=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  EDline Vol. 5, no. 13     (2 April 2000)

  Editorial mailing list (digest version)
  Published by the Electric Editors
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

  Contents:

         Q & A
  [2kf]  Basic grammar
  [2kg]  Cross-language proofing
              [Offshoot of [2kf] Basic grammar]
  [2ki]  Syllable division of Polish
  [2kj]  More on ellipses
              [Offshoot of [2kd] Some questions]
  [2kl]  Usage: 'help us develop?'
  [2km]  Citing a password-protected URL
  [2kn]  After the Nineties?

         Business matters
  [4da]  Late clients

  [5]    Bookmarks

  [6]    Just for fun

  [8]    Administration

  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


---[2]  Q&A -----------------------------------------------------


** [2kf] Basic grammar

         Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000
         From: Gillian Clarke, 101625.3601@compuserve.com

I hate to be negative, but perhaps I could be positive that a
good editor MUST know _at least_ basic grammar. Knowledge of
grammar, spelling and punctuation are the basic tools of an
editor's (and proofrader's) trade just as, before computers, pens
and pencils were fundamental to our work.

Unless you know the rules, how can you know when to bend or break
them? I would not consider using a plumber who said, I don't know
much about the basics of plumbing but I have an enquiring mind.
And certainly not someone who claimed to be a surgeon but had
only an enquiring mind when it came to deciding how to carry out
an operation. (I know, it's an extreme example, but (obviously) I
feel very strongly about this. Especially when I keep hearing
from publishers that editors are a pretty ignorant and/or useless
lot.)

Of course, language is changing all the time and we need to be
able to be flexible. This is why we bear the intended market in
mind when we edit. Mass market paperback fiction is much more
'flexible' than literary fiction; and medicine for the layperson
has a completely different approach from that for the
professional.

But if all we can offer a job is little more than the fact that
we can read, I think we need to find another sort of work.


         ----------------------
         Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000
         From: Michele Clarke, Michele.Clarke@btinternet.com

I have been reading the replies to my original email, where I was
wondering what had happened to training and grammar in the lives
of aspiring proofreaders (and probably copy-editors as well!). I
have had a few personal emails as well, which fortunately were in
agreement with me, whereas the publicly emailed messages were
more in agreement that grammar matters not so much these days.

I still disagree I'm afraid. Some of the emails just proved to me
that there are working proofreaders out there who do not know the
basic rules (and I am talking about grammar here, not <style> - 
these two concepts appear to be muddled in some people's
messages). The problems with 'which' and 'that' come to mind, for
example. Grammar, particularly in reference-type textbooks, is to
me essential. Thoughts and statements can go very awry if the
message is written incorrectly. Maybe when all the Aunt Nellies
are dead and gone, grammar will go the same way. I for one won't
care at that stage - I hope that I shall be rejoined with my old
English teacher at primary school who taught me all, and gave me
the love of my native English language.


         ----------------------
         Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000
         From: Kathe Roth, kathe1@sympatico.ca

Sulaiman Adebowale writes:

> 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.

I think it depends what kind of editor you are talking about.
When I am doing copy editing, which I do mainly for academic
authors, I absolutely am expected to know "basic" and more
advanced grammar. I am expected to make grammatical, punctuation,
and spelling corrections. And if I don't know "basic" grammar,
how am I to fulfil this function? I consider myself a reasonably
curious person; if I question a grammatical construction or the
spelling or definition of a word, I have a panoply of reference
books to refer to--the basic tools of the editor.

When I am doing more substantive work on a manuscript (or, I
suppose, if I were an acquisitions editor), my innate curiosity
may range more widely--to the nature of the subject matter, the
flow of the arguments, and other, larger issues than when I am
wearing my line-editing cap. But that is moving very far away
from copy editing or proofreading--and I don't think that one
negates the other.

Yes, the English language is in constant change, but much of
that change is in daily vernacular, not in more formal speech or
writing, which, I think, changes much more slowly. If there are
to be no rules for writing, at any level, then there is no need
for editors!

Sulaiman also writes:

> 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.

But that is purely a question of style; both are accepted usage,
so it is a matter of taste--and one could find references that
come down on both sides. But a question about, for instance, the
possessive form of "anybody" is on a different order. There is
the possessive and there is the plural, and I wouldn't want
someone who doesn't know the difference editing or proofreading
my book! And, in fact, I would expect that person to be curious
enough to look in a grammar book and figure out the difference
for himself or herself

> 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.

Exactly. In my mind, this is part of the curiosity that makes a
good editor.


         -----------------------
         Date: Tues, 28 Mar 2000
         From: Joy McKellen, Mckellen1@aol.com

When I commissioned freelance editors in my days working for
publishers, I never again employed one who make a grammatical 
mistake. Of course the language is changing, but there are basic
rules which don't and they must - repeat must - be understood by
all editors. Exceptions should only be made by those who
understand the rule and the reason for the exception (usually a
matter of context - informal vs. formal writing, for example.)


         ------------------------
         Date: Thurs, 30 Mar 2000
         From: Christine Shuttleworth, cshuttle@dircon.co.uk

Recently, Michele Clarke wrote:

> 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. ...

At the risk of being flamed, I have to agree with Michele. I
don't want to offend anyone who wrote to the list, but if people
really need to seek advice on such matters as when to use "than"
and not "then", perhaps they should consider whether they are
pursuing the right occupation. Advertisements in the press in
recent years offering training courses in copyediting and proof-
reading have undoubtedly given the misleading impression to many
that this is a lucrative profession which can be successfully
taken up by anyone with a love of reading, whatever their
standard of education. Surely one needs to be rather more
proficient in grammar, spelling and punctuation than the average
person before even considering taking up copyediting and proof-
reading professionally. Otherwise the blind will be leading the
blind. But perhaps I am just another old aunt Nelly.


---
Thanks also to Lionel Browne for his response.


+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


** [2kg] Cross-language proofing 
              [Offshoot of [2kf] Basic grammar]

         Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000
         From: Elaine Firestone, elaine@seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov

Josephine Bacon wrote:

> 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!

I'd like to know what the poster meant when she said "were
generally not from the educated classes" when referring to native
English-language compositors in the days of hot-metal type. If
she meant that they most likely didn't go to college, that may be
true, but make no mistake about it, they were craftsmen (yes,
most were men) in the truest sense of the word. My father was a
journeyman compositor (*not* a linotype operator) for over 40
years and did any number of stints as a proofreader, too. In
fact, as his second career after he retired from being a
typographer, he was a proofreader for a major insurance company
here in the US. 

Believe me when I tell you he caught *major* errors that his
college-educated colleagues never saw. The amount of education
you have does not prove whether you are going to be good at
proofreading. My father never went to college because of lack of
money and opportunity, not lack of intelligence.


         ----------------------
         Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000
         From: Gerlinde Krug, wordcraft@word.demon.co.uk

Freda Contreras-Buhaimed wrote: 

> 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?

I think there are several arguments for Freda's position (of not
using proofreaders for a language they don't know), and I don't
think that the results would be more accurate - on the contrary.

1. It would not only take a lot longer to compare a text
character for character, it would take *forever*, if we are not
just talking a paragraph or two.

2. Even if that person managed to keep up concentration during
this incredibly strenuous process, I can almost guarantee you
(based on my own experience!) that the result wouldn't be
error-free.

3. The most important argument, though, is that a proofreader who
doesn't know the language of the text would not be able to detect
any oversights on the editor's side (if there was an editor!).
They wouldn't be able to detect any misspellings or dodgy grammar
or judge whether the punctuation is consistent, or the like.


         ---------------------
         Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000
         From: Anna Beth McCormack, mccormack@goulburn.net.au

It IS possible to proofread in a language you don't speak. Early
in my career I worked for a British publisher putting out school-
books for Nigeria. Some were in English and Igbo; others in just
Igbo (which is the language of the Ibo people). Igbo is full of
little words like iwi, iti, ewe, ike, with and without dots over
many of the vowels. After proofreading in Igbo (letter by
letter), and even finding some queries, and then finding an Igbo
speaker in London to consult to solve them, I've never been
afraid to proofread anything!

(On the other hand, I do sometimes wonder what the actual Ibo
thought of the job.)

It's also possible to typeset in a language you don't speak.
Recently I've edited maths textbooks (which do have words in
them) which were typeset from handwritten MS by a Singaporean
firm. Apparently, my instructions to the typesetter were
interpreted by someone who does speak English (little Chinese-
character notes appeared on the MS), then typeset by non-English
speakers. When I proofread the job, I found that the quality of
setting was every bit as good as if done by a firm of English-
speakers.


         ---------------------
         Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000
         From: Gundega Korsts, gkorsts@terracom.net

Anna Beth McCormack wrote:

> It's also possible to typeset in a language you don't speak.

This should be *famously* true. There's an old, old anecdote
about a typesetter in Sanskrit for the Oxford University Press
whose work was utterly perfect, until he decided to get
interested in what all those symbols mean and took a single
beginner's course in Sanskrit. He was, the story goes, useless
thereafter: kept setting what he thought he knew instead of what
was given.

I know this is just a variation on the theme of a little
knowledge being a dangerous thing, but it still has a point.
Where character-for-character accuracy is required, it can help
to have someone who doesn't know the language (but definitely
someone who is driven!). It's much like checking printer's proofs
(bluelines, silvers, or whatever the current technology
produces), where I am looking only for printing flaws and want
NOT to see the silly little errors that slipped through into this
final product. I look over the pages upside down, or read up the
middle and down the sides -- anything to keep me from reading.


         ---------------------
         Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000
         From: David Penfold, penfold@eps-edge.demon.co.uk

With reference to typesetting and to OUP, there is also the story
of the compositor, in the days of hand setting, who knew that
what he was setting (in a language he did not understand) was
wrong because the pattern of his physical actions in selecting
type from the case was different. I am not sure whether there is
a keyboard equivalent of this!

On a perhaps more serious note, typesetters have nearly always
set mathematics that they do not understand. Indeed, the
objection of most compositors to Donald Knuth's TeX was that, in
order to key equations, you _did_ have to understand what they
meant (which was, of course, intentional, because TeX was
intended for academics to use).


+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


** [2ki] Syllable division of Polish

         Date: Tues, 28 Mar 2000
         From: Virginia Catmur, Virginia_Catmur@compuserve.com

Is it OK to divide Jagiel-lon thus, or is it a solecism in
Polish?


+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


** [2kj] More on ellipses   [Offshoot of [2kd] Some questions]

         Date: Tues, 28 Mar 2000
         From: Antonia Owen, AOwen@peterowen.u-net.com

On the subject of ellipses, I agree with Kathleen Lyle that the
points spaced out with non-breaking spaces look much better than
three close-set points with space on either side. Regarding the
addition of a question mark (or an exclamation mark) at the end,
I have been working on a novel where the author is very keen on
trailing-off questions and exclamations, and I can find no
authority (I've consulted Butcher, Hart, the Oxford Dictionary,
etc.) as to whether there should be a space before the question
mark or exclamation mark or whether it should be closed up (the
UK company I work for no longer uses a fourth point to denote the
end of a sentence). Can anyone advise on this?


         -----------------------
         Date: Tues, 28 Mar 2000
         From: Carol Schanche, CSchanche@ncte.org

All I can tell you is that at the National Council of Teachers of
English, I use spaced out points, and end punctuation also has a
space before it. If the quote IS the end of a sentence, I use a
period, followed by three spaced out points. If it is NOT the end
of the sentence, the three spaced out points come first FOLLOWED
BY a point, question mark, or exclamation point (with a space in
front of it).

I cannot reference a source for this, but it is our style.


         -----------------------
         Date: Tues, 28 Mar 2000
         From: Gundega Korsts, gkorsts@terracom.net

The Chicago Manual of Style (14th ed.) allows three spaced dots
for any ellipsis regardless of position within or between
sentences (section 10.50), but prefers distinguishing within- and
between-sentence position (10.51; detailed in 10.52-10.59). End
punctuation is placed before the ellipsis dots, and has no space
before it. What looks like four ellipsis dots is then actually
end punctuation (a period) followed by the three spaced ellipsis
dots. If the sentence ends in ! or ?, the mark takes the place of
the period, and the three-dot ellipseness of the omission is then
clearly revealed.

Note: The end punctuation is retained only if the curtailed 
sentence is still grammatically complete; that is, the four-dot
version (. . . . ) and the ! or ? versions (! . . . ) (? . . . )
are not invariably used when the ellipsis comes at the end of a
sentence or between sentences.

I had forgotten that last rule, so I thank you all for sending me
back to the source.

By the way: The NCTE rule Carol cites does violate Chicago style,
but I never worry about that sort of thing. I follow the rules of
the people paying me, and am grateful that they want to be
consistent, whatever way they have chosen. Pindar was a hired
pen. It's certainly good enough for me!


         ----------------------
         Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000
         From: Carol Schanche, CSchanche@ncte.org

We (at NCTE) do follow Chicago, it would seem. They offer two
systems and actually state that they PREFER the one we use (and
I have described below). They will permit the use of 3 dots for
any omission if it is followed consistently, but prefer a
distinction based on the type of omission. Gundega seems to
reiterate the system I describe but implies that it is different
from Chicago's and the other explanation. I think we described
the same system. Maybe I'm missing something.


         ----------------------
         Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000
         From: Jane Lyle, jlyle@indiana.edu

The difference between Chicago's style and yours at NCTE is that
Chicago always puts the first of four ellipsis points immediately
following the end of a sentence. There is never a space preceding
the first of four points. (CMS: "Note that there is no space
between the period or other terminal punctuation and the
preceding word, even though that word does not end the original
sentence.") Chicago's less preferred style, which may end up
being their preferred style in the next edition (and which is
becoming increasingly common), is to always use three points --
never four -- whether the ellipsis indicates an omission at the
end of a sentence or within it. 

Thus the sentence "It's a beautiful day for a walk by the river
or in the park" would be shortened per Chicago's preferred style
to either "It's a beautiful day. . . ." or "It's a beautiful day
for . . . a walk in the park. . . ." In the style you say you
prefer, I assume -- on the basis of the earliest quote from you
above -- that you would use either "It's a beautiful day . . . ."
or "It's a beautiful day for . . . a walk in the park. . . ." 


         ----------------------
         Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000
         From: Gundega Korsts, gkorsts@terracom.net

Ah, the difference between the CMS preferred style and the NCTE
style that Carol S. described is in the placement of the end
punctuation. CMS requires the end punctuation set solid with the
last word, followed by three ellipses. What was given as NCTE
practice was the ellipses first, then the end punctuation (which,
since the ellipses are spaced, leaves a space before the end
punctuation mark). It's the difference between "never 
again! . . ."  (CMS) and "never again . . . !" (NCTE).

Hoping that I gave no offence -- I was in fact fascinated by an 
example of usage so very close to CMS and yet introducing that
odd transposition of the end punctuation.


         ----------------------
         Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000
         From: Carol Schanche, CSchanche@ncte.org

I see what you're saying now. Yes, there is some difference. (We
would, of course, have added an ellipsis for the omission of "by
the river or.") Our book and journal divisions meet occasionally
to review such things so that we are consistent and aware of
changes in current usage and style. 


         ----------------------
         Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000
         From: Lane Lester, llester@mindspring.com

Jane Lyle said:

> Chicago's less preferred style, which may end up being their
> preferred style in the next edition (and which is becoming
> increasingly common), is to always use three points -- never
> four -- whether the ellipsis indicates an omission at the end
> of a sentence or within it. 

Perhaps that possible upcoming change is reflected in something
that confuses me in this discussion. If the included matter is
the end of the sentence, why would you put an ellipsis after the
period? Is that a way to indicate that there are more sentences
after that one?


         ----------------------
         Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000
         From: Jane Lyle, jlyle@indiana.edu

Lane Lester wrote:

> If the included matter is the end of the sentence, why would
> you put an ellipsis after the period? Is that a way to indicate
> that there are more sentences after that one?

Yes. Four ellipsis points normally indicate that either the end
of the preceding sentence or one or more entire sentences (or
both) have been omitted. For instance, you might have the
sentence "It's a nice day for a walk through the park," followed
by two paragraphs about the beautiful weather and the blooming
flowers and the greening grass and the singing birds, with the
second paragraph ending with "I think I will go right now." With
"It's a nice day for a walk. . .  . I think I will go right now,"
you are using ellipsis points to indicate the omission of the end
of the first sentence and all but the final sentence of the next
two paragraphs.


---
Thanks also to Carla Taines for her response.


+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


** [2kl] Usage: 'help us develop?'

         Date: Thurs, 30 Mar 2000
         From: Omar Johns, omarjohns@naseej.com.sa

Cross-posted from Lantra-L:

Has "help us to develop" in this example managed to shed off the
air of bad style it used to have, versus "help us develop"?

Or is it even presumptuous of me to think it was once widely held
to be bad style?

Is there an appreciable difference of meaning or usage here?


+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


** [2km] Citing a password-protected URL

         Date: Thurs, 30 Mar 2000
         From: Helen Moore, hmoore@ansonic.com.au

I'm presently editing a bibliography in which many of the
citations are URL addresses. One of them is password protected.
Should I append the entry as that?  (I'm thinking along the lines
that it is slightly similar to citing personal correspondence.)

Has anyone any suggestions as to where I can find some
information, presumably online, which addresses such points?


         ----------------------
         Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000
         From: Andrea Patterson, apatters@istar.ca

It seems to me that newer versions of the MLA deal extensively
with electronic source citations. I am not sure as to the
specifics of a password protected source but treating it as
unpublished or personal correspondence seems reasonable to me.


+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


** [2kn] After the Nineties?

         Date: Thurs, 30 Mar 2000
         From: Victor Dewsbery, dewsbery@berlin.snafu.de

We have now left the 1990s behind us (although the "Pure
Millennialists" maintain that we haven't yet turned the corner
into the new millennium).

But my question is: what decade are we in now? I have seen:

- the '00 decade
- the Noughties (a nice term, but dare we use it?)

What other versions have you come across? Is there any generally
accepted brief term for the decade we will be stuck in for the
next nine and a half years?

And will this decade be followed by the "Teenies"?


         ------------------------
         Date: Thurs, 30 Mar 2000
         From: David Ibbetson, ibbetson@idirect.com

If forced to decide I opt for the zeroes, but I don't find any
current need to name the decade in such a fashion. More to the
point a few days ago I spoke of the first decade of the last
century and was asked if I meant the 19th century or the 20th
century. (I meant the 20th c., but it seems that we should avoid
saying "the last century" for a few years.)

> And will this decade be followed by the "Teenies"?

I hope that will be kept for the gutter press.


         ------------------------
         Date: Thurs, 30 Mar 2000
         From: Mary Young, stardust@lankaster.com

I'm trying to recall how we refer to the same series in the
1900s. (Not that I was there). Seems the old folks used to say
"Back in aught 7..." but I don't know that I ever heard that
decade referred to as anything. But we do say "in the 1910s" Can
this be approximated for the next century?


         ------------------------
         Date: Thurs, 30 Mar 2000
         From: Christine Firth, chris@cfirth.demon.co.uk

The company report that I edited this morning used 'the
noughties' once in a slightly jocular manner, but I doubt that it
will catch on globally. Sometimes 'the nineteen hundreds' was
used to refer to the first decade of the twentieth century, but
others would interpret this as referring to the whole of the
twentieth century.

Part of the problem lies in calling this current year 'two
thousand'. It will be cumbersome in later centuries if we
continue with this system: imagine saying to someone, 'See you in
two thousand nine hundred and forty-eight', instead of 'See you
in twenty-nine forty-eight'. Perhaps we need to start afresh when
the millennium truly begins next January, and call that year
'twenty one' or 'twenty oh one', and not 'two thousand and one'.
Stanley Kubrick has a lot to answer for.

'The zeros' seems a logical, if inelegant, term for this decade,
but as many house-styles use digits, would people mentally read
'the 2000s' as 'the twenty zeros' in the same way that they read
'the 1960s' as 'the nineteen sixties'?


         ------------------------
         Date: Thurs, 30 Mar 2000
         From: Victor Dewsbery, dewsbery@berlin.snafu.de

Christine Firth's suggestions lead to another (ambiguous)
literary reference: if we speak of "twenty-oh-one", that could
lead us to call the decade the "oh-ohs".

Now does that remind you of someone known as "oh-oh-seven"? Or
does it make you think of the Telletubbies?

Interesting to note the spelling variants. David Ibbetson wrote:

> If forced to decide I opt for the zeroes ...

So quite apart from the elegance or otherwise of this term, we
would be in for a debate on the spelling. Or we could dodge the
issue by waxing philosophical - and speak of the "zero years".

It seems that we are still groping (rather inconclusively) for a
short term for the current decade.

Do we fare any better when we look for a long-winded way of
phrasing it? What options do we have to refer to the decade from
2000 to 2009? Do we speak of the first decade in the century/
millennium (and risk confrontation on millennial mathematics)? Or
do we speak of the "turn-of-the-millennium decade" (and risk
sounding too pompous for words)?

Or are we reduced to saying "words fail me"?

In spite of the irony of the matter, the question has a serious
side - most of us on the list have to make a living from the use
of the language (in my case by translating from German), so
sooner or later many of us will have to call the decade
*something*.

Someone somewhere regards each one of us as an expert who should
know what to call such things. So I hope a few more suggestions
will be tossed into the debate.


         ------------------------
         Date: Thurs, 30 Mar 2000
         From: David Ibbetson, ibbetson@idirect.com

Victor Dewsbery wrote:

> Interesting to note the spelling variants. David Ibbetson
> wrote:
>
> > If forced to decide I opt for the zeroes ...

Both Chambers and the Oxford Writers Dictionary give only
"zeros".


         ----------------------
         Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000
         From: Mark Levinson, nosnivel@netvision.net.il

Over at 

  < http://www.namethedecade.com >

the winner of the voting was "the naughties."  I'd been hoping
for "the twenty-ohs," myself.



---[4]  Business matters ---------------------------------------


** [4da] Late clients

         Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000
         From: Chris Graillat, Chrisngraham@jps.net

I wrote:

> 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?

I don't want to mislead anyone, but it's my very own employer
that's the bad client. I am interested in getting the perspective
of freelancers out there so I can try to work out an equitable
arrangement for our own contractors.

Having been a freelancer before joining the staff, I know how
annoying the constant schedule changes can be. I nearly dropped
my office as a client myself until it made a few improvements. At
that time, stepping out for five minutes and missing a call cost
me more than one job. While I do what I can for the current pool
of editors, I cannot control the delays and am not in a position
of enough authority to prevent them. I can, however, try to
persuade my office to make some sort of added compensation to the
editors in order to keep them with us, but I need some industry
information to support my request. I appreciate any information
list members can give me.


         ------------------------
         Date: Thurs, 30 Mar 2000
         From: Josephine Bacon, bacon@langservice.com

May I make a few suggestions re publishing houses and delays.
Nowadays schedules are ridiculous and what is more, no "slack" is
built into them and someone at the end of the line suffers - the
editor.

In-house staff must be firm with their bosses and demand
additional time for unforeseen delays. Who knows who is going to
break a leg tomorrow? They should also have the courtesy to warn
their sub-contractors of genuine deadlines. We're all fed up with
the in-house editors who cry wolf, only to find the stuff comes
back for proof corrections weeks after it was sent, proving that
it sat around in the office for ages in between editing.


         ------------------------
         Date: Thurs, 30 Mar 2000
         From: Jane Lyle, jlyle@indiana.edu

Josephine Bacon wrote:

> In-house staff must be firm with their bosses and demand
> additional time for unforeseen delays. 

That doesn't mean that the editor's deadline wasn't genuine. If
the typesetting is being done out of house -- or even if it's
being done in-house during a busy time -- there may well be a
deadline for getting the edited manuscript to the typesetter in
order to make sure that it gets slotted into the schedule. That
doesn't mean that the typesetter will start work on it
immediately, however.


         ------------------------
         Date: Thurs, 30 Mar 2000
         From: Chris Graillat, Chrisngraham@jps.net

I supposed I could be accused of crying wolf, but I'm innocent I
tell ya! I do find that some in my office do lovely, thoughtful
things, such as giving the editor two days to complete an edit
but giving themselves three days to make the changes, and I try
to ferret out the pretenders. Because we are not a publishing
house but a state agency that uses editors for reports, it is a
little different situation. I don't have very much control over
the process. On the plus side, we don't limit editors to a set
budget, and we make concessions when possible, but our moving
target dates have caused to lose a couple of good editors. I was
just trying to find out what others do in these situations to see
if I could improve my little corner of the process.



---[5]  Bookmarks ----------------------------------------------


        Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000
        From: Mary Young, stardust@lankaster.com

There's another great site I just discovered.

  < http://www.wordsmyth.com >

You can use it as a dictionary, thesaurus, rhyming dictionary
and all kinds of cool things.



---[6]  Just for fun --------------------------------------------


        Facts about the English Language, no. 11

'Stewardesses' is the longest word that is typed with only the
left hand.



---[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 5.13

  Next digest issue: 9 April 2000
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=