ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

BBSs

Definitely “BBSs.” Same thing as with the DVD discussion earlier in this thread; some style guides (most notably NY Times’) go for DVD’s (BBS’s), but most recommend just adding an “s,” DVDs (BBSs).

I am SHOCKED that ANY style guide calls for an apostrophe for the plural of an abbreviation! That is crazy talk!

I dunno, even the hyper-sensitive Lynn Truss chalks that one up to 'usage'.

even the apostrophe-averse AP uses it for plurals of single characters: mind your P's and Q's. because Ps and Qs looks odd. (but yes, DVDs, SUVs, STDs...)

I don't think Ps looks that odd. Is and Os and the other vowels look very odd though. I suppose you could do "I"s and "O"s.

while this thread is active, i'm curious to what degree anyone is aware of copyediting being outsourced or back-officed. i wrote a book for a small publisher earlier this year, and they shipped it to india for proofing and copyediting (not for substance -- the editors here did that -- but for basic typos and style issues). the indian editors did a fine job, caught a lot of small mistakes. but is this a widespread practice? are there copyediting shops popping up like there are call centers and coding shops? since it's what i actually get paid to do, it makes me a little nervous.

I used to work for a textbook development firm, and we basically did proofreading, fact-checking, and design for large textbook publishers, as well as other publishing outfits. (Part of how I got hired at my current company was that we were briefly a client of my old company and so I already had experience with one of the projects.) I don't know how much straight-up copyediting took place, but it doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility.

In this case, I think the advantage was that the work was done quickly and reliably, when the publishers didn't have the time or the staff to do it themselves. Outsourcing the work to India makes me think that there's a financial motivation, though, as well.

oh yeah i'm sure the indian copyeditors make a lot less than american copyeditors do.

I wrote into AP and asked my BBS plural question, and they said:

Probably BBSes. If you are abbreviating bulletin board systems for computers, suggest use the more understandable, if longer, bulletin boards.

My favourite part: "Probably." Thanks, AP's ask the editor. Thanks for your decisiveness.

I frequently write in margins "probably..." or "I'd suggest..." which should be understood as "there is no right or wrong here unless you pay me far more to rewrite the whole piece cos even when I fix the obvious errors it will still be gibberish".

In most questions like the BBS one, sadly, the answer does not matter.

I'd have said BBSs, out of the two choices. But BBSes gets used often enough that I wouldn't care much. "Bulletin boards" is better, though, if that's what you mean.

Probably BBSes.

Kisss
Boxs
Gass

That's your where/why.

are there copyediting shops popping up like there are call centers and coding shops?

i feel like there was an article about this on the bbc or somewhere, with the answer being "yes," although i recall hearing about it more in the context of major multinationals (i.e. Citigroup or Dow Jones, say, moving these parts of their operations there, or parts of these parts, i guess) rather than indepedent "shops."

Probably BBSes

absolutely BBSes. i mean ... do none of you remember the fucking pertuises?

but really, that isn't an argument i want to go through again. ever.

(hmm: not sure how i've managed to anchor that link halfway down the thread. meant to start at the top, obviously.)

Some questions about a teacher's edits to a s1ght and sound piece:

1. She circled the phrase 'by that t0ken' and called it a cliche. Do you agree or disagree?
2. "Cust0dians work dilig3ntly during the night sh1ft, mopping the d1rty halls before the m0rning teenagers arriv3." She circled "work dilig3ntly" and put 'show.' Really?
3. "3ducation continues to burr0w its way into the m1nds of students" She wrote: "Why are you using personification?" Thoughts?
4. "She makes her way to a wat3r fountain, pushes th3 tab and gorg3s" She circled 'makes her way' and wrote "What is blocking her?" ^^

I have more, but I'll leave it at this.

Without the context of the whole piece it's hard to say... #1 seems nitpicky, #2 has some merit, 'diligently' seems a little lazy, #3 is way OTM, wtf is that bro, #4 seems dubious as you have to kind of make your way to most water fountains.

Mostly agree with W and with teacher, though it depends on context:

1. "by that token" is an acceptable stock phrase in, say, a magazine article, but doesn't work in anything where the prose itself is supposed to be valuable

2. I get the sense she wants you to SHOW "work diligently" because that's somehow the point of the piece? (I don't know what "a s1ght and sound piece" refers to, but the "s1ght and s0und" bit sure makes it seem like showing would be good)

3. yes, way OTM, cause it's a weird personification to have education (which is usually, like, acquired) attacking these kids -- if your point is that education gets in despite the students' passive disinterest, you'd need more on that

4. I don't know how much I agree with teacher, but her point is that "makes her way" can sound a bit like she's fording streams and carrying a pack

Thanks for the help...I'm keeping #1 (while, as a whole, the prose is supposed to be nice, flowery and descriptive, this sentence appears in the very beginning, when I explain what the piece is a bout).

I know how to show #2, and I'll probably just have a conversation with her about #4...

Re: #3, I wasn't attempting to make some statement about the students' interest level. Rather, through imagery, I was trying to show how, when you're in a learning environment, information tends to seep into your brain without you ever realizing it...

And a sight and s0und = when you go to a place, observe and then write a piece about it. It's f0r a high school newspaper.

i'm just glad there are still high school newspapers, much less ones with good teacher/editors. listen to her, she knows what she's talking about.

(generally, yes...but I think you need to know a little more background before you can say listen to her)

I am intrigued.

I thought the expression was "by the same token". In any case it doesn't mean much. Why not drop it?

You could say that custodians mop the dirty halls. (Or just "halls" -- presumably if they were clean, no mopping would be required!) Do you really know that they were "diligent"? They might have been smoking and cracking jokes half the time. If you DO know that they were diligent, write how you know this, rather than that they were diligent.

Things burrowing into minds recalls a particularly uncomfortable scene in Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan.

Re: #3, I wasn't attempting to make some statement about the students' interest level. Rather, through imagery, I was trying to show how, when you're in a learning environment, information tends to seep into your brain without you ever realizing it...

Well, use "information" rather than "education" (if you must use personification, at least use the thing you actually mean).

"Inf0rmation continues to burr0w its way into the m1nds of students, bearing light artillery, wool blankets and supplies for several months."

Education burrowing it's way... -> I was trying to show how information tends to seep into your brain...

Say that then - "Information continues to seep/drip into/be absorbed by the minds of students..."

What is a custodian?

A janitor

AHhhhhhhh I was just in a work meeting that was really well run and informative, but unfortunately the presenter has the habit of saying "just simply" this and "just simply" that. Arrrrlghghg redundancy.

Heh, I thought you were writing an article for

http://www.letssubscribe.com/dynamic/eshop/product_images/thumbnail_cache/600x400/7141.jpg

Can someone help me with these two ongoing conundrums:

1. While/whilst, among/amongst
(I almost always avoid the 'st' versions, but is there a rule?)

2. which/that
("my socks, which/that are hanging up to dry over there" for example) Word seems to moan if I use "which" in many contexts, but I read it in print all the time. Again, what is the rule?)

1. chiefly Brit

2. It has to do with whether you're clarifying which pair of socks you're talking about, or whether you're just adding an extraneous details. For example: "I shouldn't wear the socks that are hanging up to dry, but I'll wear the socks that are in my drawer." Versus: "The socks, which are hanging up to dry, are still a little damp."

1. While and among are generally thought preferable. The -st versions are a bit fusty, though I don't really dislike them myself.
2. According to the (poorly followed) rule:

"My socks that are hanging up over there" is about defining the socks you're talking about (ie the socks that are hanging up over there, rather than those other ones)
"My socks, which are hanging up over there" is about adding additional information about the socks, the identity of which is not in question.

"That" defines, "which" informs.

x-post

Imagining pausing (or putting a comma) before the that/which gives you a pointer. If a comma/pause works, then it should be "which", if not then "that".

That's true, although I should note that a comma doesn't just work in front of "which": it's required. Similarly, there shouldn't be a comma before "that."

Additionally, to remember which one is which, you could try the old trick of putting “by the way” after that/which. If it sounds all right, it should be “which.”

E.g.

“My socks, which (by the way) are hanging up over there.” (works)
“My socks that (by the way) are hanging up over there.” (doesn’t work)

hmm. try living in glasgow for a bit. "by the way" works after absolutely everything, byrraway.

This is all making it more clear-cut than it sometimes is. I quite often come across examples where it's kind of a grey area whether one is defining or informing. And am sometimes tempted in those cases to get across that greyness by putting a which without a comma before.

If you want an example of someone who flouts the that/which rule as a matter of course, download and listen to Kate Adie introduce From Our Own Correspondent each week on Radio 4. I know most people don't even know the rule, but they must instinctively have a bit of an ear for it, because Adie sticks out so much. I think someone must have once told her "that" was common or something.

I'm kinda endlessly surprised by how mixed people get on that/which when writing, since folks follow it pretty decently (when necessary) in speech. (The main problem seems to be that when writing, people try to use "which" for "that" on the grounds that it sounds classier, something they'd NEVER do when speaking.)

Folks don't much talk classy.

The situation in which I'm most likely to accidentally deviate from the rule is in a sentence with a compound "that." The second one often turns into a "which." Viz.:

"This is the kind of rule that I usually follow but which gets me into trouble sometimes."

I feel like proper usage dictates that it should be "but that gets me into trouble," but for some reason "which" just sounds better after a conjunction: it seems more solid, I guess.

We had this whole 'which' / 'that' debate at great length upthread. It is true that you can't use 'that' in non-defining relative clauses (only which), but it's not true that you can't use 'which' in defining relative clauses (you can use 'which' or 'that').

I think that's right nabisco. When I was writing papers, my first editing step was to just do a find on 'which' and 9 times out of 10, I'd realise it should've been a 'that'. Instinct leads you to type 'which' when trying to sound scholarly.

Wikipedia says: "(re:which or that)....Of the two, only which is at all common in non-restrictive clauses. Problems arise in restrictive clauses, where traditionally either that or which could be used. This is still the case in normal speech and in British English, but in formal American English it is generally recommended to use only that for restrictive clauses." So this is obviously just a British v American thing.

You wrote that wikipedia entry!

No, I didn't. I'm not sure what a restrictive clause is, for a start.

I have never disputed that which is true.
I have never disputed which which is true.
I have never disputed that that is true.