=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= EDline Vol. 5, no. 20 (28 May 2000) Editorial mailing list (digest version) Published by the Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Contents: Q & A [2la] "Make sure", "be sure", "ensure" ? [2lb] To not be or not to be... [2lc] Charts, figures and tables [2ld] "Appealing" for opinions [2le] "Living" and "to live" Business matters [4df] Interesting Recipe Book [4dh] Job vacancy: Science Web editors [4di] Raising rates [6] Just for fun [8] Administration =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ---[2] Q&A ----------------------------------------------------- ** [2la] "Make sure", "be sure", "ensure" ? Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 From: Mark Levinson, nosnivel@netvision.net.il Ron Andrews wrote: > Recently, a question has come up where I work as an editor / > proofreader / etc. regarding these words / phrases: > > * make sure > * be sure > * ensure > > ... Can they, in fact, be treated the same, or are there clear > distinctions in usage, grammar, etc. Are there types of writing > where one is "better" than another? Does anyone know of > idiomatic or cultural distinctions, perhaps, such as whether > one is used in one locale more than another? "Be sure" has another usage that can potentially cause confusion. For example, Whatever the opinion that you post to a mailing list, be sure someone else will have a different opinion. That is, "be sure" meaning "bet your bottom dollar." Not making it so if it isn't so, but simply knowing it beyond a doubt. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2lb] To not be or not to be... Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 From: Leslie Cote, cote@texttechs.com Ron Andrews wrote: > The following sentence was in a piece I was recently asked to > proofread only, not heavily edit. Are there any functional (or > other) differences between using any of the options for the > phrase in parentheses? > > I believe it is necessary in corporate management to maintain > a sense of (crisis--to not be satisfied) or content with the > present circumstances. > > * crisis--to not be satisfied > * crisis--not to be satisfied > * crisis in order not to be satisfied > * crisis in order to not be satisfied > * crisis so as not to be satisfied > * crisis so as to not be satisfied I would use the third choice, if only for ease of speaking. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2lc] Charts, figures and tables Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 From: Susanne Koen, skoen@picknowl.com.au I am editing a book with 9 chapters. All of the chapters have a small number of charts, figures and tables - some have only charts, some figures and so on. I would like to use a numbering system consistent with the chapters, ie in Chapter 1 they would be numbered 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and so on. However, if a chapter has 3 tables and 1 figure, I would prefer to continue numbering on sequentially, but this strikes me as a bit silly, as I then have table 1.1, figure 1.2, table 1.3 and so on. I wish I could think of an overarching term which could encompass all three - charts, figures and tables! Does anyone have any suggestions? How do other editors cope with this? I have come across this problem before and have not yet found a way to solve it. ----------------------- Date: Tues, 23 May 2000 From: Simon Cauchi, cauchi@wave.co.nz At a pinch you could call them all figures: figure 1.1, 1.2, etc. Or (better, in my view) you could retain the distinction between the tables, figures and charts: table 1.1, 1.2, etc., figure 1.1, 1.2, etc., chart 4.1 (if there are no charts in chapters 1-3). But to number them in the manner you describe -- table 1.1, figure 1.2, table 1.3 and so on -- would indeed be confusing. Readers would wonder what had become of table 1.2 and figure 1.1 and whether any others are missing also. The Handbook of New Zealand Mammals, for example, includes many tables, figures and maps. Each is headed "Table", "Figure", or "Map", whichever is applicable, and the numbering goes in three sequences, each beginning with 1. But in another book the numbering might just as well go 1.1, 1.2,..., 2.1, etc., in each sequence. ----------------------- Date: Tues, 23 May 2000 From: Nick Round-Turner, wordwork@xtra.co.nz I would treat all "artwork" (charts, graphs, illustrations - photographic or otherwise - etc) as "figures" and number them accordingly: Fig. 1.1, Fig 1.2, etc. I would treat tables as a distinct series: Table 1.1, Table 1.2, etc. Thus you have only two sets of numbering to contend with. If it is important for the reader to be able to distinguish what is an illustration and what is a graph or chart without actually looking for them on a page, then create Tables of Contents at the front of the book: List of Illustrations, List of Charts, List of Drawings, etc. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2ld] "Appealing" for opinions Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 From: Ron Andrews, rja@osk2.3web.ne.jp This bit of copy came up recently, and I'm curious what others' opinions are about the use of the word "appealing" here. For me, it doesn't fit as used, which seems to be as a transitive verb with an object (here, the phrase "the car's streamlined curves and low low price"). In these cases, I usually also use a prepositional phrase that begins with "to" or similar word right after "appealing", but then the meaning would be different here if I did that. My initial edit of this copy was to replace the word "appealing" with "highlighting" or some similar word, but the client insists that using appealing as it is below is correct and best. Here we focus on the great features of this new automobile, while at the same time appealing the car's streamlined curves and low low price. What do you think? (Note: pertinent names and products changed above to protect the innocent.) ---------------------- Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 From: Lesley Butland, les@butland.freeserve.co.uk 'Appealing' certainly doesn't seem correct in this context and I would have queried it too. Perhaps it's part of some special sales-speak. I prefer your 'highlighting' version. Difficult, though, if you're not allowed to change it. ---------------------- Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 From: Alison Black, alison@bailihe.freeserve.co.uk Ron invited comment on the following sentence: > "Here we focus on the great features of this new automobile, > while at the same time appealing the car's streamlined curves > and low low price." As it stands, it's plain dead wrong. You could, nevertheless, add the preposition 'to'. It is perfectly correct to 'appeal to' someone (and by figurative extension to something) in support of an opinion. Surely your client wouldn't object to the additional 'to'? ---------------------- Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 From: David Ibbetson, ibbetson@idirect.com Is the au really objecting to the streamlining and the low price? If he is then I'd replace "appealing" by "objecting to". Streamlining and a low price are usually considered advantages. If the au so considers them then "... while at the same time stressing the car's appealingly streamlined curves and attractively low price" ---------------------- Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 From: Diana Boatman, Boatmans@compuserve.com For minimal change I'd suggest rephrasing the sentence to: Here we focus on the great features of this new automobile, while at the same time the car's streamlined curves and low low price are appealing. ---------------------- Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 From: Iwan Thomas, iwan@frame-uk.demon.co.uk For a minimal change that makes some sense: ... applauding the car's streamlined curves and low, low price. ---------------------- Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 From: Jane Kerr, bywater@zetnet.co.uk No matter how appealing its curves, such "sales-speak" would immediately place that product on my own personal black-list - a bit like that irritating Apple slogan, which always gets me screaming "think different*LY*". More constructively, I would ask the client for an explanation of why he or she considers this usage to be correct, and perhaps an example or two from some previous publication. ---------------------- Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 From: Lane Lester, llester@mindspring.com Based on your address, I would guess that English is not the first language of the writer of the above. Maybe you could sell this: Here we focus on the great features of this new automobile, along with its appealing streamlined curves and low, low price. --- Thanks also to Margaret Corbett and Michele Clarke for their responses. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2le] "Living" and "to live" Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 From: Ron Andrews, rja@osk2.3web.ne.jp The following passage was in some text for a company's annual report and I edited it as below. A question has come up lately though that my use of the gerund form (living), rather than the infinitive (to live), though not necessarily wrong, sounds a bit strange. A couple questions I have are, is it indeed wrong, grammatically or otherwise? and would it be considered acceptable in a text like an annual report? Any and all opinions are most welcome. (Basically, all I did was replace the infinitive "to live" with the gerund form "living". Personally I prefer the gerund form in many cases, especially in a case like this where the action of living is itself a continuous action. I feel it is stronger and more natural to express its continuity. "To live" doesn't do that for me.) [Before] "...desire is to preserve the Earth and its irreplaceable natural environment, so that people can continue to live in health and comfort." [After] "...desire is to preserve the Earth and its irreplaceable natural environment, so that people can continue living in health and comfort." ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 25 May 2000 From: David Ibbetson, ibbetson@idirect.com To me both are acceptable. I find the infinitive slightly preferable in this context. ---[4] Business matters --------------------------------------- ** [4df] Interesting Recipe Book Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 From: Mark Levinson, nosnivel@netvision.net.il Tammy Frissell-Deppe wrote: > 1) Should I get signed contracts for submissions to cover > myself if the book sells well and if so what should they say? Yes indeed, you should get the submitters to sign off. And I would suggest that as an incentive, you indeed stipulate that if the book brings in a clear profit exceeding X dollars, then Y percent of each additional Z dollars will be shared out among the submitters. It's not just an incentive, it's the honorable thing to do. > 2) Since breastmilk is considered a bodily fluid I think I > should include some sort of disclaimer but I have NO idea where > I would start or what I would write. I'm not sure exactly what the problem is. Disease? Anyway, there are any number of sites out there on the web that give medical advice; I'd start with one of those. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [4dh] Job vacancy: Science Web editors Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 From: Erica Rolfe, erolfe@ejr-quartz.demon.nl Two Science Web editors needed (1 year contract) Netherlands/Italy EJR-Quartz (NL) is looking for 2 mother-tongue English web editors with proven experience in the space industry, to work under contract to the European Space Agency in the Netherlands, with a possible colocation to Italy (Frascati). Applicants must have mother-tongue (British) English, a relevant degree and a proven background in scientific/aerospace editing or popular science writing. Previous experience in online news publishing would be a huge advantage. Spoken Italian and/or French would also be useful. The job is a busy and exciting one, with a news room atmosphere, so an ability to work accurately under pressure to tight deadlines is a must. We are not looking for web designers or html programmers - our focus is on the content. EJR-Quartz is a small Dutch Internet company specialising in content provision for space-related websites. We currently have a service contract to manage a Science news site for the European Space Agency (http://sci.esa.int). The contract is to start in June and would be for an initial period of one year. Please contact Erica Rolfe: erolfe@ejr-quartz.demon.nl with full CV. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [4di] Raising rates Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 From: Susannah, sdrvr@ulster.net I am wondering if anyone can give me advice on approaching ongoing clients for higher pay. I have a client I work with continually (and have for 2 years now) and another I work with for about 6 months each year on what started as a one-time project. For various reasons I feel that the initial fees should be raised, but I am not sure whether to broach the subject as asking for a raise (which I'm used to from my on-staff years) or raising my rates (akin to setting or negotiating my rates when I start a new project). Somehow these situations seem to fall between the two models and I find myself not knowing where to start. I'll appreciate any suggestions/comments. ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 25 May 2000 From: Russell Walton, daghdas.staff@dial.pipex.com A regular client who appreciates your standard of work should have no qualms about agreeing to a higher rate to retain your services. I notify publishers of an increased rate at least every twelve months. Something along the lines of, "As of 25 May 2000 my per- hour rates for proofreading and copy-editing will be XXX and XXX respectively. If you wish to discuss these rates, or any aspect of my service, please feel free to contact me." Of course, the actual rates depend on your own evaluation of your worth and what you think the publisher will wear. You are not an employee so don't ask for a raise. It would help if you could cite another client who pays you a higher rate, to support your argument. If you need to reassess rates due to increased costs then tell the client the reasons. You may not get the rate you are asking for, but if you are reasonable and have been honest with your client (whatever you do DON'T say it's because you need the money) then an amicable agreement can *usually* be reached. If not, maybe you need a different client. ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 25 May 2000 From: Jane Moody, JMoody@rcog.org.uk Why not try using the current NUJ rates for starters? ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 25 May 2000 From: David Ibbetson, ibbetson@idirect.com Treat it as raising rates. Only employees ask for a raise, and consider the tax implications. ---[6] Just for fun -------------------------------------------- Units of measurement, no. 2 Ratio of an igloo's circumference to its diameter = Eskimo Pi +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Re: Facts about the English Language, no. 14 Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 From: John Davies, john@redwoods.demon.co.uk > The verb "cleave" is the only English word with two synonyms > which are antonyms of each other: adhere and separate. There are in fact many more than one. Here's a brief extract from the FAQ for the newsgroup alt.usage.english: What words are their own antonym? Richard Lederer, in Crazy English (Pocket Books, 1989, ISBN 0-671-68907-X), calls these "contronyms." There follows a list of over 100 words and phrases falling within the definition. Those interested in seeing the full list can find the FAQ (all 442KB of it) at: < http://go.to/aue > ---[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 5.20 Next digest issue: 4 June 2000 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=