=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= EDline Vol. 6, no. 21 Editorial mailing list (digest version) Published by the Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Contents: Q & A [2ol] Editing over time [2om] Is 'Irish American' hyphenated? [2on] Location of Martello tower in _Ulysses_ [2op] Scalar products Business matters [4eo] Project fees [5] Bookmarks [6] Just for fun [8] Administration =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ---[2] Q & A --------------------------------------------------- ** [2ol] Editing over time Date: Tues, 29 May 2001 From: Jennifer Cameron-Smith, fionnabhair@one.net.au Does anyone remember when .... redundancy was A Bad Thing? My question arises from reading documents written in that form of English particular to information technology professionals. Just musing.... ----------------------- Date: Tues, 29 May 2001 From: Chuck Brandstater, acreatyv1@earthlink.net Jenny (in Canberra) wrote in part: > Does anyone remember when .... redundancy was A Bad Thing? My > question arises from reading documents written in that form of > English particular to information technology professionals. It no longer denotes superfluity; I wonder, though, whether the change is as recent as she suggests. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2om] Is 'Irish American' hyphenated? Date: Thurs, 31 May 2001 From: Aideen Quigley, atquigley@eircom.net Seeing as how you all have been so helpful (so much quicker - thank you) I wonder if you could tell me if Irish American is hyphenated? I think African American isn't, so I would imagine the same logic would apply. And if you say 'An Irish American person, would you hyphenate it in that case? +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2on] Location of Martello tower in _Ulysses_ Date: Thurs, 31 May 2001 From: Aideen Quigley, atquigley@eircom.net To my shame (living in Dublin and being born on Bloomsday), a mention of the Martello tower in Ulysses has come up and I don't know if the one featured in Ulysses is the one in Sandymount or the one in Dun Laoghaire (there are several Martello towers along the coast). Any takers? I do know Stephen Dedalus walked along Sandymount strand, so I presume it's that one, but you can't presume anything in this line of work. ------------------------ Date: Thurs, 31 May 2001 From: Rod Cuff, rod@wordandweb.co.uk It's the one at Sandycove -- see < http://instruct.uwo.ca/english/455f/map.html > (fascinating stuff! I was there a few weeks ago on a first visit to Dublin). +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ** [2op] Scalar products Date: Thurs, 31 May 2001 From: Douglas Meekison, dmeekison@aspects.net A manuscript that I am working on consistently omits the dot from scalar products of vectors, i.e., where I would expect to see 'a.b' (where a and b are in bold italic) the authors use 'ab'. Is this acceptable usage among the scientific community? I asked a similar question on EDline a few years ago and was told it was an informal usage; does anyone know if the convention has changed in recent years? The authors (who are German) seem generally to be careful (unlike many other authors whom I have dealt with!), so I'm not convinced their usage in this instance is simply a mistake. ---------------------- Date: Fri, 1 June 2001 From: Michael Fitch, michaelbfitch@supanet.com My first response was: I've never seen this, and I wouldn't do it myself. I looked in 'Scientific style and format', the CBE manual (1994). There the term 'scalar product' is not used, only 'dot product', the dots are described as 'centered dots', and there is no mention of omitting them. Ah, I thought, your author couldn't do centered dots, so they just left them out. However, the Collins 'Dictionary of mathematics' (1989), which isn't always very helpful on style, uses an on-the-line dot, but does give omitting it as an alternative. To confuse matters further, I looked at the IUPAC document, 'Symbols, units, nomenclature and fundamental constants in physics' (1987). They give the centered dot for 'scalar product', but the no-dot form for what they call the 'dyadic product'. Perhaps you should go back and consult your authors? ---------------------- Date: Fri, 1 June 2001 From: Margaret Corbett, mcorbett@dial.pipex.com I seem to remember that the dyadic product mentioned by Michael is a completely different operation from the dot product (sorry, I can't remember it exactly but I'm almost certain that there is scope for a serious mistake in there somewhere). Consultation with the author strongly recommended. ---------------------- Date: Fri, 1 June 2001 From: Rod Cuff, rod@wordandweb.co.uk > I seem to remember that the dyadic product mentioned by Michael > is a completely different operation from the dot product Yup, it's a synonym for "tensor product" (see, eg, Unwin Hyman/ HarperCollins Dictionary of Mathematics) -- something quite other ... ---[4] Business matters --------------------------------------- ** [4eo] Project fees Date: Tues, 12 June 2001 From: Susannah Driver-Barstow, sdrvr@ulster.net What is common practice, when negotiating a single fee for a project, to cover time spent in meetings or on the phone? I am used to estimating my time with the manuscript but am currently negotiating with an author who wants a project fee and seems to want a lot of consulting time as well (for developmental work on her book-length collection of essays). It's hard to tell as we've never worked together, though. Any suggestions will be appreciated. ---------------------- Date: Wed, 13 May 2001 From: Naomi Laredo, Naomi@smallprt.demon.co.uk I generally add 10% to the estimated editing time to cover phone, email and posting time. But development editing is the proverbial piece of string: consultation could take anything up to 100% of the "on-paper" editing time. I'd make a generous estimate and, if the author turns pale, agree to review it with her at a specified stage. BTW, it would be wise to negotiate stage payments. ---[5] Bookmarks ---------------------------------------------- Date: Tues, 1 May 2001 From: Jane Dorner, jane@editor.net New links at _The Internet: A Writer's Guide_ by Jane Dorner < http://www.internetwriter.co.uk > [The 2nd edition of the book is due out in August 2001 -- worth obtaining when available!--IDB] Boeing Language Checkers: for checking simplified English and technical writing against industry standards < http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/sechecker/index.html > Bookworks: a non-profit making company undertaking text-related projects including Internet and new media projects < http://www.bookworks.org.uk > Electronic Literature Organization: promotes new media writing < http://www.eliterature.org/ > How Stuff Works: fairly technical explanations about how the Internet works, and lots else < http://www.howstuffworks.com/ > Memorable Quotations by English Writers < http://www.memorablequotations.com/EnglishWriters.htm > Online news for online journalists < http://www.journalism.co.uk/ > RightsCenter: online rights exchange site venue for authors, agents and publishers < http://www.rightscenter.com/ > RightsCom: UK-based digital rights management consultancy < http://www.rightscom.com/ > ---[6] Just for fun -------------------------------------------- Piffling trifles, no. 6 "Underground" is the only word in the English language that begins and ends with the letters "und." ---[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@ntlworld.com * Accented characters: When writing accented characters, please adopt the following convention to show the accent after the character: / acute \ grave ^ circumflex ~ tilde " umlaut/diaeresis , cedilla % o slash aa a ring sz German double s | long s _ line above letter * 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 6.21 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=