=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  EDline Vol. 7, no. 20     (28 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: Mon, 21 Jan 2002
         From: Christine Shuttleworth, cshuttle@dircon.co.uk

Eddie Kent wrote:

> 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. [cut], sensibly arranged and packed
> into a pocket-sized book. Every home should have one.

Eddie, you may not know that the long-awaited second edition of
ODWE was finally published in 2000. I find it invaluable, as I
did its predecessor, but regret the fact that it is no longer
pocket-sized.

It is described in the editor's note as a 'completely expanded,
revised and updated edition'. How do you completely expand
something?


         ----------------------
         Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002
         From: David Price, dprice@mailin.macunlimited.net

Michael Lewis wrote:

> 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.

I still use Fowler, but I recently upgraded to Burchfield's
revised version. It does seem less user-friendly, but I haven't
really analysed the problem. What do other people think is wrong
with it?


         ------------------------
         Date: Thurs, 24 Jan 2002
         From: Nick Hudson, hudson@c031.aone.net.au

There is nothing wrong with Burchfield as long as you remember
that it is simply a new book on usage, with little relationship
(even homage) to Fowler. Indeed, Burchfield's preface is full of
scorn for Fowler, and only ten percent of the text survives from
Fowler. (It is actually quite hard to find the Fowler in it.)

Burchfied is a descriptivist, and therefore reports what he sees,
and his citations show that he has seen a great deal. This is
fine for lexicography (which is Burchfield's long suit) but is
unhelpful to readers who seek guidance. Fowler was happy to make
value judgements, something which worries modern lexicographers.
He also wrote with wit and elegance, which are in short supply in
Burchfield's book.

What went wrong? First, I think it was odd that Burchfield
accepted the invitation to do a new edition of a book for which
he had such contempt. He should have said 'Fowler's is
essentially a first-person book. Gowers was so much in tune with
Fowler that he could preserve the first person. I can't, so my
book has to be identified as mine, not an adaptation of Fowler.'

Maybe he did. Maybe the fault lay with the promotion and
marketing people at OUP. However, the outcome is clear: OUP
published the book as a new edition of Fowler, with claims that
it was 'the ultimate authority', as if the authority travelled
with the title rather than the content. This was grotesque.


  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  END OF EDline 7.20

  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
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=