=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= EDline Vol. 6, no. 10 (11 March 2001) Editorial mailing list (digest version) Published by the Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Contents: Q & A [2nf] Punctuation marks in English [2nh] Finding out of print books [2nl] Subjunctives and dollars (plurals that aren't plurals) [2nm] Reference texts on questions of grammar and usage [Offshoot of [2nl] Subjunctives and dollars] [2no] A French query [2np] Portuguese names - initials FYI [3gc] UK book industry salary survey Business matters [4ec] Getting Work in Australia [5] Bookmarks [6] Just for fun [8] Administration =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ---[2] Q&A ----------------------------------------------------- ** [2nf] Punctuation marks in English Date: Mon, 5 March 2001 From: Alison Woodhouse, njwoodhouse@btinternet.com Iain Brown wrote: > Last night on the TV programme, "The West Wing", the President > asked his fellow poker players to name the 14 English-language > punctuation marks. ... which ones have I forgotten? I can think of the following extra marks (actually from Hart's Rules) ellipsis ... parentheses ( ) square brackets [ ] em dash solidus / curly brackets { } +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2nh] Finding out of print books Date: Mon, 5 March 2001 From: Daniell Morrisey, danny@recruitmedia.co.uk Jane Hammett wrote: > Can anyone help me? I'm looking for a website that can look > for/order out of print books - or one which at least contains > publishing information on OOP books. Thanks! Amazon.com has an out-of-print service. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2nl] Subjunctives and dollars Date: Mon, 5 March 2001 From: Peter Best, pbest@idl.net.au Anna Beth McCormack wrote: > Is the problem one of discrete (i.e. counted) versus continuous > (i.e. measured) quantities? Therefore, should I extend the > principle of singular verbs to ALL measured quantities? By that > principle, all the following would be correct: > > 4 hours goes by slowly when you're bored. > 60 seconds adds 1 minute to an hour. > 20 km takes me 5 hours to walk. > 9.46 x 10^15 m is a light year. > 60 light years presents no problem using warp drive. > 1000 mL makes a litre. > 10 kL of water has filled the pool. > 1.5 teaspoons approximates 7.5 mL. > 25 mg of paracetamol is contained in each tablet. > 10 tonnes of gravel is blocking the road. > There is 305 hectares under wheat. > Is there 707.5 Mb free on disk? > 3.8 bags of cement has been used. > There is 360 degrees in a revolution. > 1.62 rads exceeds 90 degrees. > Is 6.35 amps flowing in the circuit? > 12 volts causes a spark. > 1.39 moles of NaCl is produced in the reaction. > $100 has earned about $5.0567 in interest. > If I lost $50 then $6 then $3.50, has $59.50 been lost? > > These all sound wrong to me. If you think some are right and > others wrong, please tell me how I am to decide which is which, > and what is the principle for the difference. I prefer to look at each case on a "readability" basis. The test really should be whether the construction is clear in its communication of the message and free of obvious absurdity. Likewise, if strict adherence to the rule produces a jarring, apparently clumsy but technically "correct" expression then we've drawn attention away from the message and onto the medium. I find most of your examples perfectly acceptable (for reasons you've outlined in your analysis). Most of them seem correct to me because of the "understood" singular noun - a period of 4 hours, a distance of 20 km, an amount of 25mg etc. There are some exceptions, however. I find, "There are 305 hectares under wheat", more "naturally" correct but I wouldn't object to either "305 hectares is..." or "305 hectares are...". In the first, "An area of.." is understood. In the second, each hectare has a separate identity, making the plural verb more natural. Similarly, sentence construction makes "There is 360 degrees..." seem clumsy, but "360 degrees is..." seem acceptable. "360 degrees are a revolution", without any other contextual clue, seems absurd - reminds me of, "When I came to this university I couldn't even spell 'engineer'. Now I are one!" In the 12 volts case we have to be talking about a continuously variable measure whose individual components are irrelevant. There are not 12 discrete volts involved. The expression is describing the effect of a current measuring 12 volts. The current has to be singular. Similarly, the individual dollars have not earned $5.0567, though you might phrase a question, "One hundred dollars have each earned $0.050567 in interest. What is the total return on the investment?" Funny - notice how jarring the figure "$100" would be in the above sentence compared with "one hundred dollars". Just my opinion. I admire your quest for logic and grammatical purity but I can't help feeling that if we allow ourselves to become too caught up with technicalities we'll end up forgetting about what we are trying to communicate. ----------------------- Date: Mon, 5 March 2001 From: Johan Segerback, johan.segerback@usa.net [I sent a reply direct to Anna Beth McCormack as she requested. She then apparently thought it might be of interest to others as well, and asked me to post it.] I thought I might give it a go. Explaining why this sort of thing happens isn't all that hard; saying which is right and which is wrong when you're an editor forced to make a choice is, of course, something else entirely. I'll start with the comparably easy bit. What you're dealing with is what A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (Quirk et al., Longman 1985, section 10.35 Note) calls 'notional concord' -- or more or less your point 10. The writer perceives a subject that is grammatically plural as semantically (or notionally) singular, forming as it were a unit, and uses verbs, pronouns etc. accordingly: 'Ten dollars is all I have left' -- perceived as equivalent to 'That amount is...' This sort of expression is referred to by Quirk et al. as a 'common use', 'common' doubtless meaning 'frequent'. It works the other way round as well: at least in British English, I would say it is pretty normal in all registers to say 'The Government have decided...' or 'Liverpool play Arsenal tomorrow'. On the conflict between notional concord and grammatical concord (the one you're favouring), Quirk and his mates say 'English speakers are often uncertain about the rules of concord. Prescriptive teaching has insisted rather rigidly on grammatical concord, with the result that people often experience a conflict between this rule and the rule of notional concord, which tends to prevail over it.' Towards the end of the part on subject-verb concord, the authors 'suggest that the following generalizations apply to the system of subject-verb concord in English: (a) The principle of grammatical concord tends to be followed in formal usage and has the sanction of teaching and editorial tradition. (b) The principle of notional concord is most natural to colloquial English.' There is also a bit on a third principle called 'proximity', but that would seem to equal 'error' as far as editing goes. That's for the 'why' question and some detached grammarians' comments on the state of things. When it comes to real life, my general advice would be to go by your instincts, considering the degree of formality required in each case (a hard-and-fast rule if there ever was one, wouldn't you say). But that would be assuming that you tend to use notional concord when speaking and that you get more restrictive when writing, in particular formally. My idea was that for maths textbooks and the like, the general trend has been for them to get chattier, which would make it easier to justify the use of expressions that go with the grain of the language rather than comply with the logic of grammars. But if you really wouldn't say (as opposed to write) any of the examples under point 2, then I don't really know. Perhaps reading the entire bit on concord in that Quirky grammar could be an idea. There are more examples and explanations, and I may not have chosen the right parts to quote. But what do I know? I'm a translator not an editor, and I'm not even a native speaker of English. --- I could add that Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage (a compilation of usage dictums by a wide variety of pundits -- an acquired taste), under 'agreement, subject-verb: miscellaneous problems', point 2, quotes from Quirk more or less what I quoted above, and mentions a few other pundits who seem to prefer 'notional concord' in cases like these -- and without provisos about 'colloquial registers', 'chattiness' or anything like that. ----------------------- Date: Mon, 5 March 2001 From: Anna Beth McCormack, mccormack@goulburn.net.au Many thanks to all who have posted your reactions to my examples and/or attempted explanations for differences. I don't mind being wrong, but like to know HOW I'm wrong, so that next time I can do better. 'Better' in this case seems to mean, in particular: - Taking note of Johan Segerback's information about 'notional concordance' versus 'grammatical concordance' and of his suggestion that, as notional concordance is more colloquial, it is appropriate to use in maths books, which are becoming 'chattier' (yes, they are). - Taking note of Nancy Boston's explanations of when a quantity should be regarded as a 'lump' and when as 'individual units'--- something to be determined on a sentence-by-sentence basis (which takes a bit of thinking about). - Being flexible, for if professional editors can differ, then my maths authors' views have more validity than I've been allowing. ----------------------- Date: Mon, 5 March 2001 From: Nancy Boston, nancyb@bostons3.demon.co.uk Anna Beth has asked me whether I would send my email response to her query to the list, as she thinks it may be helpful/interesting to other people. So this is what I wrote (shortened a bit, as it was a long email). Apologies in advance if it's still too long: > 1. What sort of noun is 'dollars' if it isn't a plural requiring > a plural verb? In the scientific literature, anything with units (including time) is counted as a "lump" of that thing of a certain size "n units". So to me most of your examples below sound right. So for instance I'd say "5 days is a long time" meaning "(a period of) 5 days is a long time" but I would also say "During my holiday, only 5 days were sunny" meaning "only 5 of the individual days were sunny". > 2. Therefore, should I extend the principle of singular verbs > to ALL measured quantities? By that principle, all the > following would be correct: > > 4 hours goes by slowly when you're bored. yes (a period of) 4 hours duration > 60 seconds adds 1 minute to an hour. yes > 20 km takes me 5 hours to walk. yes (a distance of) 20 km > 9.46 x 10^15 m is a light year. > 60 light years presents no problem using warp drive. yes to both > 1000 mL makes a litre. yes (an amount of) > 10 kL of water has filled the pool. > 1.5 teaspoons approximates 7.5 mL. > 25 mg of paracetamol is contained in each tablet. > 10 tonnes of gravel is blocking the road. yes to all these > There is 305 hectares under wheat. "The area under wheat is 305 ha" would sound better. > Is there 707.5 Mb free on disk? yes > 3.8 bags of cement has been used. No - you're describing separate bags which you could line up and count, so I would say "3.8 bags of cement have been used". A bag isn't a unit of measurement. > There is 360 degrees in a revolution. This is trickier. I'd say "There are 360 degrees in a revolution" because you are breaking the revolution down into its individual degrees. But I would say "90 degrees makes a right angle". > 1.62 rads exceeds 90 degrees. > Is 6.35 amps flowing in the circuit? > 12 volts causes a spark. yes to all > 1.39 moles of NaCl is produced in the reaction. yes except I would never write moles, I'd write "1.39 mol". > $100 has earned about $5.0567 in interest. > If I lost $50 then $6 then $3.50, has $59.50 been lost? yes to both > 3. Is the problem one of abstract versus concrete nouns? It is > easier to think of concrete nouns as discrete (e.g. 10 boys), > but you can also have discrete abstract nouns (e.g. 'The values > of the 2 investments are ...'). "boys" and "values" aren't units of measurement. Most of your examples above are. > 4. Is the problem one of divisibility? Many a maths question > reads something like: > 'The dimensions of a paddock are x metres by y metres. How > many square metres ...? ...because what you are asking for is the numerical answer to "how many". You could equally correctly say "how large is the paddock?" to which the answer would be "n square metres is the size of the paddock". > 5. Again on divisibility: the units we use for measurement are > all defined in real terms as 'the something physical that exists > somewhere/when' or 'the something physical that is needed to do > something'..... A unit of measurement is an arbitrarily defined amount of something that has been separated out from the total continuum of that thing. If you have a heap of flour you can weigh out a pound of flour, and then another pound of flour. There is nothing to distinguish one of the pounds of flour from the other and if you put this flour back into the pile it loses its quality of being a pound. This doesn't happen with children in a classroom. > 6. Also on divisibility: Many counting (discrete) units can be > divided just as readily as measuring (continuous) units: > > e.g. 1 and a half bananas > > but even counting units that are indivisible in the real world > can be expressed fractionally sometimes. > > e.g. The average class size is 25.3 children. Would you turn this sentence round and say "25.3 children is the average size of the class"? I would, and then I would be treating "children" as a unit of measurement rather than as a counting unit. > 7. My $100, far from being 'one' quantity, has no constancy and > is merely one point on a number line of dollars. I don't understand the point you are making here. > 8. ... e.g. The amount invested was $100. > This gives the mistaken impression that '$100' is singular > because the noun BEFORE the verb is singular. > > e.g. $100 are not a big investment. > This gives the impression that 'are' is wrong because the noun > AFTER the verb is singular. This is the reasoning, but I don't consider it a mistake. If you read any scientific paper, you will find that this is how the language is used in this context. To me "$100 are not a big investment" sounds wrong and I would change it if it appeared in anything I was editing. > 9. Or because we tend to use abbreviations for units of > measurement, which makes the writer/reader lose sight of the > fact that the noun is not '$100' but 'dollars'. I would understand that the noun was "(the money amount) $100", as you write below. > 10. Or because the writer relates the verb to an understood > noun, then (in justification) says that the written noun has > the same attributes as the understood noun. > > e.g. [The money amount] $100 is invested. > [The speed] 150 km/h is illegal. > [The air temperature] 35 degrees C is hot. > > That is, when it has numbers attached, the unit of measurement > cannot stand alone but depends on being parenthetical to the > noun it measures? Yes, that is exactly how I think it works except when you are considering the units separately (i.e. in a maths problem you want to know "how many"), when you are breaking something down into its individual units, or when the things that are being broken down into units also have distinguishing properties (e.g. fine days and rainy days) and you are talking about them as separate entities rather than as a total quantity. > I don't think I can cope with plurals that are sometimes > plurals and sometimes not, with no clear principle as to when > they are and when they aren't, especially if we're inventing > parts of speech along the way. I think the principles are clear, but of course, like you I am mainly guided by what "sounds" right and wrong to me. I think you need to go with the accepted conventions in whatever discipline you are working in. I haven't read any school maths books since I was at school! +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2nm] Reference texts on questions of grammar and usage [Offshoot of [2nl] Subjunctives and dollars] Date: Tues, 6 March 2001 From: Peter Best, pbest@idl.net.au As a "non-professional" editor whose work up to now has consisted mainly of "favours" for aspiring authors (around eight books so far), I'd be interested in suggestions as to your most useful reference texts on questions of grammar and usage. Made a note of Quirk from Johan, but would appreciate other suggestions. Similarly, I'd be interested in details of books that provide novel perspectives on language, including historical and cultural developments. ----------------------- Date: Wed, 7 March 2001 From: Josephine Bacon, bacon@langservice.com Be careful with using textbook sources for comparisons of English and other language structures. I have not found significant mistakes in the books you mention but Lancelot Hogben wrote a book called "The Mother Tongue" about the history of English that is full of errors in his comparisons with other languages. For instance, he writes that Hebrew is written bi-directionally, something that could have been checked so easily. ----------------------- Date: Wed, 7 March 2001 From: David Ibbetson, ibbetson@idirect.com IIRC Hogben also wrote The Loom of Language, Mathematics for the Million, and various other books with alliterative titles. They all had a far-left political message. ----------------------- Date: Wed, 7 March 2001 From: Cecelia Munzenmaier, cmunzen@uswest.net Since I write/edit 6-12 language arts textbooks, I often need information on the history of English or on how its structure compares to other languages. To find interesting trivia or check historical usage, I use Success with Words: A Guide to the American Language (Readers Digest, 1983, ISBN 0-89577-168-3) William Brohaugh's English Through the Ages (Writer's Digest, 1998, ISBN 0-89879-655-5) David Crystal's The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language (Cambridge U Press, 1995, ISBN 0-521-40179-8) ----------------------- Date: Fri, 9 March 2001 From: Alison Black, alison@bailihe.freeserve.co.uk Some that I've enjoyed tremendously are listed below - none very new, indeed one positively old (but "novel" in its time and probably would still be so for many readers). The editions are the ones I happened to have/consult rather a long time ago. Owen Barfield, _Poetic Diction: A Study in Meaning_ (I think originally published around 1929; mine is 3rd edition, Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan UP, 1973) Owen Barfield _History in English Words_ (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1967) C. S. Lewis, _Studies in Words_ (mine is 2nd edition, Cambridge UP, 1975) Franz Borkenau, _End and Beginning: On the Generation of Cultures and the Origins of the West_, ed. Richard Lowenthal (New York: Columbia UP, 1981: one of Columbia UP's "European Perspectives" series) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2no] A French query Date: Thurs, 8 March 2001 From: Sarah Barrett, westowe@dircon.co.uk Can anyone help with a French phrase, 'prendre en charge', and more particularly 'prise en charge'? Examples: en France, il a fallu attendre l'e/mergence du VIH, disse/minant chez les usagers de drogues de\s le milieu des anne/es 80, pour voir leur prise en charge se me/dicaliser, notamment du fait de la politique dite de 're/duction de risques' and: 'une prise en charge globale de l'usager de drogues' 'prise en charge' seems to mean something different each time I come across it. --- [Moderator's note: As the LANGline mailing list is less frequent than EDline, we have posted two language-related queries here. To assist the writing of accented characters, we have adopted the following convention to show the accent after the character: / acute, \ grave, ^ circumflex, ~ tilde, " umlaut/diaeresis, , cedilla, % o slash, aa ring, sz German double s, | long s, _ line above letter --IDB] ------------------------- Date: Thurs, 8 March 2001 From: Johan Segerback, johan.segerback@usa.net If you want to translate it, why not try 'approach' -- another word with a vast semantic potential. ------------------------- Date: Thurs, 8 March 2001 From: Rod Stedman, rstedman@nexo.es Perhaps 'care', a bit more specific than 'approach', but still reasonably vague, would fit your examples? But I think the term may also have to do with the covering of costs. ----------------------- Date: Fri, 9 March 2001 From: Nick Hudson, hudson@c031.aone.net.au French is not my forte (I'm not sure what is, except steam trains) but I always thought that 'prendre en charge' was the equivalent of 'take on board', 'charge' being a portable load, and the metaphor being from merchant shipping. If so, English has an almost perfect equivalent for its antonym, 'discharge' = unload. In the cases cited, 'adopt' and 'adoption' would seem to be possible translations. ----------------------- Date: Fri, 9 March 2001 From: Sulaiman Adebowale, sulaiman.adebowale@codesria.sn "prise en charge" (noun) prendre en charge (verb) It means to take care of, involve bearing the cost of someone or something etc. In the sentence above, i think it means health care, access to medical care, which in France is largely taken care of or subsidized, at least to an extent, by the state or public institutions [French public health institutions is not my forte as well]. But the sentence means exactly that. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2np] Portuguese names - initials Date: Thurs, 8 March 2001 From: Lionel Browne, lionel.browne@sand-con.demon.co.uk What is the correct form for 'initialising' Portuguese names? In the journal article I am editing the authors' names are given in full: Antonio Jose de Magalhaes Silva Cardoso Manuel Antonio de Matos Fernandes In a previous paper their names appeared with first initial only: A Silva Cardoso M Matos Fernandes and their surnames (in the verso running heads) were given as Silva Cardoso Matos Fernandes Is this the correct form? If not, what should it be? ---[3] FYI ----------------------------------------------------- ** [3gc] UK book industry salary survey Date: Wed, 7 March 2001 From: Suzanne Collier, suzanne@bookcareers.com If you work in UK publishing or bookselling, either salaried or freelance this concerns YOU! bookcareers.com are currently surveying salaries of those within the UK industry. This is an independent survey conducted with the support of The Bookseller. Because we question those actually doing the work, and not just those at the top, no doubt the outcome will provide as much discussion and controversy as last year. And this year we have included questions for those working in BOOKSELLING and more questions for those FREELANCING as well as those in PUBLISHING. So make sure you and your colleagues participate. < http://www.bookcareers.com/survey2001/intro.htm > You have until the 12 April to do so. Results will be published later in the year. If you have any enquiries about the survey contact suzanne@bookcareers.com ---[4] Business matters --------------------------------------- ** [4ec] Getting Work in Australia Date: Mon, 5 March 2001 From: Peter Best, pbest@idl.net.au I wrote: > Does anyone have a tip or two on breaking into editing / > proofreading work in Australia? Dawn Chase replied: > Are there any universities or colleges near you? You could > freelance by editing college students' term papers and get some > experience. I have done that. ... > The reason that I made the editing papers suggestion is that > the nearest city, Worcester, Massachusetts, has 10 colleges in > it. The market for editing term papers is much smaller here. My city is the 5th or 6th largest in the country but there's only one university, albeit made up of three formerly separate institutions! Appreciate the responses though! ---[5] Bookmarks ---------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 From: Harry Doherty, harry.doherty@thebookplace.com Publishing News and Book Data launch their joint venture, < http://www.pnmedia.co.uk > The Media Tie-ins listings ... go live on the Internet this week on a site offering rapid access to the entire, fully-searchable database. With separate web pages for [UK] TV, radio, movies, bestseller lists and the press, PNMedia.co.uk strives to provide instant answers to most customer enquiries regarding books reviewed or discussed on [UK] networked TV and radio programmes and in daily and Sunday [UK] national newspaper review pages, news stories and feature articles... [Cross-posted from the PN weekly mailing, 9 March 2001] ---[6] Just for fun -------------------------------------------- Oxymorons, no. 25 Computer security +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ "I'm glad we clarified that", no. 14 On a child's Superman costume: "Wearing of this garment does not enable you to fly". (I don't blame the company, I blame parents for this one.) ---[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.electriceditors.net/ > 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) 2001, by individual contributors Design (c) 1996, 1997, 2000 Iain Brown Compilation (c) 2001, Iain Brown / The Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= END OF EDline 6.10 Next digest issue: 18 March 2001 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=