=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= EDline Vol. 7, no. 17 (21 January 2002) Editorial mailing list (digest version) Published by the Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Contents: Q & A [2rm] So do we use Hart, Fowler, Gower etc. [Offshoot of [2rk] Conventions for scare quotes] =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ---[2]-- Q & A -------------------------------------------------- ** [2rm] So do we use Hart, Fowler, Gower etc. [Offshoot of [2rk] Conventions for scare quotes] Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 From: Julia Hubble, Jbhubble1@aol.com Eddie Kent mentions Hart's Rules > This was proposed by Hart, a semimythical OUP typesetter, .... > I have the twenty-third edition (ninth for publication) of his > Rules, 1914, I'm curious. When I started in editing (20 yrs ago) Fowler, Gower and Hart were all reference tools. But, I was wondering, does anyone refer to these now? I have a recent copy of Fowler and find it useful occasionally. But I am more likely to look in Butcher, Chicago or the CBE Manual. On another note, when I first came to Canada I purchased Strunk and White "Elements of Style" (another old classic), but I find it is incorrect in some places. ---------------------- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 From: David Ibbetson, isserlis@rogers.com For Canada you should probably add _Editing Canadian English, 2nd edition_ Macfarlane, Walter & Ross, Toronto. ---------------------- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 From: Michael Lewis, mlewis@brandle.com.au > On another note, when I first came to Canada I purchased Strunk > and White "Elements of Style" (another old classic), but I find > it is incorrect in some places. I take issue with your use of "incorrect". (OK; I'm a linguist, which means I have a descriptive rather than prescriptive attitude to grammar. For me, most of these issues of style should be classified as good/bad or current/outdated, rather than right/wrong.) You're writing from Canada (though you indicate that you started elsewhere), but Strunk and White were sitting a little further south. Isn't it possible that the things you see as "incorrect" are really just "US rather than elsewhere"? (Most US writers and editors of my acquaintance still swear by Strunk and White, though -- as with any "guide" -- there's room for discretion and judgment.) Incidentally, on the subject of Fowler, I'm quite unhappy with the Third Edition (Burchfield). Notwithstanding my anti-prescriptivist leanings, I think most people want a style guide to be just that: a guide. That is, it shouldn't attempt to legislate, but it should make recommendations. For the most part, I find that Burchfield gives lots of information but not enough guidance. Fowler himself was never afraid to offer judgment; Burchfield doesn't. How do other EDliners feel about that? ---------------------- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 From: David Ibbetson, isserlis@rogers.com Gowers (second edition) thinks like Fowler. Burchfield's edition is too much of a new book for my taste. Furthermore, I like strong recommendations, not necessarily legislation, but rules I can safely follow. ---------------------- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 From: John Crane, jcrane8@bellsouth.net Julia Hubble wrote: > "Elements of Style" (another old classic), but I find it is > incorrect in some places. Michael Lewis wrote: > I take issue with your use of "incorrect". (OK; I'm a linguist, > which means I have a descriptive rather than prescriptive > attitude to grammar. For me, most of these issues of style > should be classified as good/bad or current/outdated, rather > than right/wrong.) I'm an engineer, but I agree. Style, being quite different from grammar, has no right or wrong as long as it's consistent. I have opinions about how things should be done, as do probably most everyone on this list, but as much as I may disparage things done differently, I can't say they're incorrect. There are some things in Elements of Style I don't agree with, but I think one would be hard pressed to find anything in the book that's incorrect. ---------------------- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 From: Julia Hubble, Jbhubble1@aol.com Michael Lewis wrote: > I take issue with your use of "incorrect". Yes, you're quite right. "Incorrect" was a bad choice. But I do disagree with Strunk & White's argument about "among" vs "between" and you have to admit it's a bit out of date. Which is (I think) what my original question was about - does anyone use these trusty old references anymore? I employ freelance editors to work on college level textbooks; I am sure that most of them haven't read any of the above. (David, Editing Canadian English is excellent - I recommend it to everyone.) ---------------------- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 From: Jane Lyle, jlyle@indiana.edu Contrary to what someone said yesterday, I don't know of any U.S. editors who use Strunk & White or Fowler as a primary reference. Nor is Burchfield held in particularly high regard here, as far as I can tell. When I started editing, in 1980, I bought Fowler, but I quickly realized that it was of very little use to me, and it has long since been relegated to a shelf of rarely consulted reference books. Strunk & White I have always found quaint and rigid; thus I've never found a reason to own a copy. ---------------------- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 From: Michael Lewis, mlewis@brandle.com.au Julia Hubble wrote: > does anyone use these trusty old references anymore? I employ > freelance editors to work on college level textbooks; I am sure > that most of them haven't read any of the above. I do a lot of training -- civil servants, business people, etc -- in business and technical writing. (I characterise my typical audience as "professionals who write", as opposed to "professional writers".) I still encourage them to have Strunk and White, Gowers (Fraser's revision), and Fowler (NOT Burchfield's revision) alongside the dictionary and thesaurus. That's by no means a complete list, but yes: I still use them, and I encourage others to use them. But I always add one cautionary note: Language changes, but the process isn't uniform. Somewhere, there's an appropriate middle ground between the latest fads and archaism. Linguistic conservatives are likely to be offended by "modern" idioms and usages, while "progressives" will usually be amused rather than offended by conservative forms. For most of us, it's best to be a little behind the crest of the wave. ----------------------- Date: Tues, 15 Jan 2002 From: Eddie Kent, edlineek@aol.com A reference book I rarely see mentioned but probably the only one I use now (through sheer laziness) is The Oxford Dictionary For Writers And Editors. Invaluable if you want to know if and where to use an apostrophe on any of the various Queens (colleges and districts, etc.) around the world, and whether or not a particular county abbreviation takes a dot, and how a bishop's signature should look (Durham is Dunelm: with a colon, for instance). All this and much more, sensibly arranged and packed into a pocket-sized book. Every home should have one. ----------------------- Date: Tues, 15 Jan 2002 From: Iwan Thomas, iwan@frame.org.uk The Oxford Reference Shelf, which occasionally appears on a magazine cover disks, contains the ODWE and the Oxford Dictionary for Science Writers and Editors, together with several other dictionaries and a guide to usage. The software is a bit clunky, but the content is invaluable. The SOED CD-ROM and the Oxford Compendium (COED, ODQ, etc.) have also appeared on cover disks in recent years, and are also well worth having. The reference book I tend to turn to most is Bill Bryson's The Penguin Dictionary of Troublesome Words. It's easy to use and clearly written. ---------------------- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 From: Michael Stone, mike@wholeearthmag.com > Bill Bryson's The Penguin Dictionary of Troublesome Words. The book seems to be out of print, at least in the U.S., but I saw a notice for "Bryson's Dictionary of Troublesome Words" to be published by Broadway Books in August, 2002. There was no indication as to whether this is a new edition. ---------------------- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 From: Jo Rudd, jorudd@sia.net.au My copy of Hart's Rules is more than 20 years old now and I've always found it useful for its lists of words ending in -ible/-able, plurals of words of foreign origin, and plurals of words ending in -o. Its hyphenation section is dated now, especially here in Australia. I find it's little known here, except among the older members of the editing community. It's the handiest sized book I've ever come across! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= END OF EDline 7.17 Admin page: < http://www.electriceditors.net/edline/admin.htm > ** 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, 2002, by individual contributors Design (c) 1996--2002 Iain Brown Compilation (c) 2002, Iain Brown / The Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=