thousands, to either spaces or commas (depending on the publisher's style and the type of material) generally used in the English-speaking world. I think I can even remember a Russian paper (a long time ago) that used a colon for the decimal delimiter. I imagine that this is what Joy Burrough-Boenisch was getting at when she referred to the 'British decimal point'. ---------------------- Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 From: Joy Burrough-Boenisch, burrough@bos.nl I was trying to make a distinction between the dot used by Anglophones (the ISO allows this exception) and the comma used by the rest of the world. Thanks to all for sorting out my dots question. I am relieved to find that the "dot on the line" ISO guideline still holds in the UK; a Dutch colleague had queried this. ---------------------- Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 From: Tony Buffery, RRC@dial.pipex.com Up to the mid-1970s a decimal point was printed as a raised dot, whereas a spaced dot on the line was a multiplication symbol or matrix product. All technical reference libraries contain examples. The convention inverted when word processing became common; sloppy authors began to type the decimal point on the line, which passed unnoticed by readers and referees who also lacked keyboard skills. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2gq] American versus US Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 From: Keta Hodgson, tkh@global-edit.com What an awkward business this. It may be why we're such a cranky bunch. I mean, here we are, the putative Lords of the Universe (or, as we are otherwise known - the Only Remaining Superpower), and yet we get our knickers all twisted up over the littlest things (oh dear, I'm trying to use British slang - did I get it right??) Due to a dearth of alternatives, I have for years referred to myself as a Unisonian, which is a bit of a twist on BJ's French version. I claim this designation because my ancestors arrived here well before the colonies revolted. This small conceit is rarely understood or appreciated but I use it because I feel some sort of obligation to my brothers and sisters in Canada, Mexico, Central and South America to not co-opt "American" as my very own. When I travel, however, I find it much easier to say that I am American - in no small part because I can always find a translation for it no matter the language of the person to whom I am trying to communicate. Sadly, I also know that it will always be understood that I am a citizen of the United States of America. Ah, the joys of cultural imperialism :). ---------------------- Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 From: Elaine R. Firestone, elaine@calval.gsfc.nasa.gov On the subject of "American" as the adjective to describe someone from the USA, can we please avoid this thread? It has been debated and argued over numerous times on the copyediting list ad nauseum. This usage hasn't changed in 200+ years and I doubt that arguing over it now is going to change anything. Many of us are very proud to be able to call ourselves "American" and I for one, have never met a Canadian or anyone south of the border (USA's) who referred to themselves as an American either. They are always Brazilian, Peruvian, Mexican, etc. I beg that we put this thread to rest before any divisiveness occurs. ---------------------- Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 From: Neville Hankins, nevhankins@compuserve.com You see? I was right! According to Josephine, Americans *do* have an instinctive knowledge of when to use the adjectives US or American. That's not much use to editors like me, however, who have absolutely no intention of undertaking Americanization assignments (clients can approach Americans for that) but every intention of trying to determine the proper rules for correcting American English when the authors forget their innate abilities. Dr Lynn Childress, an American, suggested to me directly that US relates to government and its various institutions, while American could be used for other things. Interesting. And just to prove to Josephine that I've got more than one reference book, I had originally come across, but discarded, a quotation which seemed to suggest that the use of US and America has more to do with laziness. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2gs] Standard for citing electronic publications Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 From: Alison Dunnett, adunnett@BlackwellPublishers.co.uk Can anyone advise me on the following matter? Is there now a 'standard' or acknowledged form of reference for electronic publications appearing in bibliographies? An example would be a journal that appears either in electronic format only or that is available both as paper copies and electronically. Is there a standard form of citation for websites and/or material appearing on them, where they are also included in a bibliography? If such standards do exist, it would be helpful to know their US/UK style variations. ---[3] FYI ----------------------------------------------------- ** [3dx] Technical editors web site Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 From: Jean Hollis Weber, jhweber@whitsunday.net.au After searching for some time for a website devoted to technical editing (and not finding one), I have launched my own. < http://www.wrevenge.com.au/ > This website is intended as a place for technical editors to: * Share knowledge, experiences and resources * Demonstrate to writers, managers and others the wide range of knowledge and skills that technical editors have to offer It is intended to complement, not duplicate, the excellent sites devoted to technical writing. Some overlap is, of course, inevitable, because there is so much overlap in what writers and editors do, the resources they need, and the knowledge they share. This site is in the early stages of development. At present it consists mainly of a small selection of my own papers and editorial tip sheets and a few links to sites with relevant information, but I intend to expand the content significantly over the next few months. Some of the material will be specific to Australia, but most of it will apply to technical editing in general. I have not yet put any effort into page layout, but I hope the site navigation is clear. I welcome suggestions for topics to develop and resources to include in the links, or any other comments you may care to make. Please send suggestions and comments to me directly, rather than cluttering up the list. ---[6] Just for fun ------------------------------------------- "Education, education and education", no. 3 Moses led the Hebrew slaves to the Red Sea, where they made unleavened bread which is bread made without any ingredients. Moses went up on Mount Cyanide to get the ten commandments. He died before he ever reached Canada. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ "How to write good", no. 1 Avoid alliteration. Always. ---[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 4.8 Next issue: 7 March 1999 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=