=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= EDline Vol. 5, no. 12 (26 March 2000) Editorial mailing list (digest version) Published by the Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Contents: Q & A [2jr] Gender-free pronouns [2kc] Simple grammatical constructions [2kd] Some questions [2ke] Hyphenation clarification [2kf] Basic grammar [2kg] Cross-language proofing [Offshoot of [2kf] Basic grammar] [2kh] Disincentive Business matters [4cy] Subcontracting [4cz] Foreign correspondents [4da] Late clients [6] Just for fun [8] Administration =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ---[2] Q&A ----------------------------------------------------- ** [2jr] Gender-free pronouns Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 From: Joy McKellen, Mckellen1@aol.com Many thanks for the support. I was beginning to feel very isolated during this overlong and rather silly correspondence. If people would carefully limit the singular *they* to informal narrative (still not good or right) or dialogue (legitimised by usage) I'd be happier. But to take it to a ridiculous conclusion, *they is* is never acceptable, and that's what simply has to be avoided. By the way, what is Editing and Writing? Something I ought to know about/join/receive emails from? ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 23 Mar 2000 From: Simon Cauchi, cauchi@wave.co.nz Joy McKellen wrote: > If people would carefully limit the singular *they* to informal > narrative (still not good or right) or dialogue (legitimised by > usage) I'd be happier. Will the quotations in the OED convince you that there is long and respectable precedent for singular *they*, *them*, *their* in formal writing? But note the special circumstances in which these pronouns are correctly so used. they 2. Often used in reference to a singular noun made universal by every, any, no, etc., or applicable to one of either sex (= 'he or she'). See Jespersen Progress in Lang. 24. 1526 Pilgr. Perf. (W. de W. 1531) 163 b, Yf..a psalme scape ony persone, or a lesson, or else yt they omyt one verse or twayne. 1535 Fisher Ways perf. Relig. ix. Wks. (1876) 383 He neuer forsaketh any creature vnlesse they before haue forsaken them selues. 1749 Fielding Tom Jones viii. xi, Every Body fell a laughing, as how could they help it. 1759 Chesterfield Lett. IV. ccclv. 170 If a person is born of a..gloomy temper..they cannot help it. 1835 Whewell in Life (1881) 173 Nobody can deprive us of the Church, if they would. 1858 Bagehot Lit. Stud. (1879) II. 206 Nobody fancies for a moment that they are reading about anything beyond the pale of ordinary propriety. 1866 Ruskin Crown Wild Olives 38 (1873) 44 Now, nobody does anything well that they cannot help doing. them 2. Often used for 'him or her', referring to a singular person whose sex is not stated, or to anybody, nobody, somebody, whoever, etc. Cf. they 2. 1742 Richardson Pamela III. 127 Little did I think..to make a..Complaint against a Person very dear to you,..but dont let them be so proud..as to make them not care how they affront everybody else. 1853 C. M. Yonge Heir of Redclyffe xliv, Nobody else..has so little to plague them. 1874 G. W. Dasent Half a Life II. 198 Whenever any one was ill, she brewed them a drink. their 3. Often used in relation to a singular n. or pronoun denoting a person, after each, every, either, neither, no one, every one, etc. Also so used instead of 'his or her', when the gender is inclusive or uncertain. Cf. they pron. 2, them pron. 2; nobody 1 b, somebody. (Not favoured by grammarians.) 1545 Abp. Parker Let. to Bp. Gardiner 8 May, Thus was it agreed among us that every president should assemble their companies. ... 1643 Trapp Comm. Gen. xxiv. 22 Each Countrey hath their fashions, and garnishes. 1749 Fielding Tom Jones vii. xiv, Every one in the House were in their Beds. 1771 Goldsm. Hist. Eng. III. 241 Every person..now recovered their liberty. 1845 Syd. Smith Wks. (1850) 175 Every human being must do something with their existence. 1848 Thackeray Van. Fair xli, A person can't help their birth. a1858 Bagehot Lit. Studies (1879) II. 206 Nobody in their senses would describe Gray's 'Elegy' as [etc.]. 1898 G. B. Shaw Plays II. Candida 86 It's enough to drive anyone out of their senses. themselves, themself 5. In concord with a singular pronoun or n. denoting a person, in cases where the meaning implies more than one, as when the n. is qualified by a distributive, or refers to either sex: = himself or herself. Cf. they 2, them 2. a1464 Rolls of Parlt. V. 513/2 Inheritements, of which any of the seid persones..was seised by theym self, or joyntly with other. -1489 Caxton Sonnes of Aymon i. 39 Eche of theym sholde..make theymselfe redy. 1533 More Apol. 55 b, Neyther Tyndale there nor thys precher.. hath by theyr maner of expounynge..wonne them self mych wurshyp. a1600 Shakes. Lucr. 125 Euery one to rest themselues [ed. 1594 himselfe] betake. 1654-66 Earl of Orrery Parthen. (1676) 147 All that happened, which every one assured themselves, would render him a large sharer in the general joy. 1874 G. W. Dasent Half a Life 3 Every one likes to keep it to themselves as long as they can. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2kc] Simple grammatical constructions Date: Tues, 21 Mar 2000 From: Glen Wheeler, editor@greyowltutor.com Having a background from the medical sciences, I often have difficulties explaining simple grammatical constructions. In the following sentence, for example, why is the conjunction, 'than' used when the comparison seems to be unclear? Could 'then' be used in its place? "No sooner had the blossoms burgeoned than they were gone." ----------------------- Date: Tues, 21 Mar 2000 From: Jane Lyle, jlyle@indiana.edu No, "then" could not be used with "No sooner." If there weren't a comparative form, you would use "when" or "then"--e.g., "The blossoms had barely burgeoned when they were suddenly gone"; "The blossoms had barely burgeoned, then suddenly were gone." But "than" is used with comparatives. Evans and Evans in A Dictionary of Contemporary American Usage, say, "If a comparative form is used, _than_ is required to complete the comparison." ----------------------- Date: Tues, 21 Mar 2000 From: Carol Schanche, CSchanche@ncte.org Warning: This is NOT a definitive answer! Your questions got us editors debating and here is the result: It would seem you could look at your sample sentence chronologically or comparatively. If you see it as a chain of events, "then" would seem appropriate. However, after our discussion, we leaned toward focusing on the word "sooner" as a comparison, making "than" the better choice. We also found what seemed like support for this view in Fowler's book. So we lean toward "than." ---------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 From: Simon Cauchi, cauchi@wave.co.nz Previous answers have established that "than", not "then", is correct. But I was interested in Milton's line, "O fairest flower no sooner blown but blasted," the first line of his poem, "On the Death of a fair Infant, Dying of a Cough" (1625). I didn't have time to examine all the 200+ quotations I found in the OED which include the phrase "no sooner", but the construction "no sooner ... but" rather than "no sooner ... than" seemed to be far commoner in the 16th, 17th, and early 18th centuries than the construction with "than". Then the construction with "but" seems to have died out (the most recent quotation I noticed being dated 1749). I was astonished. I thought it was still current. So here's my question. Would any of you, anywhere, in any context, be inclined to say or write: "No sooner had the blossoms burgeoned *but* they were gone"? ... Another, more focused, search in the OED has produced this quotation: "1825 Scott Talism. xxi, There has no sooner any one done me good service, but..he cancels his interest in me by some deep injury." The following is not a quotation but an illustrative example in the subentry on "throw" meaning "vomit": Mod. Sc. 'I no sooner get up but I begin to throw.' I take this to be a made-up example drawn from the great Dr Murray's personal knowledge of Scottish speech. So that at least gets us into the early years of the twentieth century. (The OED entry on "throw" was first published in 1912.) Does anyone know of any later use of the construction? I'm sure it must be still current somewhere. ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 23 Mar 2000 From: David Ibbetson, ibbetson@idirect.com In "Lost in the Web of Words" (I hope I've got that right, I'm to lazy to go into the next room to check) we are told that when necessary Murray made up quotations and described them as Modern. I agree it's probably Murray, but it may be one of his successors. ---------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 From: Andrea Patterson, apatters@istar.ca For what it is worth, this line would lose its poetic meaning, for reasons not easily described, should "then" be substituted for the very bland "then." One has metaphorical impact, the other is merely a statement of fact. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2kd] Some questions Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 From: Simon Bennett, simonbennett40@hotmail.com 1. In this sentence "...not necessarily anybody's fault," do I require an apostrophe; indeed, is the correct spelling "anybodies"? 2. When using an ellipsis followed by a question mark does the ellipsis require 3 dots or does the dot of the ? count as one? e.g. ..? or ...? 3. Victoria station OR Victoria Station? ---------------------- Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 From: Stephanie Duckworth, stephaniemary@yahoo.com 1. Yes you do need an apostrophe for 'anybody's fault'. 3. It is Victoria station. ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 23 Mar 2000 From: Jo Rudd, jorudd@telstra.easymail.com.au 1. You do need an apostrophe in 'anybody's' to indicate possession of 'fault'. No, you wouldn't spell it 'anybodies' because that would make it plural and I can't actually think of a situation when you would want to use it in the plural. (Except in a sentence like 'Are there any bodies in the morgue?' and then it's quite a different situation because it is two words not one.) 2. Use three dots for the ellipsis and then add the question mark (...?). In other words, make each punctuation sign complete in itself. 3. I have to differ from your former respondent and say Victoria Station but, as it's about 30 years since I was there, perhaps you had better attend to the earlier suggestion! ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 23 Mar 2000 From: Andrew May, 4site@xs4all.nl I disagree with this. It's Victoria Station surely? ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 23 Mar 2000 From: Jane Moody, JMoody@rcog.org.uk My instinct would be: 1. yes you do need the apostrophe. Try turning the sentence around and you get 'it was not necessarily the fault of anybody'. This clearly shows that the apostrophe is correct. 2. I would prefer not to use either, but if you must, then three dots followed by question mark. 3. Victoria Station. Its the proper name. No authority for the above, just my thoughts! ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 23 Mar 2000 From: Eddie Kent, eddiekent@supanet.com If you look at really old texts - say Victorian - you will see they used Victoria-station, Oxford-street etc. At some point the hyphen vanished and the second bit got capitalised. Now quite serious people are leaving it lower case -- but it looks wrong to me. Prejudice, no doubt. I have even seen 'the earl of Blobshire' as a form. Never actually seen HRH the queen of England, though. (Have I just committed lese-majesty? Is there still a death penalty? Oh dear! Sorry.) ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 23 Mar 2000 From: Josephine Bacon, bacon@langservice.com Yes, but Daniel Defoe capitalized all nouns, just like German. I agree that to write "home office, ministry of health" as Private Eye does looks like a typographical error to me. ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 23 Mar 2000 From: David Ibbetson, ibbetson@idirect.com If the reference is to the London terminus I knew it as "Victoria", similarly for "Kings Cross", "Paddington", &c. If I added "station" I would lc it. ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 23 Mar 2000 From: Kathleen Lyle, Kathleen@klyle.demon.co.uk Eddie Kent writes: > the earl of Blobshire According to Hart's Rules some historical writing uses this style. I have a vague memory that someone once told me it was used in CUP history books. I don't come across the problem very often in the kind of work I normally do! ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 23 Mar 2000 From: Carol Schanche, CSchanche@ncte.org You DO need the apostrophe in "anybody's." It is the possessive. The fault belonging to anybody. Also, you DO need the three dots in any ellipses (or four if one of them needs to be a period. The three dots never include end punctuation. The last one I'm not positive about, but I THINK it's Victoria Station. ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 23 Mar 2000 From: Simon Turner, s.turner@inrete.it > [. . .] The three dots never include end punctuation. Almost, but not quite. From Hart's Rules for Compositors and Readers at the University Press Oxford: When three points are used at the end of an incomplete sentence a fourth point should not be added (unless the incomplete sentence is a quotation within an overall sentence, when the normal sentence point will be added after the final quotation mark); Even so, I would place the question mark after three points, not two. ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 23 Mar 2000 From: David Penfold, penfold@eps-edge.demon.co.uk In the days of 'real' typesetting systems the ellipsis was often a single character made up of three dots, so two would not have been possible. ---------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 From: Philip Weston, phil.weston@btinternet.com Long live the ellipsis -- it's not just a feature of old- fashioned "real" typesetting, it's still there in Word: key ALT + 0133. It is used regularly in the work I do. ---------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 From: Kathleen Lyle, Kathleen@klyle.demon.co.uk But this version has the dots very close together and according to Hart they should be 'separated by the normal space of line'. I usually use ordinary full points separated by a non-breaking space (and have this set up as an autocorrect option in Word). ---------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 From: Sven Wair, svwa@globalnet.co.uk But we should remember that Hart, despite its name, is a style guide, not a set of universal rules. It is not unusual these days to see ellipses with three points closed up with a space either side. Also, when editing on disk, if one does not know the style in which ellipses will be set, it is useful to us the Windows ellipsis character, as the typesetter can perform a global search and replace for it without having to take into account a combination of spaced and unspaced points and different numbers of points. ---------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 From: Lane Lester, llester@mindspring.com It's not only in Word; it's in any Windows program that gives access to the full character set. The character is a feature of the font. For example, I never use Word, but I have all the characters available in what I do use: Lotus Word Pro, Corel WordPerfect, Corel Ventura... (I, too, love the ellipsis... although I probably misuse it often.) ---------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 From: Josephine Bacon, bacon@langservice.com And alt semi-colon on the Mac, so much simpler and easier as ever. The French are absolutely obsessed with ellipsis, so I have to know where to find it. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2ke] Hyphenation clarification Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 From: Chris Graillat, Chrisngraham@jps.net One of our contract editors used the suspended hyphen in this manner: The commission has broad powers to regulate investor-owned and -operated natural gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, steam, and transportation companies. The editor cited The Gregg Reference Manual as support for this use; however, I couldn't find a similar example in that manual, or anywhere else. I'm sure the editor has misinterpreted a hyphenation rule, but I thought I'd check to be sure there isn't some obscure rule I haven't yet found. Has anyone seen this use before? ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 23 Mar 2000 From: Kathleen Lyle, Kathleen@klyle.demon.co.uk This usage looks correct to me (UK usage), although I don't have time to go looking for chapter and verse this morning. I don't know the Gregg manual. ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 23 Mar 2000 From: Alex Burrough, Words@Globalxs.nl I couldn't find a similar example in that manual, or anywhere. Your editor wouldn't happen to be Dutch by any chance? The use of suspended hyphens in 'shared compounds' is a standard practice in Dutch, and a rather nifty way of saving space. Never seen it used in English though (but often in 'Dunglish'). ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 23 Mar 2000 From: Mark Levinson, nosnivel@netvision.net.il Yes, I've seen the right-handed suspension (for want of a better name). Not often, but as often as I've seen a sentence constructed that way. If you're not going to punctuate "investor-owned and -operated" that way, how are you going to punctuate it? To write "investor-owned and operated" would mean owned by the investors and operated by anybody. ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 23 Mar 2000 From: Eddie Kent, eddiekent@supanet.com You could rewrite it. ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 23 Mar 2000 From: Gill Collingwood, gill@nimbus.demon.co.uk I like it the way it is. It's precise and elegant. ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 23 Mar 2000 From: Victor Dewsbery, dewsbery@berlin.snafu.de So the Dutch do it too, do they? I thought the person was German- trained, because it is a typical feature used by many Germans. In fact, many Germans seem to me to suffer from "hyphenitis", using the dratted thing in all sorts of possible and impossible places. And now they are even supported by the new German spelling rules - which also prescribes it for borrowed phrases from English. So when some Germans try to write English, hyphens are spread liberally like moles in a lawn. ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 23 Mar 2000 From: Jane Lyle, jlyle@indiana.edu Sure--it's standard, although less common that compounds in which the second element is the suspended one. I don't have the Gregg manual, but you can find the following example in Words into Type: When during the Crimean War ships protected by iron or steel armor were first built in France, and almost immediately afterwards in England, a large number of adjectives, as the _Oxford Dictionary_ tells us, were used to describe them: iron- or steel- or armor-plated, -cased, -clothed, -sided, and many others, and iron-plated was the official adjective until 1866. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2kf] Basic grammar Date: Thurs, 23 Mar 2000 From: Simon Bennett, simonbennett40@hotmail.com 1. While everyone seems to be on the subject, does "out loud" (...you have expressed it out loud.) require hyphenation? 2. Does the following sentence require a question mark? I can't decide whether the sentence is a question or merely a suggestion. "Or if you met through work, how about an after-hours coffee or cocktail(?)" 3. And finally, is an apostrophe required in the following? "...in each other's company." ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 23 Mar 2000 From: Jane Moody, JMoody@rcog.org.uk I love all these nitpicky things! 1. No, I wouldn't punctuate this, but it would have to be in something fairly colloquial to get through! 2. I think it is a question, as you would expect an answer: 'Yes', 'No', 'Not tonight, I've got a headache' sort of thing. However, it is not a sentence anyway! 3. This one is back to the original point - put the other way round and it is obvious: in the company of each other, so yes. ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 23 Mar 2000 From: Michele Clarke, Michele.Clarke@btinternet.com I don't want to sound like an old Aunt Nelly (see SFEP newsletters of long ago!) but I do worry when there are basic queries on an editing/proofreading newsline. If people are offering their services to the publishing industry as proof- readers, then surely publishers should expect people to trained as such. There are many good courses around (particular SFEP's Introduction to Proofreading) that get people started, but one course does not make a proofreader, as Gillian Clarke always used to stress. It takes some years but, more importantly, it seems to me that some queries on the emailings emanate from people who have not been trained in basic grammar. If that is so, I cannot see how they can offer proofreading services. ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 23 Mar 2000 From: Sulaiman Adebowale, sulaiman.adebowale@codesria.sn I am afraid, I don't quite agree. The concept "basic grammar", which you think the people emailing seemed not to have been trained in, is in itself, not sacrosanct. Its features are changing, whether we accept it or not, and what constitutes correct or wrong grammar is not that clear anymore. Secondly, a good editor, in my opinion, is not an expert in basic grammar, but an extremely curious person. Someone ready to question given assumptions about "grammar" and "facts" in any given context. People should not be made to feel embarrass about questions, which may be obvious to some editors but perplexing to others. For instance, there are editors and proofreaders who strongly argue that "more importantly" is not English. Others feel "more important" is rather stiff. Yes, there are some questions on the list that would have been solved easily if some emailers picked up a "good" dictionary or style guide. You are right about training as well, it is essential. But I think the atmosphere (if I can use such a word to describe cybernet), is interesting. There is a sense of community, that one is not alone in this crazy job of bothering about whether "eg" and "etc" must have a dot or not. ---------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 From: Jo Rudd, jorudd@telstra.easymail.com.au Well said, Sulaiman. Freelance editing at home alone can be very isolating. I love the feeling of an online community that I get from the two mailing lists I belong to, especially now that I'm beginning to get to 'know' some of the members. I was very chuffed to find 31 messages this morning, though they were a great disincentive to starting work. I'm obviously not the only person who enjoys picking over points of usage and I've learnt a couple of interesting things from our recent exchanges (particularly David Penfold's nugget about the ellipsis originally being one single character -- doesn't that really simplify things!). And I'm sure it makes some of us feel good to be able to jump in and answer the questions! P.S. What's the rationale behind arguing that 'more importantly' isn't good English? ---------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 From: Jane Moody, JMoody@rcog.org.uk All I can say to the above is 'hear, hear'. I restrained myself from replying to the original question because I did not think it would be easy to be polite about the comments made. Suaiman put it very neatly and I hope no-one is deterred from asking 'daft' questions. If we can't ask the obvious on EDline, where on earth do we go? ---------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 From: Jennifer Bassett, jenny@daypotts.demon.co.uk I think Sulaiman has identified a key point here. Asking questions indicates a mind open to learning, whether the questioner begins from a high or a low knowledge base. The editors or proofreaders to be really wary of are those who are so secure in their own ignorance that it never even occurs to them that there might be questions that need asking. In any training I have ever done I have always encouraged the trainees to ask 'really, really stupid questions'; the responses and ensuing discussions have often been very illuminating - for trainer and trainees alike. None of us can ever be sure what it is that we don't know! ---------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 From: Naomi Laredo, Naomi@smallprt.demon.co.uk "Aunt Nellie" wrote: > I do worry when there are basic queries on an editing / > proofreading newsline. I understand the comments made by Sulaiman and Simon, and no one should be afraid of asking "daft questions". However, there is a very practical reason why this is the wrong way to deal with such basic queries: it is time-consuming and inefficient to have to ask about every little query and await replies (probably several, contradictory ones, and not all reliable). The questioner's deadlines will go out of the window! Far better to invest in some reputable books on grammar and style, and spend a little time reading them now, for quicker and more efficient working thereafter. ------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 From: Simon Bennett, simonbennett40@hotmail.com Dear Aunt Nelly, I'm just getting towards the end of a proofreading course and I'm working on my assessment. In order to clarify a few points I am consulting a variety of sources (and coming up with a variety of answers!) You need not fear, I will be taking further training before marketing myself, but thanks for your concern. As the ancient Black Country saying goes, "ASK NO QUESTIONS, GET NO ANSWERS!" ---------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 From: Geoffrey David Palmer, gdp@lineone.net In order to be effective proof-readers, we do need a good grounding in the English language -- including old-fashioned grammar. We also need training, which was formerly the province of "training officers" within publishing companies, but is now increasingly an independent activity. These needs are even more acute within the realm of copy editing. All languages change over time. However, we live in a "quick fix" age, one in which people have little time for traditional, slow learning methods, and no real desire to apply traditional skills in a rigorous manner. (For a good example of contrasting approaches -- or values, perhaps -- visit the 1913 classroom at the Beamish Open Air Museum, sit down at one of the desks and attempt to replicate the example of copperplate on the blackboard.) Some of the elementary questions that have recently been raised in this newsletter can be settled by turning to well established reference works. Perhaps those who choose to reply should simply make reference to the established works, rather than putting forward their own views. But wouldn't that be too dry, too terse, too restrictive? To a certain extent, we're all victims of 18th- century prescriptivism. How do we preserve individuality, flexibility and "progression", while still conforming -- at a fundamental level -- to certain "fixed" guiding principles? As a supplementary question, many might ask "Do we need to conform at all?" Consider Lewis Carroll's nonsense poem "Jabberwocky". Putting aside the long-running debate about the meanings of the individual words, I would contend that many of us intuitively understand the opening lines, just as we "understand" an impressionist painting without needing to see hard boundary lines. Similarly, we can understand 20th-century experiments such as "concrete" or "prose" poetry. In more recent decades, mass public interest in poetry has diminished, and the somewhat drab offerings of the "new generation poets" are a poor substitute for the vitality and energy of, for example, e.e. cummings. My view is this. Just as an appreciation of the social and cultural background of my family helps me to locate myself as an individual within present-day society, and "grounds" me securely in a way that then allows me the freedom to explore, so an appreciation of old-fashioned grammar helps to ground us securely in a working relationship with the language, and then we are again free to explore and experiment. This is why we understand "Jabberwocky" at an intuitive level -- and, in fact, that is all we need to do (we certainly don't need to dismember and analyse the poem word by word, stanza by stanza). This is why, in the early decades of the 20th century, poets were able to experiment so successfully with new forms. In contrast, if we move away from strict "old-fashioned" teaching methods, and away from "intellectual rigour", then we find it more difficult to grasp "the rules" -- and, correspondingly, more difficult to know how to interpret them, bend them and, ultimately, break them to good effect. It is this effect, perhaps, that has led to a diminishing interest in poetry. Here, we come back to editorial matters. If an author writes in what I will call a "relaxed" style, how much latitude do we -- as copy editors and proof-readers, allow? Surely we can only reach pragmatic decisions on the basis of formal understanding, so that we can assess how far the author has departed from our rigorous "expectations". Note that I'm not advocating a return to formality, or a reversal of trends. I'm merely suggesting that the best way in which to understand and manage the situation is to start from formality, and then to move through current trends, checking carefully as we go. In this way, surely much of the correspondence about minor, somewhat obvious, points would slip away naturally, because people's knowledge, and hence self-confidence, would have increased significantly, and they would be able to rely on their own judgement. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2kg] Cross-language proofing [Offshoot of [2kf] Basic grammar] Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 From: Jo Rudd, jorudd@telstra.easymail.com.au It occurs to me that it's not even necessary to know a language to be able to proofread it (tho' it must be a mind-numbingly boring occupation). Many Australian books are typeset/printed offshore, in places like Singapore. These printers have in-house proofreaders who check the work, character for character, against the original before returning it to the client. Many of them do not speak English. ---------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 From: Freda Contreras-Buhaimed, fredacontreras@hotmail.com I don't think a non-English speaking person can do any proof- reading work at all! Except, of course, if the words these Singaporeans proofread are their native ones! It takes one conversant or well-versed in English to be able to proofread well in English, right? ---------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 From: Gill Collingwood, gill@nimbus.demon.co.uk I think it would be possible to proofread, as Jo said, by checking each character against the original. It would take a lot longer, though. On the other hand, it might be more accurate than doing it the usual way. ---------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 From: Jane Bryant, jane@snocat.com Not necessarily: the careful reader will read the words against copy character for character. I've proofread French (which I'm vaguely familiar with), German, Italian and Latin (which I'm not). He or she will, of course, miss any problems with the language and perhaps the layout - but then, so do many of the students on the distance-learning course I tutor (and they're all so-called 'native' English speakers)! ---------------------- Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 From: Mark Levinson, nosnivel@netvision.net.il If I may be allowed an anecdote, several years ago in Tel Aviv I went to have a few paragraphs typeset. I chose the particular bureau because they said they were computerized (back when not everyone was). I was appalled to see that though they had a computer, they had no magnetic storage and their typesetter spoke no English. "But she does perfect work," they told me, and they showed me my job. There was one error... and as I said, no magnetic media. "That's okay, she'll type it all over again and this time she won't make any mistakes," they said. I explained the error to her, and as she quoted the word in her reply I realized from her pronunciation that she truly was a stranger to the English language. But by golly, her second pass through the job was perfect. ---------------------- Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 From: Josephine Bacon, bacon@langservice.com Yes, of course it is possible for typesetters who don't know a language to typeset it perfectly, especially if it is only a few paragraphs. In the old days of hot metal it was done all the time. And Mark's experience is from several years ago, when photosetting was replacing hot metal but hot metals comps were still working. Nowadays, all kinds of flaky people claim to be typesetters and you cannot rely on anyone. After all, in the days of hot metal, even native English-language compositors, who were generally not from the educated classes, had to set type upside down and back- to-front - and still did a perfect job! --- Thanks also to David Ibbetson for his response. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2kh] Disincentive Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 From: Freda Contreras-Buhaimed, fredacontreras@hotmail.com Is there a word 'disincentive'? ---------------------- Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 From: Jo Rudd, jorudd@telstra.easymail.com.au There certainly is a word 'disincentive'. Try a few dictionaries! It's in Collins and the Macquarie (Australia's 'national' dictionary) and even in the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English (my copy's 1974 and I've always found it very useful, even tho' English is my native language). Strangely enough, it's not in my abridged Webster's (which I refer to to check my spelling when editing a book for the US market), so there you are! ---------------------- Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 From: Jane Lyle, jlyle@indiana.edu It's in the newer Webster's editions. If you aren't planning to update, you can always check Merriam-Webster online at < http://www.m-w.com/ > ---[4] Business matters --------------------------------------- ** [4cy] Subcontracting Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 From: Russell Walton, daghdas.staff@dial.pipex.com Does anyone have any advice re: subcontracting. I regularly have to turn down work, both proofreading and copy- editing, because I just can't fit it into my schedule - I have arrangements with my regular clients whereby I let them know when I'm free and they book that time. At the moment, I am in discussion with a client about sub- contracting, while still remaining in charge of the work, but given that I would have to pay the person I engaged at a lower rate than I received there seems a basic flaw in the idea. After all what decent freelance wants to work for less than the going rate? ---------------------- Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 From: Josephine Bacon, bacon@langservice.com Frankly, I think you are letting yourself in for a lot of problems and if your sub-contractor does a lousy job, you are personally responsible. Why not find a few freelance associates whose work you can trust and refer jobs mutually. Make it clear to your client that you are doing this and ensure that the person you send work to does the same for you, otherwise drop them. ---------------------- Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 From: Joy McKellen, Mckellen1@aol.com Yes, Josephine, I feel that's the way to deal with the problem (I've been doing it for years, and it's always worked.) The key point is to be very careful about who you subcontract to. ---------------------- Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 From: Naomi Laredo, Naomi@smallprt.demon.co.uk This is the wrong way to look at it. You would be acting as a manager for the person who does the work: making sure they do it on time and to the required standard. They should be paid at no less than the going rate; you should get either a premium on top of that rate for organising it (i.e. an 'agency' approach), or a separate fee for managing it (i.e. a 'project management' approach). If your client is not prepared to pay you for this service, don't provide it. I do quite a lot of work on this basis, because I have a lot of contacts with clients and freelances, so I can provide a useful service to both. As Josephine Bacon says, it involves extra responsibility and can lead to hassle - and you certainly need subcontractors whom you can trust. But taking this route can also bring more rewarding work and higher rates of pay. The decision is yours! ---------------------- Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 From: Gundega Korsts, gkorsts@terracom.net What decent freelance? Ah: one who is interested in the subject matter, whether from expertise or just looking for a new challenge. Editing can have intrinsic rewards, and I can see how a dip into a project that opens a new world or repays a passion could be worth it. So I suggest you highlight the content of the work when you put out your call for subcontractors. As for the pay: negotiate a premium for managing subcontractors, and then be merciful to the freelancer when you decide on your cut! ---------------------- Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 From: Eddie Kent, eddiekent@supanet.com Don't do it - it just isn't worth the hassle. Recommend (without taking any responsibility) someone you know fairly well to your client. A simpler idea if you can manage it is pay someone at a lower rate to do your non-technical bits. I find that a large proportion of my time is taken up with just entering things and filing and answering letters. And even compiling GrapeVine - all essential but non-earning. Keep this person's hours down or you start making yet more work. My own solution is to specialise to the point where I don't get many extra requests. But then I don't have to earn a living any more. ---------------------- Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 From: Chris Graillat, Chrisngraham@jps.net If you plan to "officially" subcontract with or coordinate any other editors for your client, this information may help you. The person who originally coordinated the pool of 5-6 contract editors my office uses received $10 more per hour than our highest-paid freelance editor, and almost twice as much as our entry-level freelance editors. The coordinator was responsible for testing and hiring us, as well as periodically (very periodically, in my estimation) evaluating and training us. She did not schedule us for edits; a clerical person did that. If you plan to take on the responsibility of arranging other editors for your client, you must also assume at least some measure of responsibility for the quality of their work (as others on this list have pointed out), so you may want to interview them, test them and periodically spot-check or review their work. This added responsibility requires you to market yourself somewhat differently and request a higher fee from your client. As our former coordinator's example clearly illustrated for me, you need to stand up for yourself and convince your client of your worth. You are, after all, saving them plenty of time and, therefore, money. And then most definitely charge for it. ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 23 Mar 2000 From: Josephine Bacon, bacon@langservice.com Many organizations, including the Institute of Translation and Interpreting, have rules that make it unethical to sub-contract to other individuals for money. I believe that is a good rule and one that should be introduced into the rule-book of all organizations such as ours. If you pass a job on to someone fair and decent you may earn more from it ultimately than if you had sub-contracted it. ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 23 Mar 2000 From: Naomi Laredo, Naomi@smallprt.demon.co.uk I think these rules refer to subcontracting work without the client's knowledge, which is clearly unethical. I can see nothing wrong with subcontracting where the client agrees to it, or even specifically asks you to do so. As others have pointed out, you would be providing a valuable service to the client, as well as to other freelances less well connected than yourself. ---------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 From: Simon Cauchi, cauchi@wave.co.nz I entirely agree with Naomi. If I am offered work that I'm too busy to take on, I pass it on to a subcontractor (my son, as it happens) in Wellington, having first obtained the publisher's agreement to this procedure. (The work is proofreading or indexing, not editing.) My son couriers or e-mails his work to me and I vet it carefully and if necessary correct it before sending it on to the publisher. My bill to the publisher includes my payment to my son, plus a modest margin, plus my fee for my own time spent on the job. The system works fine, but it helps -- i.e., it speeds up matters -- if for an indexing job the publisher sends me as well as my son a set of the proofs. ---------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 From: Josephine Bacon, bacon@langservice.com I agree that there is nothing actually unethical about sub- contracting, providing the client is informed. However, in most of the cases I have come across involving ITI members, this was not the case. I asked a certain ITI member some years ago to find me a competent typesetter in a non-European language which he translated into English. He found me one who was totally incompetent and it came out in court that she was paying him a commission of GBP5 a page! THAT is what I call unethical, especially from a fellow ITI member. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [4cz] Foreign correspondents Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 From: Sue Fenton, sfenton@dmg.co.uk I work for a British trade magazine publishing house and we occasionally need interviews carried out or trade shows covered in various places outside the UK (but of course we have no travel budgets!). Is there anyone out there who I can put on my list of useful people to call on if/when we need a feature written in Asia, eastern Europe, the USA in particular. The immediate need is for someone who is based in Shanghai to cover a trade show there next month. ---------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 From: Josephine Bacon, bacon@langservice.com I have someone in the Silicon Valley area who is a professional tech writer and might be able to do this. I myself am going to be in Chicago and San Jose in late May and I also have contacts among journalists in Israel and elsewhere in the U.S. ---------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 From: Freda Contreras-Buhaimed, fredacontreras@hotmail.com If you need one from Kuwait, I'm here. When I was actively writing for an expat magazine (2 years ago) I covered one British trade (mission) function (done at the premises of the British Embassy) and did a lot of interviews among the participants. I also took some photos. The story got published of course. ---------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 From: Mary Young, stardust@lankaster.com You can put me on your list for the Western U.S. I live in Arizona and can easily get to California, Colorado, New Mexico. I might be willing to travel further north, time permitting. ---------------------- Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 From: Helen Ough Dealy, words_that_work@xtra.co.nz I live in New Zealand and would be available to cover trade shows in the North Island. I have a background in journalism, public relations, writing, news photography and editing. Looking forward to hearing from you should you need someone 'Downunder'! +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [4da] Late clients Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 From: Chris Graillat, Chrisngraham@jps.net What would you do if you had a regular client who repeatedly delayed or rescheduled your assignments? Would you charge the client a higher rate when you finally did get the work to compensate for the lost time (and possibly for other jobs you lost while you were waiting)? If you could no longer take the job because of scheduling conflicts with other clients, would you charge the late client a cancellation fee? ---------------------- Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 From: Stephanie Duckworth, stephaniemary@yahoo.com Probably as long as you accommodate this person/company they are not going to see the need to make an effort to change. How about talking generally first about the reasons for the hold-ups etc. Then put your case that you like to do work for them and see if they can think of ways to minimise these inconvenient changes from their end, without getting too involved in their operational problems. I think it is also important to put your side of the situation, and say that you are sure they understand that the way things are organised at the moment is not working for you. You will need to decide what your 'sanctions' are going to be, like charging more or continuing with work that you currently have on hand and saying that you will do your best but that you will not be in a position to promise that if the arrival date of the scripts continues to be unpredictable. Hope that helps you with thinking about the situation. Finally, I suppose it depends on whether the inconvenience is balanced out by the value of the work. ---------------------- Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 From: Jane Bryant, jane@snocat.com I'd just drop the client. But then perhaps I'm lucky in that I've always got slightly more work than I can deal with easily, so I don't suffer if the odd project gets mucked about. ---[6] Just for fun -------------------------------------------- Facts about the English Language, no. 10 No words in the English language rhyme with orange, silver or purple. ---[8] Administration ------------------------------------------ EDline provides the opportunity for an online discussion of matters editorial and editorial business. To post to the mailing list via ListBot, use the following address: ee_edline@listbot.com For digest subscribers, please post your EDline messages to: bywater@zetnet.co.uk Messages should be pertinent to the basic premise of the list. The spelling and grammar of messages will *not* be corrected in the digest version, but some editing of length may be undertaken. The sections of the EDline digest 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 the automated version of EDline Send a blank email to: ee_edline-subscribe@listbot.com If you would prefer to read EDline as a weekly digest, send an e-mail to ElectricEds@bigfoot.com with "Subscribe [EDline digest]" as 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. Archives of the EDline automated discussions can be found at: < http://ee_edline.listbot.com/ > --------- ** 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) 2000, by individual contributors Design (c) 1996, 1997, 2000 Iain Brown Compilation (c) 2000, Iain Brown / The Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= END OF EDline 5.12 Next digest issue: 2 April 2000 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=