=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= EDline Vol. 5, no. 17 (2 May 2000) Editorial mailing list (digest version) Published by the Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Contents: Q & A [2ku] The word 'Pak' [2kw] Business cards FYI [3fh] Man eating dog [3fi] "Lessons from a master of good style" Business matters [4db] Correspondence courses [6] Just for fun [8] Administration =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ---[2] Q&A ----------------------------------------------------- ** [2ku] The word 'Pak' Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 From: Mark Levinson, nosnivel@netvision.net.il Mark Breault wrote: > Can someone advise me on the status of the word Pak for > Pakistan and Pakistani? It sounds derogative and offensive, > certainly. Purportedly, the name Pakistan was coined by Chaudari Rahmat Ali in 1933 as an acronym representing the the Punjab, Afghan border states, and Kashmir and spelling out a term ("pak") signifying purity. Still, 1933 was a long time ago... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2kw] Business cards Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 From: Darlene Davidovic, davidovm@pathcom.com Could I ask EDLiners who collect business cards to please quickly flip through their collections and tell me the following? - Length and width in mm of a standard British business card - Length and width of any non-standard business card styles that are popular or often seen, along with a brief description of any special processing (location of folds or cuts, for example) and whether the non-standard style is associated with any particular group of people or industry (for example, web site designers, architects, accountants) - Whether the dimensions of a standard business card on the continent are similar or different, and if the latter, in what ways and by how much? Or if anyone knows a web site at which I can find the above information, that would also be useful. --------------------- Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 From: Josephine Bacon, bacon@langservice.com Standard British size seems to be 8.5 x 5.5 cm. American and continental cards are slightly bigger. There are all kinds of wacky styles like holograms, photocards, etc., mainly used by designers, web design companies, etc., but not by accountants or solicitors. --------------------- Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 From: David Ibbetson, ibbetson@idirect.com You will find the information you need at < http://www.twics.com/~eds/paper/ > Click on the subsection "Desktop and Office Printer..." at the bottom left of the front page. This site is in Beta. The final version will be in PDF for easier printing out. Thirteen business card sizes are listed under the heading "United Kingdom and European Union" of which 85 x 54mm is described as: "Credit card" size; Widely popular 92 x 52mm is described as: Very popular in the UK ---------------------- Date: Tues, 2 May 2000 From: Iwan Thomas, iwan@frame-uk.demon.co.uk A (very) random selection from my briefcase: three @ 86 x 55 mm one @ 86 x 56 mm one @ 89 x 55 mm two @ 90 x 50 mm one @ 90 x 70 mm one @ 78 x 50 mm My own is 89 x 54 mm ---[3] FYI ----------------------------------------------------- ** [3fh] Man eating dog Date: Tues, 2 May 2000 From: Iain Brown, iain.brown@ucl.ac.uk Seen in _The Times_, 17 April 2000 (p. 17): Sir, The much-maligned hyphen still has a role to play in communication. I cite your alarming report (April 11) concerning the "hot dog-munching sports fans" who allegedly fill baseball parks in the US. This surely deserves an addendum to Fowler's apoplectic entry on the subject?---Prof. Roy Harris +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [3fi] "Lessons from a master of good style" Date: Tues, 2 May 2000 From: Iain Brown, iain.brown@ucl.ac.uk Now available: Essential English for Journalists, Editors and Writers, by Harold Evans, fully revised by Crawford Gillan (Pimlico, GBP12.50). Reviewed in _The Times_, 28 April 2000 (p. 2:17): Lessons from a master of good style by Donald Trelford ... Two of his books from the 1970s, _Newsman's English_ and _News Headlines_, have been compressed into one and updated by Crawford Gillan, a former editor of two regional papers, who also chaired the editorial training committee of the Guild of Editors (now merged with the Society of Editors). _Newsman's English_ was not thought a politically correct title for modern tastes; hence the present mouthful, which seems to break one of the book's basic tenets about the benefits of brevity. Journalists, editors and writers are described as distinct categories, yet an increasing number can claim to be all three. Such cavils apart, this is a timely and comprehensive reminder of the basic rules of written English. There is certainly a need for it. Teachers of journalism at universities have often complained to me of being let down by schools, who have sent out even bright pupils with an uncertain grasp of English style, grammar and spelling. It is no use training people in the techniques of sharpening up an intro until they can put a coherent sentence together. Even serious newspapers make more mistakes than they used to. This is partly a result of new technology, where the role of proofreaders and fact-checkers has become redundant and where writers too often edit their own copy. When I joined _The Observer_ 34 years ago, there was a learned German-Jewish immigrant on the staff whose sole job was to check every date or quotation in the paper. I remember the head printer used to dread his arrival on the stone with proofs covered in squiggles for correction. "Here comes old umlaut," he would mutter resignedly. Another factor, I suspect, is the impact of television reporting on the education of young journalists. Television has a less formally structured language than newspapers, using broken sentences and colloquial speech patterns in support of pictures that tell the real story. Then there is the sheer volume of words in a modern paper. This makes details harder to police and also makes this disciplinary process itself seem less important. For most of my time in newspapers, editing was about cutting back, choosing one idea or feature against another, because there wasn't room for everything. Now, especially in weekend editions, it seems to be more a matter of filling space. This isn't an old hack's complaint. I envy the challenges and choices available to modern editors. But the skills of verbal compression have clearly waned through under-use. ... George Orwell made the point that language and society interact. Sloppy thinking leads to sloppy use of language, and vice-versa - "the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." It is not an accident, I believe, that the profession has had to turn back to a great editor in these matters rather than to some grammarian or pedant; nor that the other great book on newspaper style was by Keith Waterhouse. Nor is it a coincidence that both Evans and Waterhouse were largely self-taught. They judged a good newspaper style by what had worked, or not worked, in their own experience. As Evans puts it in what I take to be a key concept in his theory of communication, though he would never claim to have such a thing: "There must be no abstractions." Good style is not a mystery: it means saying something worthwhile in language that can be clearly understood. As Evans puts it in this book: "Meaning must be unmistakable, and it must also be succinct . . . every word must be understood by the ordinary reader, every sentence must be clear at one glance, and every story must say something about people. There must never be a doubt about its relevance to our daily life." In this battle for the reader's attention, for clarity, brevity and relevance, newspapers have created a whole vocabulary of their own, especially in headlines, where words like quit, chide, dash and slash, even bonk, maintain a quaint but emphatic form of language that stylists of another age, such as Defoe, Cobbett, Hazlitt and Shaw, would recognise - and of which even Orwell might approve. (c) 2000 Times Newspapers Ltd ---[4] Business matters --------------------------------------- ** [4db] Correspondence courses Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 From: Russell Walton, daghdas.staff@dial.pipex.com I've been approached by a lady, relatively new to proofreading, who would like to take on some of my proofreading work. She has done a distance learning course through The Regent Academy in London. I've never heard of them, so does anyone out there have any info. ---------------------- Date: Tues, 2 May 2000 From: Kathleen Lyle, Kathleen@klyle.demon.co.uk Eric Smith has some info but is not online so you would need to phone/fax or write. --- Moderator's note: Eric Smith is an SFEP Committee member; you can contact him at: Society of Freelance Editors and Proofreaders Mermaid House 1 Mermaid Court London SE1 1HR ---[6] Just for fun -------------------------------------------- Facts about the English Language, no. 15 The only 15 letter word that can be spelled without repeating a letter is uncopyrightable. ---------------------- Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 From: Eddie Kent, eddiekent@supanet.com Re: Facts about the English Language, no. 11 > 'Stewardesses' is the longest word that is typed with only the > left hand. Reading this reminded me that some time ago on a BBC Radio 4 'problems' programme, Professor David Singmaster challenged the other contestants to find three English words each of which contains the same letter repeated four times in succession. I was sceptical when I heard the question and amazed when they found the words (or he told them) but had forgotten them by tea- time. Does anyone know what they are? All I remember is that one of the words had four es: ...eeee... . (PS -- I ran a spellcheck on this. Why didn't it query es?) ---------------------- Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 From: Victor Dewsbery, dewsbery@berlin.snafu.de Could it be some sort of eel as a compound noun with the first part ending in "ee"? The words ending in "ee" that immediately spring to mind are not likely candidates (settee, bungee), but perhaps someone can fill in the gap. But I can't imagine any other sequences of four letters that could fit the bill. ---------------------- Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 From: Gill Collingwood, gill@nimbus.demon.co.uk Well, just off the top of my head, how about referee and locomotion? I can't think of a third right this minute, though. --------------------- Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 From: Russell Walton, daghdas.staff@dial.pipex.com Mississippi. ---------------------- Date: Tues, 2 May 2000 From: Iwan Thomas, iwan@frame-uk.demon.co.uk The puzzle was set on "Puzzle Panel", first broadcast on BBC Radio 4 on 29 January 1999. Unfortunately, the Website < http://www.puzzlemaster.co.uk/ > gives the questions from the programme, but not the answers! The question as originally posed was: "There is a word that has 4 consecutive letters the same. What is it?" A search of the SOED reveals no word with four consecutive Es. ---------------------- Date: Tues, 2 May 2000 From: Virginia Catmur, Virginia_Catmur@compuserve.com Of course, there's 'divisibility' or, better still, 'indivisibility'. And could one pluralise, to 'in/divisibilities'? ---------------------- Date: Tues, 2 May 2000 From: Josephine Bacon, bacon@langservice.com It reminds me of the conundrum "what has four eyes and runs a very long way?" Answer: the Mississippi. ---[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 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. 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/ > 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 5.17 Next digest issue: 7 May 2000 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=