Browsing the topics I came upon the "new" words.It reminded me of a word used (coined?) by my chum Mr. Helms to describe the regular patrons of a bar. "Dregulars." Anyone heard that before? I found it a perfect picture word! wow
regular patrons of a bar. "Dregulars."
But do they wear velvet capes and have long canines?
And do they all order Bloody Marys?
God, but I do love you people!
wow
In reply to:
God, but I do love you people!
Busted!
I use Gawd instead of the name of the Diety. (Insert face with eyes raised to heaven in gaze pleading forgivness.) You are correct about gadzooks. Gawd zooks is my made up phrase allowing me to flirt with the profane (as opposite to profanity.)
Who wants to take John Cleese's role as High Priest - "Are there any women here?" 
I was calling down blessings on you all.
But you are correct, I slipped.
However "God is propitious to me ...my sins are forgiven"
Aren't they?
wow
In reply to:
However "God is propitious to me ...my sins are forgiven"
Ask Father Steve
In the meantime, console yourself by rememering that "to Herr is German."
RE : "To Herr is German"...
Var. : To err is human, to forgive is not company policy.
wow
instead of the name of the Diety. Is this the patron saint of slimmers, Max?
RE : "To Herr is German"...
Var. : To err is human, to forgive is not company policy.
To err is human, to really foul things up requires computers.
In reply to:
instead of the name of the Diety.
Is this the patron saint of slimmers, Max?
While not wishing to make light of such a weighty matter, I must transfer the dollar. A look at my original post will show that instead of the name of the Diety was a direct quote from an earlier post by wow. IOW, you'll have to ask her!
Picky! Picky! I did a punny without realizing it ... that's how all my puns originate. I love 'em when I hear/read them but I really haven't the knack. My new glasses are due any day now. wow
Picky! Picky! I did a punny without realizing it ... that's how all my puns originate. ¡Lo siento mucho! I behaved like a cad. I was gently ribbed for a typo, and instead of taking it on the chin, this bounder seized on the rare opportunity to say "it's not my fault." Such boorishly egregious behaviour is inexcusable - mea culpa!
it just goes to show you; always verify your sources before you post *anything here.
Such boorishly egregious behaviour is inexcusable - mea culpa!I imagine you'll be forgiven this time, Max, but too many more indiscretions like this and you'll be labelled an
egregular.
In reply to:
it just goes to show you; always verify your sources before you post *anything here.
Abso-ma-lutely. The inner gentleman in me said that I should wear the blame being apportioned for the typo, unfortunately my selfish outer child prevailed, and I fingered wow as the real culprit!
In reply to:
I imagine you'll be forgiven this time, Max, but too many more indiscretions like this and you'll be labelled an egregular
Justly so, no doubt. What intrigues me is how quiet the agente provocateuse in this little imbroglio (is there an "imbroglietta"?), namely, RhubarbCommando, has become. After unleashing my baser instincts with a gentle jab at a typo I didn't make, Rhuby has slipped back into silence - are you reading this, Loki? Or are you busy carving the words "To the Fairest" on an apple?
Or are you busy carving the words "To the Fairest" on an apple?
Are you planning something with Helen?
In reply to:
Or are you busy carving the words "To the Fairest" on an apple?
So who gets to go to Paris to find the answer?
Bingley
Max et al.
Don't feel to bad about the diety thing. I recently read a sci fi book by a well-known author (who is so well-known his name escapes me at the moment. Throughout the entire novel, the word deity was misspelled diety. And in this particular novel that was a LOT of times. Several hundred anyway.
I found the author's e-mail address and asked, "Was this an editor's goof or were you making a pun?"
His response, "Oh my God. I did THAT? How would you like to be my editor?" or words to that effect. Several things come to mind:
Where was his spell checker?
Where were his editors, his proofreaders, his agent?
Lastly, if the tone of the author's response is to be believed, I was the first person to bring this to his attention; where were his fans?
This brings me to my point:
I assume everyone who posts here reads voraciously and with catholic tastes. When you read, do you notice errors such as this and how much does it bother you?
To answer my own question, I notice errors like this more and more every year. I think there must be more of them. And it bothers me a lot. I find my eye being drawn back to the offensive line until I have turned the page. My blue pencil yearns to put the proper proofreading mark in the margin, while my mind shouts, "This is a library book, dammit! Get over it!"
It bothers me a lot. But unless the book is suffused with them, I don't get too hot under the collar about it. If one of my favourite authors was, in my opinion, being really ill-served by his/her editor, I might think about writing to him/her. But not much else...
oddly enough, it bothers me more with fiction. I suppose because of the element of distraction, and removal from whatever suspension of disbelief I have achieved.
I agree. With the proviso that most bothersome, however, are books about language, or English!
In reply to:
Max et al.
Don't feel to bad about the diety thing.
For the Diety's sake, it wasn't me!!
I have never come across such a consistent error as the one you mention, but it would drive me to distraction, especially after my recent experience of being hunted mercilessly for a gaffe I didn't commit. From this day forth, sic shall be my constant companion.
Dear Everyone,
I am inconsolable about the vexation Max has so nobly endured because of my typical graphical error.
My error, everyone! I wrote Diety instead of Deity in a previous post.
I was probably thinking of that box of chocolate covered Macadamia nuts that's sitting in my "to be wrapped" pile of Christmas gifts.
Believe me, if there was a Deity for diets it would be a very popular Deity indeed.
I for one would be lighting candles daily.
Aloha to you all,
wow
>a Deity for diets it would be a very popular
I'm not sure about a deity, but the patron saint of diets is St. Caucus.
TEd, if I wasn’t over here and you weren’t over there I would kiss you on the lips. Since distance forbids
, I will now erect a statue in your honour. I thought I was the only one who spotted these things. If I find one error, it registers, I hmmm a little and I move on, but sometimes there are so many that it seriously annoys me. You are right, WHERE are the editors?
I recently ran across a word I did not know in the preface of a compendium of horror stories. I always read the story before the preface because, very often, the prefacer will give away the whole plot. The prefacer (the editor no less) said the story represented the author’s style since the writing was very
elegaic.
Not knowing what it meant, and not being able to glean the meaning from the surrounding sentences or the story, I did my usual; I looked it up.
I found that it was A) a MISSPELLING of elegiac and B) that it barely represented to style, which was maudlin at best. It looked like the editor was trying to show off his vocabulary. What a bust.
St Caucus is the patron saint of dieters? Could this be because in a caucus of politicians so much hot air is being expelled through the mouth that no food can be ingested?
St. Caucus
Might I venture to guess that this is one of the hundreds of frivolous saints that our current Pope has canonized?
>St Caucus is the patron saint of dieters?
Buzz:
Not dieters, diets. There's more than one type of diet. I must warn you that I am an inveterate punster. Nefandous, according to tsuwm.
>TEd, if I wasn’t over here and you weren’t over there I would kiss you on the lips. . . . What a bust.
Drat! I miss out once again. And I notice that I went from buss to bust!!!
All seriousness aside, bel, this has been one of my major peeves for years. And I don't hesitate to track down the authors and let them know. With the internet many of them are really quite close.
Jeff Shaara wrote a book about OUR Civil War. The Vice President in the administration prior to Lincoln's was a Southerner named Breckinridge. He went South, much to the disgust of the residents of the eponymous town here in Colorado, who changed its name to Breckenridge in response to what they considered treason. (How's THAT for a bad sentence???)
Anyway, in his novel, Shaara used the wrong spelling. I wrote him a letter and he responded very graciously with an "oops" and said there were a few other things in the book which got missed, including his saying that John Brown had been hung. I had noticed but figured the name misspelling was of more import :).
Dear TEd,
Diet : you mean The Golden Bull, Charlie?
(insert gleeful chuckle)
Here we go!
More meanings than you can shake a schtick at.
wow
>Nefandous, according to tsuwm.
teD, you seem to have developed a real affection for this word. if you actually do like it (and are not just taking shots ;) consider it yours -- now you don't have to credit me any more.
BTW, it was a tough call choosing between nefandous and infandous.
There's more than one type of diet.
A saint for the Japanese legislature?
In reply to:
There's more than one type of diet.
A saint for the Japanese legislature?
Or is he just opening a whole new can of Worms?
This is the way I've heard it -- "To err is human, to forgive, canine."
I, too, tend to notice typos in the books I read. Sometimes they can be very distracting. The really glaring errors seem almost an insult to the reader. But I love books -- the paper, the typeface, the heft of the fat volumes or the cuteness of the small ones, the illustrations, the footnotes -- not just for the plots or the data imparted, and I can't imagine a world without them, as some futurists predict.
I note that you come from Iowa. I drove across it once. But more to the point, Bill Bryson comes from Des Moines ... he talks about books the same way as you do. Is there something in the soil?
Or is he just opening a whole new can of Worms?
... as the bishop said to the actress.
Is there something in the soil in Iowa? Generally, field corn, soybeans, and manure from hogs and cattle.
Is there something in the soil in Iowa? Generally, field corn, soybeans, and manure from hogs and cattle.
Ah, no doubt that would explain it!
I'm new and wanted to say how dregulars struck me - by the way it's wonderful. But I see dregulars in their cups staring down and reading the dregs (and telling fortunes?).
Stuck in DC traffic one day, I came up with Driverticulitis. Whaddyathink?
To Herr is German made me laugh out loud, here all by myself.
Welcome Aboard, Pamela - be prepared to read six amazing things before breakfast for the rest of your days! In case you're wondering, the rather harsh apellation of "stranger" is ditched after 25 posts, so "don't be a stranger" - post often.
Thanks, Max, very kind of you to welcome me. This is such a great forum! I'm so in awe of you all - awful! (sorry - just slipped out) So much to do on this list - for a free-ranger like me, it's fascinating. But six things before 6 am? If I stayed here and got involved in the site, I'd never get to work. I don't get the new word for the day until after I come home in the evenings, though. Is that the way it is usually? I'd rather get it at 5 a.m.
In reply to:
But six things before 6 am?
Sorry, the "six things before breakfast" was a reference to the work of my favourite mathematician - Charles Lutwedge Dodgson. The Queen of Hearts told Alice that sometimes she had believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. Since this board is often delightfully surreal, the Wonderland reference seemed apt.
Misspellings and misuses of words in books drive me crazy and always have. The absolute worst I've ever seen, though,
goes way beyond these. There is a doctor who used to write a column for Discover magazine. She wrote a book called
"Other Peoples' Children". (I think. She's a pediatrician.) She surely must have written parts of it at different times, because one chapter--only--in the middle of the book was written in the first person, with no explanation. All of the others were in the third person! Where on earth was her editor??
Jackie asked (probably plaintively, and with a Southern accent): Where on earth was her editor??
The answer, Jackie, is complex and involves a deep and wide knowledge of the publishing industry.
For technical books, editors are chosen for their grasp of the subject, the industry and the audience, and their excellent grasp of the linguistic implications of the author's work.
They work long hours on high stools and sloping desks, under guttering candles or gas lamps, wearing eyeshades and with clips keeping their sleeves from accidentally dipping themselves in the inkwells, and to protect their cuffs from the splatter of hand-ground ink. They are carefully trained to make the most of each goose quill, and little boys are employed for pennies to run around sharpening their pen knives. Your average editor works sixteen hours a day, and is grateful for the few coins thrown to him or her by the grudging employer, who will almost inevitably be called Scrooge, especially at this time of the year. They lie awake at nights worrying about whether the word should be "deoxyribonucleic" or just "oxyribonucleic". They sweat buckets over each misplaced comma or mislaid full stop ("period" to US readers). They use galley slips for toilet paper and to wipe their perspiring brows with shaking hands. They fear nothing but their failure to make each tome produced by their house literally word-perfect.
How am I doing, Wow?
Actually most of the book/journal editors I know have trouble spelling their own names, and have so many publications on the go at once that if they can recognise what the author wrote as being English (or [choose your language]), that's good enough. I'm the associate editor for an information technology publication, and it's hard to get everything right within tight timeframes!
I have somewhere a wonderful cartoon: Dickens is sitting across the desk from his editor, who is saying, "Now, Mr. Dickens, was it the best of times or the worst of times? You can scarcely have it both ways."
DEAR Capital Kiwi, re proofing and editing :
You are doing just great!
Once upon a time there were proofreaders by the dozens, perched in a mezzanine above the Linotype room, and they read the copy after it had been set in type, correcting spelling and grammar and thereby teaching the readers and the reporters who read their own stories in the paper. They were good teachers those proofreaders.
Then came computers.
Goodbye proofreading as a full time job and accepted part of the publishing process. In came "spellcheck" which is
not grammarcheck. For example : It would read "of" as acceptable when the context called for "off!" Or cellar for seller etc. etc. Things that never, ever, would have gotten by a proofreader.
Proofreaders had dozens and dozens of reference books and they actually used them!
As opposed to a this : a news editor who came across the word perquisites in a quote of a town official, in a news story said to me "You must learn to spell 'prerequisites'." When I exploded she wanted to change the word... IN A DIRECT QUOTE
... because she'd "never heard of it." Arrggghhh ! The Editor overruled her, thank Gawd.
Another time, in a story about intricate quilt patterns a typographer changed "busyness" to "business without checking with me ... and I was three feet away. How could it not be obvious by the story itself! Double Arrgggh.
And while I am blowing off steam, it is Linotype, not linotype. Linotype is a proprietary word, please!
RANT! RANT! RANT !
Well, calming down a bit I have to back off blaming computers....totally .... it was, in large part, that blasted Corporate-think that ended up firing proofreaders and turning writer/authors into their own proofers.... Corporate spent all that money on computers and, by Gawd, computers can do the job! Lean and mean. And there are several meanings in mean.
I am going to go into a corner, curl up in a foetal position, chew on paper and mutter to myself, thereby saving you all from any more. (We need a cross-eyed, drooling emoticon)
Thank you for allowing me to vent my frustrations.
wow
Loved your rant! I am the daughter of two working class/middle class immigrants. my mother, had almost no education-- a chronic illness in pre antibiotics days left her an invalid from age 8 or so till post WWII when with a shot or two of penicillin, she went from constant fevers of chorea -"St Vitus dance" to a 90% healthy adult. (some residual heart valve damage). my da went to vocational school...
I am very bright--as a child IQ tested above 165-- but i grew up in a household with out books-- my parents read, and i had free access to a library, but no guidance. and being a baby boomer, i was in over crowded school class--at one point 81 children where packed into a class designed for 40 to 50--which is still way to big. And then too, it was a parochial school–(catholic) so my education was further limited*
my ex husband was convinced part of my bad spelling was, 1-no dictionary at home, 2--no attention at school.
but it spite of all this, i learned to read-- and to read more than fiction (mum still reads 95% fiction) and to collect dictionaries. (first edition Partridges', chambers, dictionaries of idioms, all sorts of dictionaries.) to go on to get a degree..
but i am very aware that i missed a lot of the finer points of being educated person. my reading has saved me, but as I mentioned on of the threads, when i first read Wodenhouse, i didn't find it funny. I had no ideas about upper class society, or golf, or butlers. When PBS (Public Broadcasting System) first aired "Jeeves"icould see it was funny, but I couldn't see it on the page. I had no context.
as industrials countries create more opportunities-- people like me get educated... but we are a step or two behind those of you who where lucky enough to grow up in an environment that right from the beginning, offered you guidance and exposure to books, literature, grammar!
so cut us some slack!
* Shanks did a bit about Indian history vs. English history–
In the catholic church view, there was a "good queen mary" Most of the rest of the world knows her as "bloody mary" (daughter of Henry VIII).
Helen--
(By the way, if you prefer that I stick with 'of troy', I will, but I'm afraid with that screen name I'd be calling you Helen if your name was Esmerelda!)
My Dear, my Dear--bless you, there are all kinds of education. Book-learning isn't everything, though it does
offer a lot. And, you know, it's never too late, if it's something you'd really like to make up for. I keep reading
about older people going back to school and feeling petrified, and invariably they have a good time. There are
also adult ed. classes in most areas. I'm not telling you you should--that's strictly an individual decision--just saying that there are possibilities.
I can plainly see that there is a whole heckuva lot that you could teach me, and quite a few others, I suspect. You may have all the slack you want, Dear One, as far as I'm concerned. To borrow from an absolutely wonderful post that I read so long ago I've forgotten its author, you are the only one who has had your experiences, and therefore we all can learn something from you. I admire your courage, my Dear.
Thank you Jackie (and yes, of course I am Helen–with the face to sink a thousand ship! Ah such power!)
You demonstrate such grace, and guess what I should have said, (more or less quoting from the coal miners daughter– I (and many others) are sometime ignorant, but not stupid!
unless you've run across perquisite, which is so rarely written or even said, and so often just "perks" you might not know the word– it does look like 'prerequisites' so it is a mistake an ignorant person can make. But we are all ignorant of some things! Not to be pendantic, but be pendantic!
I follow Mark Twain's advice– I read a lot, and try to hang about smarter (than me!) people!–(you guys!) I read every post! And before I ever posted any thing, I read almost every thread on main page.. I haven't yet read all the old pages
WOW, you ask how could it not be obvious? But that "jeeves" was funny was not at all obvious to me.. I thought the books dull– always going on about ripping good times, and cocktail parties (poor me, I have never been to a cocktail party!– I've been to cocktail hours before dinner, but a small party for drinks, before the theater? What! The hour before the theater was spent on the subway getting to the theater!)
I also hated "Little Women" when I first read it as a child– Jo carrying on about how poor they were: they had a house, she had her own room! and books! The family had cook! And piano lessons, and art lessons! I didn't think myself poor–(but was a lot closer to poor– in HS my family was poor enough to qualify me for ‘free lunch' in school)
– we lived in an apartment, no books, no piano, and I had to content mysef with the 16 pack of crayons– I was an adult before I ever own 64 crayons! but I could walk (and did!) a mile or two to the NY botanical gardens, and to the bronx zoo.. And just fifteen cents would take me to museum of natural history (free, like most of ny museums)--and libraries! my nieghborhood boasted a 4 story building--it went from one block to the next, too. (you could enter on Marion Ave. or on Bainbridge! It was one of the largest building in the area! I had all of the world for as my back yard! I had no empathy for Jo or any of the March's! Was I stupid? Or just ignorant of the context of the book? When I articulated my dislike for the book in elementary school, one of the nuns was enraged! How could I not like this wonderful book, these wonderful characters– Jo had such nobility! but most of the nuns in my school were middle class and educated!
but i liked WOW's rant-- someone has to keep up the standards! don't go depending on me! (standards? there are standards? she sez, craning her neck looking for them!)
...describe the regular patrons of a bar. "Dregulars."...
During the long ago days of my well misspent youth (well, almost youth) I was an habitué of a bar in Flagstaff, AZ called the Latin Quarter. We who ruled the place called ourselves LQholics.
Goodness of Troy. You seem quite upset about the whole thing. Please do not feel offended by the following... I agree that people who
only look at the spelling are quite annoying since they are not really listening to what you have to say; only waiting for a chance to show their superiority in the language. Those people are really easy to spot, and honestly,
there are none here.
Here you have a group of people who are truly interested in the English language and all its nuances. You have punsters and pedants and everything in between. If an error is brought to our attention, it is not to ridicule, but to inform. To date, I have not seen any knuckle rapping pertaining to incorrect grammar or spelling. I have seen the wink-wink, nudge-nudge type of jibes that often pass among friends – all in good humour. Especially since most errors are of the obvious "3:30 in the morning after pulling an all-night AWAD session" mistyping
– and we know it.
You seem to have had a tough time of it growing up and anyone who rises through sheer will deserves to be commended. But doesn't education continue throughout one's life? Is it preferable to write incorrectly because it was hard to learn, or to continue learning in order to write correctly? This one is up to you.
Please remember though, that this is a board about words – and words are important to us. For example, what we were talking about in this thread are editors who left glaring errors in books we have read. An editor is supposed to know the language inside-out, and if he is unsure about something, he is supposed to have the tools to figure it out. Finding an error in a book shows a lack of professionalism by that editor. It was not an attack on you, nor was it aimed at you at all. I am sorry you felt pinpointed.
Allo, me again of Troy,
I am a little confused concerning a point you brought up. I was educated in a Catholic school (those are just about the only ones available in Québec) and do not feel penalized by it. We had French Catholic and English Catholic and they were of similar quality. I did notice you referred to <shank's bit about Indian history vs. English history>. Are you of Indian descent? Are Indian-Catholic schools in New York considered to be of lower quality?
> Not to be pendantic, but be pendantic!
not to be
pedantic (or didactic, for that matter), but...
Allo tsuwm choux,
Colour me clueless but what are you saying? Je ne comprends pas
tsuwm...what are you saying?
He took out the n, flying in the face of the preceding posts, that's what he did.
...and I thought I was quite ostentatious about it, thank you very much.
In reply to:
unless you've run across perquisite, which is so rarely written or even said, and so often just "perks" you might not know the word– it does look like 'prerequisites' so it is a mistake an ignorant person can make. But we are all ignorant of some things!
Well said, helen, but I think the point being made was that an editor should have known better. I certainly don't think anyone was criticising you. Your contributions to this board have always been valuable, adding yet another perspective to the discussions you have enriched.
Perhaps an analogy might take some of the perceived sting out of the situation decribed. As a Catholic you were taught how to make the sign of the Cross - how would react if you saw a Catholic priest cross himself in the Orthodox fashion? Just a slight change, but immediately noticeable, and not the sort of error you would expect from one in his position. Similarly, "prerequisite" and "perquisite" are very similar, yet different, and an editor really ought to be aware of that difference. At least, that's how I read the post in question. Salaam
Dear of Troy,
My sincere apology if I caused you even momentary upset.
My ire was at the news editor who was going to change a direct quote which is a mortal error in newspapering.
Again, please forgive.
wow
.. think the point being made was that an editor should have known better. I certainly don't think anyone was criticising you. Your contributions to this board have always been valuable, adding yet another perspective to the discussions you have enriched.
but every day i learn new words--here and even in the NYTimes-- which is supposedly written to a US 6th grade vocabulary- when i first heard segue-- (i could, with a bit of effort pin down the day) and said-- wait, what was that word? the user, was so incredible rude! I don't think they intended to be as rude as they were, since they were are not normally rude-- but it made not just me, but a whole group shut up for a while! (they intentionally being used so as to hid the offender gender!)
but when i mentioned the word to my then teen age daughter, she looked at me as if i had two heads! what, you don't know segue? she was startled! but you know every word! was her responce-- how could you not know segue! (oh to be as omni potent as that again!)
so somehow, this word eluded me when the rest of the world was segueing it self from topic to topic! .
Okay, so maybe the editor should have looked it up before commenting-- or asked WOW-- is this a word? its new to me! but even editors are entitled not to know every word!
and WOW is right to hold up standards-- and i didn't feel criticised.. but even those of us, who have worked on our vocabulary all our lives are still learning...
>* Shanks did a bit about Indian history vs. English history– In the catholic church view, there was a "good queen mary" Most of the rest of the world knows her as "bloody mary" (daughter of Henry VIII).
History is such a fascinating thing, so many sides. I tend to think of Queen Mary as a goodie (and a rather good liner). Henry VIII, Elizabeth I and Edward (whatever) were all baddies - breaking away from the church, destroying all those lovely monasteries 'n all. On the other hand, I also thought that Mary Queen of Scots was a baddie (for no real reason, other than that she was a bit foreign). Now I live in Scotland my children have been taught that Mary Queen of Scots was a goodie and Elizabeth I was definitely a baddie.
Whoever said that history was wasted on children was right. It takes a bit of maturity to take on the challenge of putting all the pieces back together for oneself. Whichever point of view taught in schools, sadly, even today tends to help build problems for the future. It's too easy to believe that we are getting the whole truth and nothing but the truth. the best thing about learning as we get older is that we have a context for all those meaningless facts and dates which used to whizz round for no apparent reason.
When I was learning to ski, I was pleased on day not to fall over. "Too bad", the teacher said, "you can't have been trying hard enough"!
Wow, Wow, you wrote (rantingly): And while I am blowing off steam, it is Linotype, not linotype. Linotype is a proprietary word, please!
RANT! RANT! RANT !
Sorry, chum, but the term "linotype" over the years came to cover, generically, all keyboard operated typesetting machines with the interesting exception of the Monotype.
Soooo... Intertype, Linotype and Mergenthaler machines were all linotypes. The process of machine typography (in which I hold a now totally invalid and singularly useless Advanced Trade Certificate) was called, commonly, "linotype operating". Our newspaper didn't even have Linotype-brand linotype machines.
There. I've seen your RANT and raised you two RANTS. Are you still in the game or is your mouth too full of semi-masticated newsprint? Carpet probably tastes better, especially a nicely toasted Axminster.
Bel
A hit and run posting without reading all the others on this thread. So my apologies if I am repeating someone else's explanation.
I suspect that Helen was not speaking of any Indian origins (though for all I know she might have a bit of the ol' Hindu blood in her
) but noting that perspective (in my case Indian versus English) can change the way we see things. 'Bloody' Mary to the Protestants is 'Good Queen' Mary to the Catholics.
ps. For reference, my original example was regarding the event in 1857 that the British called The Sepoy Mutiny and Indian history books refer to as The First War of Indian Independence.
Sorry, chum, but the term "linotype" over the years came to cover, generically, all keyboard operated typesetting machines with the interesting exception of the Monotype. Yesterday seems to have been my day for foot-in-mouth. I was taught Linotype years and years and years and years and years ago.But hope I will never to be too old to learn. And to learn fast (in self defense if for no other reason)this is the place.
Can't get away with a darned thing, mumble, mumble, mumble.
I have enough paper left to make a dunce cap and will now retreat to stand facing into the corner. Sigh.
wow
is NOT a mortal error. It is a hanging offense. Well, maybe not that, but an editor or reporter who does it should suffer an immediate loss of job along with a blackball in his or her employment record.
The press and the other media have an absolute duty to report the facts and a collateral duty not to twist them, slant them, or shade them in an attempt to support an agenda, except on the editorial page.
As I may have mentioned before, my mother worked for many years as a reporter for the Alexandria, Va., Gazette. In an article about corruption in the government of a neighboring county, she made reference to a particular politician "and his cronies." Now crony literally means long-time friends, but it carries with it a hint of engaging in unscrupulous activities, which, of course, was exactly the bad taste Mom wanted to leave in the readers' mouths. She could, of course, have merely referred to the politician and his colleagues.
I asked her why she just didn't call them henchmen. Her response: "Damn. I never thought of that. I've got to start using my thesaurus again." She was truly incorrigible.
The politician did sue, but the case was dropped when the guy was indicted for taking bribes. Mom was right, but she was also very wrong.
I have enough paper left to make a dunce cap and will now retreat to stand facing into the corner.A fool's cap please? Then at least it will bring back memories of the legendary watermark that lent it's name to (in the spirit of the printing theme) the paper size we still use and revere.
the paper size we still use and revere
Quaint! Can't remember when I last touched a piece of foolscap; surely everything here is now A sized (apart from SR print and other trade sizing), and in the USA more Letter format?
In reply to:
The press and the other media have an absolute duty to report the facts and a collateral duty not to twist them, slant them, or shade them in an attempt to support an agenda, except on the editorial page.
An interesting idea, TEd, but is it (even in principle) one that would work?
It seems to me that the press reports:
1. Stories that will boost circulation, or they will not receive advertising revenues enough to survive. Thus there is an element of pandering to the public taste, plus an element of manipulating it, as in any marketing set-up.
2. Only whatever can fit. A person dying is a person dying, but the press cannot report every single human death in a day.
Therefore all newspapers have an editorial policy of not just attitudes reflected on the editorial page, but of what consititutes 'news'. There can be no single definition - since newspapers themselves are different, and what is news to your local tabloid giveaway is quite different from what is news to your large national broadsheet.
Having an editorial policy, you may say, is still a start only, and once the policy is stated, that's it - the rest should be pure reportage. Even here, however, there are problems. What's to stop the editorial policy being a political one? Suppose a newspaper's policy stated quite clearly that the Tory Party (our equivalent of the GOP) was the most important political force in the country, and consequently reported everything the Tories did, maybe from time to time reporting on the 'other' party, if it happened to be in Government or if it happened to commit a hugely satisfying gaffe. This paper would be following its policy, (which itself stemmed from a definition of what is 'news' which itself is an open question because of the differences between newspapers) and would yet be slanting its coverage of news in favour of a particular party.
This is, in fact, the situation in the UK. We have four major national dailies. This (along with gratuitous comments from me on quality etc), is how they stack up:
1. The Daily Telegraph Tory to the core. Very well written. Superb sports coverage.
2. The Times Tory to the core. Legendary as The Thunderer in days of yore, now simply a lap-dog for Rupert Murdoch. Writing cannot match that of The Telegraph or The Guardian
3. The Independent Middle-of-the-road. Youngest of the nationals, and still not financially secure. Writing can be a strange mixture of the witty and the cheesy.
4. The Guardian Strongly Labour Party. Attempts balanced coverage but doesn't succeed. Very well written, but without the gravitas of an age-old inheritance of power and heirarchy that the 'Torygraph' exudes.
I find it hard to fault these papers for their editorial stances. Certainly, it would be nice to read 'balanced' news once in a while, but, as a relatively committed 'Grauniad' reader (yes, it's legendary for its typos), I find that I can just about stomach the Indy, but throw down in disgust the other two (unless its the sports pages). I, as a reader, have my own 'editorial' stance, and I do not want to spend my money on something that constantly frustrates me by contradicting it. Contrary opinons to my own are available to me for free - all around me - and if any of them sounds interesting, then I will make the effort to look it up.
Put it this way. I am an atheist. So guess what? I don't subscribe to 'The Watchtower'.
In my opinion, therefore, it is impossible for a newspaper not to demonstrate an editorial stance, and at least we can respect those that are open about having one, instead of claiming to aim for the theoretical and practical impossibility of 'simply reporting the facts'.
What do you think?
surely everything here is now A sized (apart from SR print and other trade sizing), and in the USA more Letter format?
Foolscap paper is admittedly rare, but still in use in legal offices and the like (though not the most frequently used paper there either). It is still 'used', however, more often as a sizing template for files, folders, binders, wallets and the like. Look up any office stationery catalogue and marvel at the way the most common sizes for these are foolscap, not A4.