=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= EDline Vol. 5, no. 24 (25 June 2000) Editorial mailing list (digest version) Published by the Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Contents: Q & A [2lg] Capitalisation: "The" Netherlands? [Offshoot of [2lf] Capitalisation: "The" Royal Society?] [2lm] Capitalisation of every word [Offshoot of [2lg] Capitalisation: "The" Netherlands?] [2lo] Separate columns for units in a table? [2lq] Spaced versus closed up em dash [2ls] Either/or [2lt] 'Chair' [2lu] 'Swings and roundabouts' FYI [3fk] The Institute of Publishing Business matters [4dn] Audioproofing rates [5] Bookmarks [6] Just for fun [8] Administration =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ---[2] Q&A ----------------------------------------------------- ** [2lg] Capitalisation: "The" Netherlands? [Offshoot of [2lf] Capitalisation: "The" Royal Society?] Date: Wed, 21 June 2000 From: Lisa Cordaro, lcordaro@freshfields.com This is my personal experience. I worked previously for an international Dutch publishing house and their style preference was 'the Netherlands' but 'The Hague'. Go figure. What I would say in respect of organisations taking upper or lower case 't' in 't/The' in their names is: go with the organisation's own style, because (a) you won't risk offence and (b) you know it is absolutely correct. The 'T/the' can be part of their corporate branding. Alternatively, ask for clear guidance from your publisher and be sure to get a policy decision; whichever takes prominence in the scheme of things. However I find it hard to believe that a publisher would insist on changing the style of an organisation's name, especially if they happen to be producing a book for them, if only in the interests of accuracy and diplomacy. Another issue that needs to be taken on board from this quite equally is whether you would change, say, World Trade Organization to World Trade Organisation if your publisher styles everything with -ise suffixes. If you don't change the suffix, then there seems to be a reasonable argument for The' not to be changed either. [By the way, I believe that the band 'The The' took upper case on both 'T's. Ok - enough pedantry!] +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2lm] Capitalisation of every word [Offshoot of [2lg] Capitalisation: "The" Netherlands?] Date: Wed, 21 June 2000 From: Judyth Mermelstein, espresso@e-scape.net Joy Burrough-Boenisch wrote: > Can EDliners confirm my suspicion that the North American > tendency is to capitalise every word in newspaper headlines > and in the titles of articles in academic journals? And does > this usage look old-fashioned to Brits? It all depends on which style sheet is applicable to the publication in question. I believe most North American newspapers still capitalize the important words in headlines (ie., not "and", "the", etc.) if you count all of the smaller papers; major ones often use the Associated Press style or a house style which calls for capitalizing only the first word. Academic journals in scientific and technical subjects use a capital on the first word only but the MLA (Modern Language Association) still calls for capitalizing main words in headings, although other style sheets may not. I can't say what might look old-fashioned to Brits but I suspect most readers here don't really notice when a newspaper changes its style. Our local rag, the Montreal Gazette, has taken to lower case for things like "the prince of Wales accompanied the queen" and I expected a deluge of outrage but nobody seems to have picked up on it except we who are professional nit-pickers. In fairness, I should point out that the rag in question is so full of typographical errors, spell-checker-itis and factual inaccuracies that a missing cap or two in a headline wouldn't seem significant... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2lo] Separate columns for units in a table? Date: Wed, 21 June 2000 From: Judyth Mermelstein, espresso@e-scape.net Yateendra Joshi wrote: > In a table in which each *row* has a different unit, should > the units be displayed in a separate column immediately to the > right of the row heads? Where "the row headings consist of such items as population (millions), area (square kilometres), literacy (%), life expectancy (years), and so on", the units are usually shown as abbreviations under the column headings to which they apply: Population Area Literacy Life expectancy (millions) (km[2]) (%) (years) 1.4 8.6 22.9 53.4 and there is no need to repeat the units for each item of data. The resulting table can often be printed without resorting to a separate page in "landscape" orientation and is visually less cluttered than one where units are given for each item, so it is that much easier for the reader. The same principle may apply in tables where row labels rather than column headings must contain units: St-X Ste-Y St-Z Population (millions) 0.3 0.8 1.2 but the decision as to whether "millions" will follow "Population" after a normal word-space or be placed in a separate column may be based on aesthetics. When producing tables in a spreadsheet program, it is easier to align the units neatly if they are placed in a separate cell. On the other hand, whatever the means of production, I prefer to get rid of the parentheses and write "Population in millions", etc. if space permits. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2lq] Spaced versus closed up em dash Date: Wed, 21 June 2000 From: Judyth Mermelstein, espresso@e-scape.net The habit of spacing around em-dashes seems to have developed relatively recently (within the past 20 years) and I attribute it largely to the advent of computerization of the publishing process. It used to be routine in typescript to use two hyphens for an em-dash and the typesetter would make the substitution without inserting spaces before and after. However, in some computer fonts, the result was quite ugly. The dash might print actually touching the adjacent letters or (still worse) bump the following letter over a space. Either way, the solution was to add deliberate spaces to prevent the inadvertent ones, and this was especially true in the days when there was no way of seeing on-screen what would happen in print. Here in Quebec, I also see the influence of French typesetting conventions on what is used in English. Where one would expect a thin space in French, people who are not typesetters often use a regular letter space and apply the same system to English text. One sees this not only around em-dashes but also where quotation marks are used: " XYZ " instead of "XYZ", for example. Strictly speaking, there is no single inviolable rule about such things. It is usually up to the publisher to decide what the house style will be, whether for reasons of aesthetics or convenience. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2ls] Either/or Date: Tues, 20 June 2000 From: Susan Cauchi, cauchi@wave.co.nz Lesley Butland asked: > Is 'either' always used when there are just 2 alternatives or > can it introduce more? Michele Clarke wrote: > Either/or I thought should only be used for two things. Kathleen Lyle replied: > I think modern English now expects to follow this 'two choices' > rule, despite the elegant examples to the contrary from earlier > centuries. In this connection the articles on "either" in Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage and in Burchfield (The New Fowler's Modern English Usage) are interesting. MWDEU points out that "either" is quite commonly used of more than two in modern English when it's a conjunction, but much less so or indeed hardly at all when it's a pronoun or an adjective. Examples given of the conjunction include these: ... the scantiest serious attention from either biographers, scholars, or critics ---Edmund Wilson, The Wound and the Bow, 1941 The majority of his paintings feature either children, fishermen or old people ---This England, Autumn 1983 Burchfield records the same modern usage, with examples, including one from a 1983 University of Oxford Honour School of English exam paper, but he declares: "In most contexts in formal English, however, it is advisable to restrict _either_ to contexts in which there are only two possibilities." On the other hand, he says, "Examples of the negative form _neither_ followed by more than two alternatives are very common ..." +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2lt] 'Chair' Date: Wed, 21 June 2000 From: Douglas Meekison, dmeekison@aspects.net Can the word 'chair' be used to refer to an administrative unit of a university, rather than a professorship? I am editing a manuscript translated from Russian that uses 'chair' this way repeatedly, e.g. 'a part-time job at the Chair of Propagation of Radio Waves' and 'X was the Head of the Chair of Theoretical Physics'. The sense seems to fit 'faculty', but not the post of a professorship or the person holding such a post (who might be the head of such a 'chair'). Is this usage perhaps a literal translation of a Russian usage? ------------------------- Date: Thurs, 22 June 2000 From: Kathleen Lyle, Kathleen@klyle.demon.co.uk > Can the word 'chair' be used to refer to an administrative unit > of a university, rather than a professorship? I am sure I have seen this usage in the past. > Is this usage perhaps a literal translation of a Russian usage? Yes, I think so. It's more like a department than a faculty, though: there could be hundreds of such specialized 'chairs' within the faculty of science. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2lu] 'Swings and roundabouts' Date: Thurs, 22 June 2000 From: Jane Kerr, bywater@zetnet.co.uk Is, as I suspect, "swings and roundabouts" (i.e. meaning equal advantages and disadvantages) a peculiarly British expression? If so, does anyone know of a suitable alternative in US English style? ------------------------- Date: Thurs, 22 June 2000 From: Josephine Bacon, bacon@langservice.com Swings and roundabouts is definitely a British expression. The only American expressions I can think of at the moment mean one thing being as bad as another, i.e. "between the devil and the deep, blue sea", "between a rock and a hard place". ------------------------- Date: Thurs, 22 June 2000 From: David Ibbetson, ibbetson@idirect.com No, you've got the meaning wrong, Josephine. The original is "Wot I lose on the swings I gain on the roundabouts". It was supposed to have been said by a funfair operator. IIRC it comes from a song or recitation: "Wot I lose on the swings I gain on the roundabouts" doesn't mean equal advantages or disadvantages. ------------------------- Date: Thurs, 22 June 2000 From: Margaret Cooter, mcooter@bmj.com "Six of one, half a dozen of the other" comes to mind, but this too may be British. And I suspect it means equal advantages (or disadvantages) for both, rather than the balancing of advantages and disadvantages in "swings and roundabouts". ------------------------- Date: Thurs, 22 June 2000 From: Jane Kerr, bywater@zetnet.co.uk Josephine Bacon wrote: > Swings and roundabouts is definitely a British expression. The > only American expressions I can think of at the moment mean one > thing being as bad as another, i.e. "between the devil and the > deep, blue sea", "between a rock and a hard place". These wouldn't work in the context. It's a book on web authoring, and he's referring to the use of layers in html, which (simplifying drastically) has the advantage that someone can download several web pages at the same time (and hence not have to wait for each individual page to download in turn), but on the other hand the disadvantage that the initial download takes longer than it would if only a single page were being downloaded. Don't Americans say "six and two threes" either?! ----------------------- Date: Fri, 23 June 2000 From: Josephine Bacon, bacon@langservice.com David Ibbetson wrote: > No, you've got the meaning wrong, Josephine. The original is > "Wot I lose on the swings I gain on the roundabouts". It was > supposed to have been said by a funfair operator. It was not I who "got the meaning wrong" but the person who originally quoted it. It still means "it all boils down to the same thing" however you interpret it. I explained that the American meaning of these two phrases is slightly different, and is closer to "damned if you do and damned if you don't". ----------------------- Date: Fri, 23 June 2000 From: Lesley Butland, les@butland.freeserve.co.uk What about 'You win some, you lose some,'? ----------------------- Date: Fri, 23 June 2000 From: Helen Moore, hmoore@ansonic.com.au Or, "What goes around, comes around"? Loathsome expression. And it certainly hasn't the same meaning as "swings and roundabouts". ----------------------- Date: Fri, 23 June 2000 From: Josephine Bacon, bacon@langservice.com >What about 'You win some, you lose some,'? Yes, that is about as close as you can get but it is not a catchy phrase. ---[3] FYI ----------------------------------------------------- ** [3fk] The Institute of Publishing Date: Fri, 23 June 2000 From: Tim Feest, Tim.Feest@osceng.co.uk Launched in March, the Institute of Publishing (IP) is a new professional body for individuals working in all sectors of the industry. Key activities will include maintenance and implementation of professional occupational standards; career planning and development; and workshops and seminars to support continuing professional development. The IP has already established strong links with major educational establishments and training providers and will be working with them on the accreditation of qualifications and courses. Full details and application forms are available from Mrs Rosie Thom, IP Secretariat: rosiethom@compuserve.com < http://www.instpublishing.org.uk > ---[4] Business matters --------------------------------------- ** [4dn] Audioproofing rates Date: Thurs, 22 June 2000 From: Hilary Royston, Hilary.Royston@reededucation.com.au Helen Ough Dealy wrote: > Can anyone give me information about the range of rates that > can be charged for audioproofing - listening to a tape and > proofing the transcription against the tape? I can't really help with rates in detail, since most of our audio proofing is done by in-house staff. I think audio proofing involves two skills, both a good eye and a good ear, so I would think the rate would be higher than for normal proofreading. As your eye reads for sense, I find your ear listens for sense. So it is easy to think you are hearing exactly what you are reading. We do a lot of audio proofing and it is very hard concentrated work, which it is hard to sustain for long periods. Also, you can't listen to the radio or anything while you work, so it is really tedious. I would allow myself at least 8 hours to prooflisten a 4-hour tape and preferably 16, since it is such intensive work that I do it accurately for more than short periods. Here are some tips though, which are also useful if you are briefing someone: If you are being briefed to do an audio proofing, you really need to have it spelled out what exactly which medium you are proofing. Are you proofing the tape for rerecording parts of it if necessary, or are you changing the transcript to suit the tape? Do you need to have a 100% accurate transcript, with stutters, pauses, mmms and coughs all dutifully recorded? Do you need to include some of these for character but not all? Do you have to indicate dialect variations from standard English (e.g. if you heard G'day, mate! would you spell it G'day or Good day?)? Does it matter if the transcript differs slightly from the audio record (since it is more expensive to re-record than change a proof)? For example, we have sometimes allowed a slight mispronunciation go there on an audio version when the written version is correct, when it hasn't been critical for the purpose of the activity. You need to know whether you will need to alert the person briefing you about clicks, pops and kicking the microphone or poor intonation, incorrect grammar and incorrect pronunciation. Depending on how many of these skills are called upon when you 'proof listen', then your rate can go up accordingly. I think you also have to take into account which industry you are working for and what amount they can afford as well - it's no use pricing yourself out completely if you want to do that work. You need to be a good proofreader as well as be a good listener, and the right sort of listener, so that should come into account when deciding on your rates. ---[5] Bookmarks ---------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 25 June 2000 From: Iain Brown, iain.brown@ucl.ac.uk Inside.com An information service that "delivers mission-critical business- to-business information for professionals in the ... web- and- book publishing industries across a variety of existing and emerging platforms, digital as well as print." Sign up for a 30-day free trial: < http://www.inside.com/books/index.html > ---[6] Just for fun -------------------------------------------- Units of measurement, no. 5 1 millionth mouthwash = 1 microscope ---[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 5.24 Next digest issue: 2 July 2000 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=