tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29383682975688366312024-03-13T21:51:41.627+00:00The Editorial Training blogA blog about anything connected with publishing, proofreading, editing, and English grammar and spellingAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01128937485093967603noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2938368297568836631.post-6442904270078110492013-04-03T23:25:00.001+01:002013-04-03T23:27:54.568+01:00English Language UnityI recently came across this <a href="http://www.policymic.com/articles/32111/english-language-unity-act-more-proof-the-gop-doesn-t-want-to-appeal-to-hispanics" target="_blank">article about the English Language Unity Act</a> in the United States. I have to confess that I knew nothing about this before now, but it's fascinating to see the fierce debate that surrounds it when it's hard to imagine the same kind of controversy arising over any effort to make English the official language of the UK (I understand that it doesn't have that status at the moment). I may be wrong, but my guess is that any such move would scarcely be noticed. Perhaps it's because the English language is embedded in our culture in a way that it just isn't in the US. And, although the UK is just as much a cultural and linguistic melting pot as the US, the latter is nevertheless a younger nation, and perhaps the English language hasn't (despite a strong literary tradition) had the time to become part of its very fabric.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01128937485093967603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2938368297568836631.post-32879961291170937332013-01-04T14:06:00.000+00:002013-03-04T22:09:05.281+00:00Why everyone needs a proofreaderI'm going to try not to rant.<br />
<br />
I don't want to be a cliché. I have no desire to be a grumpy old man before my time.<br />
<br />
But, as I was playing a board game the other day, I came across the following:<br />
<br />
1. 'Name someone whose advise you would normally accept.'<br />
<br />
2. 'Name something, apart from exersize...'<br />
<br />
Perhaps we shouldn't get too wound up about this sort of thing. Perhaps it doesn't really matter.<br />
<br />
Personally, though, I think we should, and I think it does matter.<br />
<br />
For one thing, this was the type of game that gets played by people of all ages, children included.<br />
<br />
A bit of dodgy typesetting is one thing, but 'exersize'?<br />
<br />
Anyone who has tried to proofread will know that it's not nearly as easy as you might think.<br />
<br />
But these weren't tricky grammatical points, nor were they errors buried in thousands of words of text. These were things that anyone with a basic education should get right or be able to pick up if someone else has made the mistake.<br />
<br />
It's all too easy to cut spending on proofreading in an effort to balance the books. After all, nobody really notices the work of a good proofreader.<br />
<br />
Bad proofreading, on the other hand, will get your company noticed for all the wrong reasons.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01128937485093967603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2938368297568836631.post-20262202347350574302012-11-23T18:16:00.000+00:002012-11-23T18:17:29.366+00:00The value of proofreading coursesI came across something quite disturbing recently. At least I thought it was disturbing. It was basically a sales pitch for a proofreading book. Nothing wrong with that. No, the bit that I found disturbing was what it had to say about proofreading courses.<br />
<br />
Essentially, the implication seemed to be that in proofreading there is always a right or wrong answer. The argument was that there's no point in doing a proofreading course because a book will tell you all you need to know (as long as it contains some model answers to exercises).<br />
<br />
Personally, I think this is very wide of the mark. I've been helping students on Proofreading Today (the proofreading course from Editorial Training) for some time now. And I think they know as well as I do that a good proofreader often has to exercise a degree of judgement. Very often, it's far from black and white. The trickiest choices are typically around whether or not making a certain change encroaches on the editor's role. While a proofreader may justifiably correct all the grammatical errors in a scientific journal, how far should they go in a page-turner written in a colloquial style?<br />
<br />
So I would say that the level of professional judgement required of a proofreader isn't something you can readily pick up from a book. Guidance on a training course can put you on the right track, and experience, over months and years, will help you develop the expertise you need to become truly proficient.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01128937485093967603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2938368297568836631.post-14052183503060053042012-10-13T22:17:00.000+01:002012-10-13T22:17:35.290+01:00Why is Chinese so hard to learn?I was reminded a couple of days ago that I once tried. It was a few years ago now, and I didn't get very far, although it is a fascinating language.<br />
<br />
Fascinating and hugely difficult to learn. And that's quite hard to admit when you've always been good at languages. But I think many English speakers face a particular handicap. Those of us who speak with something that at least approximates to 'received pronunciation' are accustomed to a certain kind of intonation. It tends to fall at the end of a sentence, unless that sentence happens to be a question.<br />
<br />
So the idea that a rising, falling or steady intonation can actually change the meaning of a word, as it can in Chinese, is especially hard to get to grips with. This made me wonder whether those with certain regional accents (Welsh or Midlands, for example), with rising and falling tones, would fare rather better..?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01128937485093967603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2938368297568836631.post-42421112145602918682012-09-27T15:50:00.000+01:002012-09-27T15:51:43.472+01:00Treasure or Trash? A fabulous conference from UCFPublishing in the UK is undoubtedly rather London-centred. Just ask any recent graduate looking for a job in the industry. So sometimes I feel a bit isolated living on the coast. Don't get me wrong – it's very nice here. It's just that attending a publishing event normally means a late-night trip back on the last train from Charing Cross or St Pancras.<br />
<br />
I was so pleasantly surprised, then, to be able to go along to a wonderful conference organised by the <a href="http://www.ucf.ac.uk/Folkestone/Home.aspx" target="_blank">University Centre Folkestone</a> (UCF) last week. Titled <i>Treasure or Trash? Artistic freedom and quality control in a digital age</i>, it was free to attend and boasted some excellent speakers, including the inspirational Chris Meade from <a href="http://www.futureofthebook.org/" target="_blank">if:book</a> and Danuta Kean, whose insights into copyright certainly made me stop and think. There were also talks from a number of entrepreneurs who are starting to publish in truly innovative ways.<br />
<br />
All too often, events such as this fail to live up to expectations. Not this one. Every one of the speakers clearly had a real passion for their work – an infectious enthusiasm that left its mark on me and, I suspect, many other delegates. The organisation was also superb, despite some major problems on the roads that held things up a little at the beginning. All in all, a fabulous event.<br />
<br />
Perhaps I don't need to move back to London after all.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01128937485093967603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2938368297568836631.post-47820871164287000082012-09-15T12:28:00.002+01:002012-09-15T12:28:36.278+01:00Sock puppets, anonymity and big brotherIn case you don't know, 'sock puppet' is internet slang for someone who assumes a fake identity online, especially with a view to giving extra credibility to something they've written under their real identity.<br />
<br />
The phrase has been in the news recently, following the revelation that one particular famous author had been exposed as posting positive reviews of his own books online under different identities, at the same time as posting negative ones about other authors.<br />
<br />
Of course, one of the great things about the internet is that it does, within limits, afford a certain degree of anonymity. It makes it easy writers to publish to a mass audience without revealing their true identity (although there's nothing new about the <i>nom de plume</i>). People use fake profiles to say things they would never dream of saying if they thought their true identity might become known.<br />
<br />
On the one hand, this can be seen as dangerous. It means that extreme and abhorrent views can gain exposure. But on the other, it surely fosters creativity. It gives writers the chance to explore and try new things. They might get shot down in flames, but it won't matter.<br />
<br />
The trouble is that the inevitable abuse of this kind of freedom tends to lead to calls for tighter control. We may find that verified accounts have to be used for people to be able to post reviews on prominent website, for example. I think this would be a step too far – perhaps verification could be used to give some reviews a certain amount of added credibility, but I believe there should always be a place, within certain legal boundaries, for that ultimate freedom of expression that anonymity allows.<br />
<br />
Because there's another fascinating phenomenon that could die with growing regulation of the internet. People are complex creatures, and many are using the internet to explore different facets to their personalities, sometimes through the use of avatars in virtual worlds. It is a chance for many to escape the confines of the role that real life circumstances have imposed on them and ask 'what would I be like if...?'. It's a kind of creativity that's almost entirely new: the chance to lead an entirely safe secret double life, and I think it would be a shame if it were lost.<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01128937485093967603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2938368297568836631.post-15185344258165171892012-09-04T16:58:00.000+01:002012-09-04T16:58:50.422+01:00Google and grammar<br />
I recently came across the surprising revelation that Google has looked at the quality of spelling and grammar of sites in its index (see<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qoFf6Kn4K98&gl=GB"> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qoFf6Kn4K98&gl=GB</a>). This is not to say that poor grammar will directly affect a site's score when it comes to its search engine ranking (at least not yet). Rather, Google has noted a correlation between a site's Pagerank (trustworthiness in Google's eyes) and its spelling and grammar. Of course, as this video makes clear, it would be incredibly difficult for Google to automate the assessment of a page's quality of writing.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, the fact that there is a correlation between spelling and grammar on one hand and Pagerank on the other suggests that users and webmasters might just be making that assessment anyway, and affecting sites' search engine rankings as a result.<br />
<br />
Why?<br />
<br />
Well, your website's Pagerank is affected by the inbound links from other websites. And the higher the Pagerank of those sites, the more likely your own site is to be seen as trustworthy. The correlation between Pagerank and spelling and grammar suggests that webmasters of trusted sites may be more likely to link to sites where the quality of writing is good.<br />
<br />
This isn't something that's often addressed by companies looking at search engine optimisation, but it does suggest a need for good proofreaders and editors to work alongside webmasters and marketers.<br />
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01128937485093967603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2938368297568836631.post-55384750082337963552012-08-24T17:38:00.000+01:002012-08-24T17:38:00.155+01:00Fear: the proofreader's friendWill the digital publishing revolution inevitably lead to a decline in editorial standards?<br />
<br />
There are two reasons why I think it might.<br />
<br />
One is connected to the notion of <a href="http://edittrain.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/the-problem-with-agile-publishing.html">agile publishing</a>, in which some people feel the focus should be on getting the product on the shelves (real or virtual) even if all the rough edges haven't quite been smoothed off.<br />
<br />
The other is, frankly, about the fear factor.<br />
<br />
The great thing about content published electronically is that it can be corrected easily and, for the most part, at any time. It happens with software all the time, and there's no reason why the typo spotted in your e-book shouldn't be corrected in just the same way.<br />
<br />
But, of course, it's different if the book is going to print.<br />
<br />
If you know that there's no turning back once the book has been sent off, it does tend to set the adrenaline racing when you do those final checks. The costs of having to pulp and reprint will be huge. No-one wants to be responsible for that! And it's rather nice to think that, in years to come, no-one will have to be.<br />
<br />
But I do wonder if it gives copy-editors and proofreaders licence to be just a little less assiduous in their error-checking..?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01128937485093967603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2938368297568836631.post-34527195757806326202012-08-14T14:56:00.000+01:002012-08-14T14:56:35.661+01:00Why does writing get called 'bad' as soon as it's popular?What makes poor writing? We've seen a not entirely unpredictable backlash against Fifty Shades of Grey from some quarters. It's the reaction that seems to kick in whenever a book (or in this case a trilogy) reaches a certain level of popularity. And I don't think it's completely justified.<br />
<br />
It isn't just that it looks like snobbery, although there is, I think, an element of that. The idea that if you are genuinely to appreciate the joy of reading, you must have had a certain level - and a certain kind - of education. If millions of people are enjoying a book, it can't be that good because there can't be that many people with that kind of education. Our 'club' is more exclusive than that ... isn't it?<br />
<br />
I said it's not just snobbery because, to be fair, what you think of as good writing will of course be affected by how widely you've read. My reading tastes have certainly changed over the years, and now I would cringe at some of the things I read and enjoyed in my teens and even in my twenties: books full of cliché-ridden characters and hackneyed turns of phrase.<br />
<br />
It's also true that we live in a world in which winning a publicity lottery can bring undeserved success - we have celebrities who are famous for nothing more than being famous. And, thanks in no small part to phenomena such as YouTube, people and things can gain incredible popularity (or notoriety) for the most trivial of reasons.<br />
<br />
But even if a snowball of hype is how Fifty Shades of Grey achieved its initial success, people are still reading it and they're still enjoying it.<br />
<br />
And that's the point: if a particular writing style succeeds in firing your imagination, taking you off to another reality, painting pictures in your mind ... then that writing is good <em>for you</em>. A cliché is a cliché only if you've encountered it many times before.<br />
<br />
What's more, if it fails to do those things for someone else, I don't think that person can legitimately say that it's objectively 'bad', even if it's bad for them.<br />
<br />
Of course, you may be able to apply all kinds of objective measures to a piece of literature. You may be able to dissect it, analyse it and come up with the conclusion that it's either good or bad. But if your conclusion is at odds with the reaction of millions of readers, might not the flaw be in the analysis, rather than in the readers?<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01128937485093967603noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2938368297568836631.post-65037041480134771052012-08-07T14:07:00.000+01:002013-07-08T15:21:34.664+01:00The problem with agile publishingThis new publishing model – with a focus on user feedback, short lead times and successive iterations of the same product – takes its cue from software development. This is hardly surprising, since that's what a large part of book publishing is turning into.<br />
<br />
But is it right for book publishing? Is it even right for software development, for that matter?<br />
<br />
It's normal for successive iterations of software to be released in stages. Often, this relies on a community of dedicated beta testers, happy to put up with the various flaws (and even find fixes for them), just to get their hands on something new. The software itself is easily updated, as patches and new versions are released.<br />
<br />
This is all very well. But I think there's a much greater tendency for users to show patience with small companies or with open source developers than they are with multi-million pound corporations. You only have to look at some of the reaction to Microsoft's upgrade from Hotmail to Outlook (purely as an example of how users can turn against a big company – I can't comment on whether the grievances are genuine).<br />
<br />
And when it comes to book publishing, I think we have to be especially careful. People are already asking whether we need publishers. I happen to think that we do. But the reason we need them is that they provide exceptional quality control. We know that a well-published book from a good publisher has been through some painstaking processes to ensure that it's written, structured and presented in the best possible way. If it's a reference book, we feel we can trust the information in it.<br />
<br />
A big part of agile publishing seems to be the idea that it doesn't have to be perfect first time. But I think an equally big part of book publishing is the idea that it does.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01128937485093967603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2938368297568836631.post-81828927733200992432011-11-21T19:34:00.000+00:002011-11-21T19:34:30.892+00:00Rebuild the English language from the bottom up?English is a poor choice for a lingua franca.<br />
<br />
Despite its relatively simple grammar, it has so many quirks and special cases that it must be fiendishly hard to learn for non-native speakers. Those of us who have tried to explain some of the rules (or exceptions) must be used to the confused stares and protests of 'that desn't make sense'. Because very often it doesn't. There's no logical reason, for example, to prefer 'I don't drive' to 'I drive not'.<br />
<br />
It's clear that it's history, not common sense, that's led to English being the common language for so much of the world's population. And while the very things that make English a great choice for literature – the vast vocabulary, the flexibility and the potential for ambiguity all make it a wonderful language for storytelling – those same characteristics make it a terrible choice for law, commerce and mutual understanding among non-native speakers.<br />
<br />
And it made me wonder. Given that attempts to create a new, common world language generally seem doomed to failure (Esperanto, anyone?), might we be better off giving English a proper clear-out? Do away with some of the more bizarre quirks. Simplify the rules. And the spelling for that matter – the idea that English is sometimes spelt phonetically and sometimes not must be very confusing, especially for speakers of languages that are not written phonetically, such as Chinese.<br />
<br />
There would be enormous obstacles to any such venture, of course. Who would be in charge of it, for one thing? And there are, I understand, already non-native English speakers, especially in the Far East, who do use a slightly modified, simpler and more logical version of English for business. So perhaps more radical, wholesale, change is just not needed.<br />
<br />
More to the point, though, language tends to be pretty democratic, and attempts to dictate widespread rule-changes from on high are often doomed to failure. And perhaps that's the way it should be. English has been influenced by vast numbers of people and has borrowed words and expressions from all over the world. It is not logical, and it is not straightforward. But then neither are people...Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01128937485093967603noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2938368297568836631.post-49969438331854988732011-09-18T11:41:00.000+01:002011-09-18T11:41:47.273+01:00The economics of regional book pricingIt's been reported this week that Waterstones is considering different book prices for different regions. This is nothing new in this in retailing, and in bookselling it's not unlike the difference in price between hardbacks and paperbacks.<br />
<br />
It is, of course, all about selling more books, but it's not just about that.<br />
<br />
It's also about finding each individual's price point and eliminating what's known as the 'consumer surplus'.<br />
<br />
Essentially, we all have an upper limit on the price we'd be willing to pay for everything we buy. Every time we buy something for less than that price, we effectively get something for nothing - a bit of a discount if you like. That's the consumer surplus.<br />
<br />
Retailers would love to be able to charge us according to our individual price points. But it's not that easy. Most don't have the option of sizing us up and switching their price labels as we enter the store.<br />
<br />
So they opt for the next best thing. It's possible to work out profiles for people living in different areas, which then allow you to make educated guesses: the individual price point for book X for people living in area Y is likely to be around £Z.<br />
<br />
The trouble is that once someone knows they're being asked to pay a higher price just because someone's worked out that they'd be prepared to, the willingness to pay that higher price is in danger of evaporating.<br />
<br />
Manufacturers can get over the problem by repackaging essentially the same product and giving it a different brand - two very similar cars, made by the same company, can attract very different price points thanks to the badge on the front.<br />
<br />
But if the consumer <em>knows</em> that their local shop is charging more for <em>exactly</em> the same product than is being charged in another area, you have to wonder what this will do for customer loyalty.<br />
<br />
So perhaps a different approach is required for the publishing world. Now that the ebook revolution is gathering momentum, there's already talk of doing something a little different with printed books - of making them more beautiful - more a luxury item. And the answer in terms of differential pricing may be to take the hardback/paperback distinction a little further and to push the more beautifully packaged books in some areas, while offering cheaper, more basic, products in others.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01128937485093967603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2938368297568836631.post-46684737441899367142011-08-13T21:22:00.000+01:002011-08-13T21:22:25.019+01:00Why aren't politicians speaking our language?It's long been the case that politicians and those in the news media tend to speak a slightly different language from the rest of us. Ministers and journalists each have their own set of stock phrases, which they seem to adopt en masse, almost as if they'd all attended the same seminar... 'Let's be clear about this' seems to be the phrase du jour among the former.<br />
<br />
But alongside these words and phrases there's also a way of speaking – one that seems to want to avoid strong language at any cost. You can understand this in the news media, especially those for whom impartiality is important. But aren't the politicians supposed to be speaking on our behalf?<br />
<br />
Talk about the recent riots brought it home to me. I've heard rioters and looters being described, rather tamely, as 'youngsters', which somehow conjures up images of mischievous children stealing apples, rather than deranged morons burning down shops and homes. Rioters' behaviour is said to be 'unacceptable'. No – poor customer service may be 'unacceptable' – most of us would use stronger language (which needn't involve expletives) to describe what's been going on. It's almost as if the Westminster elite are shying away from expressing the anger that the rest of us feel.<br />
<br />
There may be good reasons for this. The obvious one is that Ministers and MPs are being careful to avoid fanning the flames – a violent reaction to a violent situation is the last thing we need, and it could be that politicians are wary of making things worse with inflammatory language.<br />
<br />
However, I think we're left with the impression that those who run the country don't really speak our language. Don't speak on our behalf. Don't understand what we feel. And I think that in itself is more likely to breed anger and frustration among the general population.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01128937485093967603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2938368297568836631.post-55812218568119117262011-06-29T18:58:00.000+01:002011-06-29T18:58:35.602+01:00Google and the social media lottery... and what it means for search engines as publishers. Google's acquisition of PostRank (a social media monitoring service) has got SEO specialists speculating. Is search engine ranking for a given web page suddenly going to have a lot more to do with readers' engagement with online content?<br />
<br />
At first sight, this all sounds very reasonable. You can understand why Google would want to increase the extent to which the actions and interest of independent third parties affect search engine ranking. These things are (usually) much harder to manipulate.<br />
<br />
But if this is the way we're heading (I say 'we' - I'm nothing to do with Google and I've no idea what they're actually planning!), I'm slightly worried.<br />
<br />
Because while Google et al don't do quite the same as traditional publishers when it comes to adding editorial value to written content, they do, through search engine ranking, apply the same kind of quality control as any traditional book or journal publisher. In other words, they effectively get to decide what we read.<br />
<br />
And if (it's a big if, of course - as I said, I don't know what's being planned) what we read is going to be based on what gets commented on (celebrity scandal, anyone?) or discussed in social media, I don't necessarily think the cream will rise to the top. It would equate popularity with quality, and five minutes of reality TV should be enough to convince anyone that they don't always go hand in hand...Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01128937485093967603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2938368297568836631.post-24930156040617459302011-06-17T08:41:00.000+01:002011-06-17T08:41:50.495+01:00The 100 year old solution to all editing problemsEditors and proofreaders can find themselves under a lot of pressure. After all, it's their job to do the impossible: to achieve 100% accuracy. We all know, of course, that no-one can possibly do this all the time. People are bound to make mistakes. <br />
<br />
I recently came across a wonderful solution to the problem in a travel guide published in 1913. Towards the middle of the book, there's a small scrap of paper, bound in, which contains the following message:<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #444444; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><i>TO READERS.</i></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #444444; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><i><br />
</i></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #444444; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><i>Every care has been taken to render this volume accurate and trustworthy. But changes take place, both in town and in country, with a rapidity which often thwarts the efforts of the most alert and painstaking writer. We should, therefore, esteem it a favour if readers discovering errors, either of omission or of commission, in these pages, would promptly inform us. Such communications will be duly acknowledged and the inaccuracies rectified at the earliest opportunity.</i></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #444444; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><i><br />
</i></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #444444; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><i>THE EDITOR.</i></span><br />
<br />
Absolutely marvellous. Maybe this is - or was - standard practice, but I've never seen it before, and I love it.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01128937485093967603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2938368297568836631.post-46120477830767230212011-05-23T17:39:00.000+01:002011-05-23T17:39:26.718+01:00From internee to internistNothing ages you like receiving an email and realising that there was a time, well into your adult life, when half the words in it would have made no sense whatsoever. I recently received an email about iPad apps and usability (old word but new, specialised, meaning) that mentioned such things as 'swipe ambiguity' and 'navigation overload'.<br />
<br />
This golden age of communications technology has spawned a plethora of new words and phrases – some, such as 'app' are relatively new, even to the technologically savvy, even if 'application' has been around for years. Others are better established – just out of curiosity, I checked my old and trusted, but now woefully out of date, Concise Oxford Dictionary to see what was there and what was missing. Interestingly, 'virus', in the computing sense, was there, as was 'email'. But 'internet'? No sign – straight from 'internee' to 'internist'.<br />
<br />
Of course, language, especially the English language, is constantly growing and adapting. But I think there's something more at work than the gradual shifts to which we've become accustomed.<br />
<br />
Because the very communications revolution that's led to all these new words and phrases means that those words can become embedded in our everyday lives with incredible speed. And developments that might once have taken years need now take only months.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01128937485093967603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2938368297568836631.post-22507191225083241162011-04-26T17:21:00.000+01:002011-04-26T17:21:07.041+01:00A new word for this extended bank holiday break..?Because, apparently, they have one in Italy. There, to take a few days off work between public holidays is to do 'il ponte' (the bridge).<br />
<br />
It seems this doesn't happen quite often enough in the UK for us to have a word for it. Perhaps we should, though? What would it be? We could adopt the Italian. It sounds rather nice. Or use the translated Italian (which somehow sounds rather less attractive). Or come up with something completely different.<br />
<br />
Any ideas..?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01128937485093967603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2938368297568836631.post-58881103819825395972011-03-22T19:30:00.000+00:002011-03-24T18:19:49.706+00:00Evolving English - well worth a visitIf you have any interest in the English language and you haven't been to the Evolving English Exhibition at the British Library, then (if you’re in easy reach of London) go! There is still just over a week before it closes (it runs until 3 April) and some of the exhibits are just breathtaking. In fact, it’s worth going just to take a look at some of the manuscripts and printed documents on display (11th century Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, for example). But there’s also plenty to learn from some of the video and audio clips, and plenty of common myths about English are exploded. You can even listen to regional accents by hitting buttons on a map of the UK. What’s more, it’s free to attend. I went with the <abbr title="Society of Young Publishers"><a href="http://www.thesyp.org.uk/">SYP</a></abbr> last week and was so glad I did. See <a href="http://www.bl.uk/evolvingenglish/index.html">http://www.bl.uk/evolvingenglish/index.html</a>.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01128937485093967603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2938368297568836631.post-91401715597642287512011-02-15T12:19:00.000+00:002011-02-17T00:47:06.722+00:00Server-side ebooks - does publishing need to catch up?Sony has recently <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/25/sony-music-unlimited-streaming-service">announced the launch of a music streaming service</a>, Music Unlimited, and I can’t help thinking that a similar model would offer far more to publishers of ebooks than the downloads we’re currently getting used to (along with all the associated readers and file formats).<br />
<br />
For one thing, this kind of service is device independent. You can switch phone, iPad, reader or PC without worrying about how to access your files, since they’re all held on a central server. Of course, you do need to be able to access that server, but it’s getting cheaper and easier to get online wherever we may be. And the client-side data storage options offered by <a href="http://www.edittrain.co.uk/newsitem.php?id=33">HTML5</a> should mean that temporarily losing an internet connection need not be a big deal.<br />
<br />
Perhaps the biggest advantage of server-side ebooks, though, is in updates. This may save editors and proofreaders a few sleepless nights. If there’s a serious typo or if the wrong draft has been used, just the update the file – no need for every customer to download a replacement. It would even be possibly to notify only those customers who had read as far as the page containing the error – the others need never know.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01128937485093967603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2938368297568836631.post-73711089100742837362011-01-19T14:48:00.000+00:002011-01-19T14:48:21.015+00:00An unexpected educational divideScience seems to be getting really popular these days. And the weirder the better. Numerous books and TV programmes feed our fascination for the many bizarre and counter-intuitive theories concerning the laws that govern the universe, from multiple realities to particles that can be in two places at once.<br />
<br />
Just a couple of days ago, I saw a truly breathtaking Horizon programme on the nature of reality, which ended on something called the holographic principle. And this is when it struck me that humans really don’t seem to be well equipped to deal with these questions. It appears that the closer we come to a genuine description of the way the universe really works, the further we find ourselves from something we can actually understand.<br />
<br />
That’s not altogether surprising. There’s no evolutionary advantage in gaining such an understanding, and it’s perhaps more surprising that evolution has taken us to the point at which we can even scratch the surface of what makes the world tick. Most life on earth gets by perfectly well without that level of insight.<br />
<br />
What may be distressing for some people – especially lay people – when it comes to these questions is that what appear to be the ‘best’ scientific theories simply can’t be expressed in natural language. The ideas are just beyond our comprehension – beyond our everyday experience and therefore impossible to describe in those terms.<br />
<br />
Of course, the scientists themselves do – apparently – manage to get a glimpse of the ‘true’ nature of reality through mathematics. What cannot be expressed in normal language can be written down and in some way understood in the form of equations. And this makes me wonder whether this actually takes those scientists a step closer to a genuine concept of the ideas they’re describing.<br />
<br />
If so, it risks leaving the rest of us out on a limb. In mathematics, there appears to be a language that describes the way the universe works. But most of us don’t understand that language in anything like enough depth. And that includes people who would traditionally regard themselves as well educated.<br />
<br />
I can’t help wondering whether the new elite – those with the necessary mathematical skills – are set to take on a role that will appear almost religious to the rest of us.<br />
<br />
Books that offer insights into the true nature of the universe, but written in a language that only a select few can truly understand… Where have I heard that before?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01128937485093967603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2938368297568836631.post-79803041202249242322010-12-15T09:13:00.000+00:002010-12-15T09:13:57.385+00:00Time to accept the comma splice?It's one of those things that drive some people mad in a 'Why can't people write in proper sentences?' sort of way.<br />
<br />
I have to admit that seeing two sentences lazily strung together with nothing more than a comma has a similar effect on me.<br />
<br />
Never heard of the comma splice?<br />
<br />
Here's an example:<br />
<br />
'We will endeavour to ship your order within three days, however it may take longer.'<br />
<br />
There are actually two sentences here. One is:<br />
<br />
'We will endeavour to ship your order within three days.'<br />
<br />
The other is:<br />
<br />
'However, it may take longer.'<br />
<br />
English has a number of ways to join two sentences together. The trouble is that sticking a comma between them isn't one of them.<br />
<br />
What you can do is use a conjunction, such as 'and' or 'but' (often preceded by a comma):<br />
<br />
'We will endeavour to ship your order within three days, but it may take longer.'<br />
<br />
Alternatively, why not just use a full stop?<br />
<br />
'We will endeavour to ship your order within three days. However, it may take longer.'<br />
<br />
... or a semi-colon?<br />
<br />
'We will endeavour to ship your order within three days; however, it may take longer.'<br />
<br />
However, could it be time to ditch the rule?<br />
<br />
Sometimes, very well-written literature is littered with comma splices. It can have a real affect on the pace of the text.<br />
<br />
For example, 'Say what you want, I don't care' suggests hurried speech, with little or no pause between 'want' and 'I'. 'Say what you want; I don't care' just doesn't have the same effect.<br />
<br />
And if the usage has become so widespread, how do we distinguish between a 'good' comma splice and a 'bad' one?<br />
<br />
If the rule has become that the comma splice is wrong unless it looks OK or it's a good piece of writing, then that's no rule at all.<br />
<br />
And perhaps it would spare editors and proofreaders much agonising if we just did away with it!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01128937485093967603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2938368297568836631.post-66782876212364701452010-11-26T15:28:00.000+00:002010-11-26T15:29:46.370+00:00When common sense collides with logicI wrote a post some time ago about the ambiguity inherent in English (<a href="http://edittrain.blogspot.com/2010/06/trading-clarity-for-creativity.html">http://edittrain.blogspot.com/2010/06/trading-clarity-for-creativity.html</a>), and this reminded me of a case I read while studying for my law degree. This was a <i>very </i>long time ago, and I may have got some of the details wrong (so please don’t rely on this as any guide to the law!), but I think it went something like this…<br />
<br />
A van full of stolen goods was intercepted by the police, who, disguised as the thieves, went on to rendezvous with the people who had arranged to buy the items.<br />
<br />
The police promptly arrested those people for attempting to handle stolen goods.<br />
<br />
To secure a conviction, it had to be proved that the defendants <i>intended </i>to handle stolen goods.<br />
<br />
This was the tricky part. As soon as the police had taken custody of the goods, they ceased to be ‘stolen’.<br />
<br />
Even then, though, common sense seems to suggest that, since the would-be buyers believed the items to be stolen, they had every intention of handling stolen goods.<br />
<br />
The trouble is that what common sense suggests doesn’t always go hand in hand with what logic dictates.<br />
<br />
Consider the following questions and answers:<br />
<br />
Did the buyers intend to handle the goods in the van?<br />
<br />
Yes.<br />
<br />
Were the goods in the van stolen?<br />
<br />
No.<br />
<br />
Did the buyers intend to handle stolen goods?<br />
<br />
On this basis the only logical answer to the question is ‘no’.<br />
<br />
I have a feeling that the conviction was secured in the end, but this does go to show how easy it is to tie yourself up in knots, and how poorly suited our language is to representing logical ideas.<br />
<div><br />
</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01128937485093967603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2938368297568836631.post-28658652171001019452010-11-11T12:02:00.000+00:002010-11-11T12:02:00.204+00:00E-ink + mobile phone = death of the e-reader?Because the paper-mimicking qualities (and long battery life) of e-ink displays are just about the only thing that make dedicated e-readers worth having. Now that e-ink is being incorporated into mobile phone displays, I can't help thinking that this is the beginning of the end for e-book-specific devices. Samsung's Alias 2 and the new Samsung Zeal (<a href="http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/36688/samsung-zeal-e-ink-phone">http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/36688/samsung-zeal-e-ink-phone</a>), for example, are starting to use e-ink powered keypads. And with a new colour e-ink e-reader just launched (<a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20022237-93.html">http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20022237-93.html</a>), how long before we see this technology in mobile phones? And who will want to cart around an e-reader when a mobile phone will be capable of doing everything the e-reader does and more?<br />
<br />
Of course, we're not quite there yet, and, as the capabilities of different devices converge, I wonder whether we'll see a series of hybrids, with consumers opting for whichever reflects their primary use. Do you want a mobile phone for e-books or an e-reader on which you can make phone calls?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01128937485093967603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2938368297568836631.post-42465341416001237072010-10-29T09:10:00.000+01:002010-10-29T09:10:09.864+01:00The liar paradoxThis is something I came across just recently. Someone says something along the lines of: ‘I am lying’ or ‘this statement is false.’ Our task is to decide whether what they’re saying is true or false. If it’s true, then … it can’t be true, so it must be false. But if it’s false … then it’s true!<br />
<br />
See <a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/par-liar/">http://www.iep.utm.edu/par-liar/</a> for some really interesting discussion on this.<br />
<br />
For me, the answer is ‘neither’. These just aren’t statements that can be categorised as true or false, and perhaps the difficulty we have with such conundrums merely reflects the fact that our language has not evolved to flag up any such problems; a sentence can be illogical or nonsensical and still make sense semantically.<br />
<br />
This put me in mind of the way in which interviewers on the TV or radio will sometimes try to trap their subjects (especially politicians!), using a similar well-known ‘paradox’.<br />
<br />
Like most people, I get annoyed when politicians refuse to give a straight answer to a straight question.<br />
<br />
But I sometimes find myself siding with the interviewee when they’re asked something like: ‘Are you continuing to take bribes from this company? Yes or no.’<br />
<br />
If the interviewee wants to deny having taken any bribes, the answer to the question is neither ‘yes’ nor ‘no’.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01128937485093967603noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2938368297568836631.post-53422617915165458962010-10-19T09:12:00.000+01:002010-10-27T17:38:35.814+01:00Apostrophes changed for ever by a word-processing quirk?Not that I'm normally <em>quite</em> this picky, but ...<br />
<br />
If you've ever tried typing something like:<br />
<br />
<em>Let ‘em go!</em><br />
<br />
... in your average word-processing program, you probably won’t end up with an apostrophe in front of <em>em</em>.<br />
<br />
Why? Because most keyboards don’t distinguish between an apostrophe, or closing quotation mark, (<i>’</i>) and an opening quotation mark (<i>‘</i>). As a result, your word-processor has to decide what it is you wanted to type.<br />
<br />
You don’t normally find an apostrophe in front of <em>em</em>, so it reasonably assumes that you were after an opening quotation mark.<br />
<br />
You weren’t, though. You were looking for an apostrophe. The trouble is that so many people have got so used to accepting their word-processor’s decision as final, that they seem to have forgotten (or come no longer to care) what an apostrophe is.<br />
<br />
The word-processor induced usage seems to have become so widespread as to be generally accepted. Normally, I don’t mind. Really I don’t. But it hit home to me when it appeared on some TV ad or other recently, which had something like:<br />
<br />
<em>The class of ‘96</em><br />
<br />
I still wouldn’t really mind, but even my (now pretty ancient) word-processing program can work that one out and automatically makes it:<br />
<br />
<em>The class of ’96</em>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01128937485093967603noreply@blogger.com0