atw: Re: Mr. Marnell's naive defence of ANYONE (was RE: Mr Ashley's attack on Professor Peters [WAS RE: Re: Helping your readers by avoiding minor usage [WAS RE: Re: Spaces before and after slashes]])
- From: "bja" <moo-man@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 11:58:42 +1100
Geoff, I'm not going to keep this public slanging match going just so that
you can continue to impose your unqualified opinion on the list. When I ask
you for proofs, you say "ta da, Pam Peters says. ta da" like a cheap
magician pulling flowers out of his sleeve.
When I say, what are her proofs, you say "ta da she is hot stuff. ta da",
"how dare you attack her, she is God you heathen. ta da", "when you learn to
read as good as her. ta da".
Great proofs Geoff. I don't particularly care one way or the other who Pam
Peters is. All I asked for, since you gave her name as an 'authority' along
with her work, was the evidence of your statement on her work in reference
to "editors globally" but instead, you effectively go 'how dare you' and
then attack me.
The joke of your position is that under normal circumstances you would never
accept this as proof yourself! How many times have I seen you ask for
legitimate references citing the need for research results etc. rather than
just another person's opinion, so stop being a hypocrite and stop accepting
the word of a single person (ANY person) as an unqualified fact.
Before I take up a position ON ANYTHING Geoff, I read, discuss and then,
based on the weight of evidence (not just someone else's opinion), I take
the appropriate stand. I'm happy to accept the word of an authority group
(Society of Editors etc after polling their members etc) but never just one
person.
In the case of the 'solidus', I am happy to use this term once I am
convinced it is correct but my reading of the dictionaries leaves me far
from this point (at this stage). The dictionaries (all of them) clearly
state the PRIMARY use of the solidus is that of currency and fractions, NOT
options in grammar. This is a very minor usage. If you claim the Macquarie's
definition of the solidus is your guide, then please explain your logic to
the group because I am still mystified by your stance.
Also, the dictionaries, not a single author, are the foundation of our
language Geoffrey, and certainly not the [initially] Xerox developed Unicode
standard-your reference to this U.S.-originated standard as an 'authority'
really made me shake my head-and you, better than most, should understand
this. If you don't, then how can you teach people?
Your statement "Why can't you accept that editors and publishers-folks who
know a thing or two about language, as opposed to computer programmers who
fall into technical writing-don't know what the various slashes are called.
I invite you to sit the accreditation examination held each year by The
Institute of Professional Editors. Let me know if you pass, and maybe then
we can take this discussion further." is just silly. As usual, you make
these stupid statements simply to denigrate the views of other who have also
spent a lifetime with words but disagree with you. Again you have made an
unsubstantiated claim that I can't accept that "editors and publishers .
DON'T know what the various slashes are called". I'm sure they actually do
(I assume your comment was in error Mr Accredited Editor) but I would like
to hear from them directly rather than through some self-serving academic
filter.
I am happy to accept the word of 'editors and publishers', but I want a
consensus (not just the word of a single 'accredited editor') and I want to
see the proofs. Just like you Geoff, I don't just want your opinion, despite
how earnest you make it sound (by puffing up your side of the discussion and
belittling all opposing views). I want facts, not conjecture. Those of us on
the coal face do not have the time (or, I must admit) the interest to chase
down every word we have to deal with. We leave that for those with more time
on their hands. But having said that, YOU, though your supercilious attack
on my honest query, have pushed this discussion in a direction that has
forced me (reluctantly) to personally interrogate some of the claims you
have made and I find the main references at odds with your position.
So don't accuse me of attacking anyone Geoff, accuse me of not taking your
word for everything on blind faith. Perhaps those of us who actually have to
use the words (instead of just talking about them or checking the work of
others) are sometimes a better judge of common usage than others and I can
assure you Geoff, just like you, Pam Peters, editors (accredited or not) and
publishers, I also know how to read so if you have further 'authorities'
(and not just a claim to some 'academic' superiority), please let me know
and I will include them in my reading.
This will be my last public comment to you on this topic Geoff. By
continuing your attacks, you have given this far more air time than it
deserves.
When I am satisfied that I have sufficient references on this issue, I will
sum it up and dump it on the list. If you are right, I will change my
position on the use of the word but NEVER on the need for proof. As for your
comment "If you want to perpetuate the merging of clear and distinct things
under the one rubric-and thus introduce lexical ambiguity-then expect some
resistance from fussy old bastards like me who want to keep distinct things
labelled distinctly", I really wish this were true. I just think you take up
a position and then fight to the death to defend it, so, "fussy old
bastard", maybe. "stubborn old bastard", certainly!
Cheers,
Bruce
(Another stubborn old bastard until PROOF forces change)
_____
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Marnell
Sent: Friday, 24 December 2010 10:15 AM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Mr Ashley's attack on Professor Peters [WAS RE: Re: Helping
your readers by avoiding minor usage [WAS RE: Re: Spaces before and after
slashes]]
Bruce, that 's a bit hairy-chested of you to say that Emeritus Professor
Pam Peters is "wrong". When you've studied language for as long as Pam has,
published as many books on language as Pam has, and risen through the ranks
of academia as Pam has, maybe your bold claim will be worthy of some
consideration. Further, I've already pointed out that the Macquarie lists
slash and oblique as less common alternatives to solidus.
Also, why assume that all dictionaries need to agree? There is no one
English language. Are you expecting American dictionaries to call a faucet a
tap?
Editors-and hopefully technical writers-will not use "slash" because it is a
general term that fails to distinguish between the various types of slash:
forward slash, back slash, fraction slash, division slash. These are all
characters editors and publishers know as different characters with
different uses. (They even have their own Unicode codepoints.) No, I don't
"love" the word "solidus", Bruce. I use it because it is the name of the
particular slash I am referring to. Yes, I know that some language handbooks
are calling this the slash. The problem is that, once everyone starts to
adopt this terminology, we loose the ability to distinguish the various
slashes or we then need to find new names for them. Why can't you accept
that editors and publishers-folks who know a thing or two about language, as
opposed to computer programmers who fall into technical writing-don't know
what the various slashes are called. I invite you to sit the accreditation
examination held each year by The Institute of Professional Editors. Let me
know if you pass, and maybe then we can take this discussion further.
And just in case anyone is still interested, the Unicode standard calls the
solidus the solidus. It's codepoint is U+200F. There is no-let me repeat,
NO-character called the oblique in the Unicode standard, nor is there a
character called slash. Now that says something about the prevalence of
these terms worldwide.
If you want to perpetuate the merging of clear and distinct things under the
one rubric-and thus introduce lexical ambiguity-then expect some resistance
from fussy old bastards like me who want to keep distinct things labelled
distinctly.
Geoffrey Marnell
Accredited Editor
_____
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of bja
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 6:30 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Helping your readers by avoiding minor usage [WAS RE: Re:
Spaces before and after slashes]
Not wanting to belabour the point but being willing to, can we please sort
out the actual terminology. While I know Geoff loves the term, I dislike the
use of 'solidus' because I believe it to be wrong-and let's please ignore
whether it means and/or,and or or. (:-))
I looked in the full Oxford and full Macquarie dictionaries today and the
definitions do not agree with the usage of 'solidus' in this context so I am
at a total loss as the justification for using 'solidus'.
Any works claiming global usage of 'solidus' surely need to start with a
foundation that 'solidus' means what they intend it to ACCORDING to the
major dictionaries. Any other usage is slang, jargon or a regional
variation.
The full Oxford actually gives more weight to using 'slash' and 'oblique'
than it does to using 'solidus' in this context and so does the Macquarie so
who is propagating the use of this (I believe) incorrect term? Or am I
missing something here?
Cheers,
Bruce
_____
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Marnell
Sent: Thursday, 23 December 2010 2:01 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Helping your readers by avoiding minor usage [WAS RE: Re:
Spaces before and after slashes]
Howard,
What is wrong with two terms for the same thing if you have different
audiences? If I'm writing a system administrators guide, I would happily use
"reboot". It is the language most commonly used in IT circles. But if I was
writing a user guide for a $500 computer, I would use "restart". Ms and Mrs
Joe Average are more likely to understand "restart" than "reboot", but IT
folk would probably think I was being paternalistic if I used "restart".
There are many like examples. I might use "aliphatic hydrocarbons" in an
abstract but paraffin in the executive summary of the very same report.
Well could it not be possible that my experience in "asking around" is a
little wider than your experience in "asking around". I teach writing to
over a 1,000 people a year, and in every class I talk participants about
about words that those with an ear for shifting meaning detect as shifting.
Probably 95% tell me that they would interpret "disinterested" to mean
"uninterested" and similar numbers take "regular" to mean "frequent or
often". 100% take "acronym" to mean any shortened form, and "to beg the
question" to mean "to invite the question" and on and on. Ten years ago that
was not these case. These are binary words: words going into transition.
(And it's not just me saying so: look up, say, "disinterested" in the
Macquarie Dictionary and it will tell you that it is increasingly being used
to mean "uninterested". So my claim of semantic transition is not just my
experience.
I also ask participants about their use of the solidus. Some are unsure,
some say it means "and", but the vast majority (85%+) interpret it to be
"exclusive or", just as in the references I gave in an earlier email.
You might think that my experience is no more valuable than yours (as you
implied in your final paragraph), but I do happen to make my living from
teaching language at Melbourne University, and to public and corporate
gatherings Australia-wide, after decades of professional editing for the
likes of Cambridge University Press, Macmillan,Thomas Nelson and the like.
Given that experience, then the answer to your somewhat belittling questions
is YES. My comments are based on experience ... experience that happens to
be backed up by years of study, guided editorial practice and current
empirical enquiry. Not that that means I'm always right, for I'm not. But
perhaps it will prompt you to be less dismissive of my comments on usage.
Challenge me by all means. (I like it.) But don't dismiss me as opinionated
crank uninterested in the flux of contemporary English.
Cheers
Geoffrey Marnell
Principal Consultant
Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd
T: +61 3 9596 3456
F: +61 3 9596 3625
W: <http://www.abelard.com.au/> www.abelard.com.au
Skype: geoffrey.marnell
_____
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Howard Silcock
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 1:09 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Helping your readers by avoiding minor usage [WAS RE: Re:
Spaces before and after slashes]
Well, your recommendation was "not to choose a usage that is a minor or less
common usage". And in recommending how to test for this you said "Just ask
folk around, folk who are not in the writing game". Now it seems that you're
advocating that we keep alive (at least) two forms: one for those in the
writing game (definitely a minority) and another (or several others) for
other possible audiences. And these are both referring to exactly the same
thing! The main justification for jargon is that people with a particular
skill may need to make distinctions that others don't, but is that the case
here?
I admit that my assessment of common usage for naming the '/' was based on
my experience. Is your assessment of common contemporary usage of the words
'regular' and 'disinterested' based on something other than your experience?
Howard
On 23 December 2010 12:23, Geoffrey Marnell <geoffrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Howard, look carefully at what you have written:
"...in my experience, almost everyone now ... seems to use the word 'slash"
... So according to your principles, shouldn't we refer to them as
"slashes"?"
An unkind correspondent might call that megalomania. I hence everyone. But I
suspect you didn't really mean to imply that.
Of course I would use "slash" if I was writing for an audience who
understood the word to mean what pretty well every editor worldwide calls
the solidus, and especially if they might have trouble with "solidus".
Three issues:
1. I was corresponding about this on austechwriter, a forum for
technical writers and technical editors. I thought it was safe assumption to
make that folks on such a list would understand the term because they would
have studied punctuation. (How wrong, it seems, I am: at least in that
regard.) As Professor Peters notes, "solidus" is the common term used
worldwide by folk who make a living from writing. Doesn't that include
technical writers? If I was corresponding with some other group, whose
language expertise I couldn't take for granted, I might be compelled to use
other language, their language.
2. I didn't criticise Bruce's use of "oblique" on the grounds that
"solidus" was the correct word. I criticised his reliance on what
schoolteachers teach. The bulk of my posting was about what the punctuation
mark (whatever you want to call it) is primarily used for. That is much more
important than what we call the damn thing.
3. The current Macquarie (updated January 2010) lists "slash" third and
"oblique" last as alternatives to "solidus", and indeed it doesn't even have
a separate entry for "slash" in the sense we are referring. So don't give
"solidus" away yet just because you don't hear it often in your circle. In
mine it's very common, and so too think the many lexicographers who sweat
over the Macquarie Dictionary.
Cheers
Geoffrey Marnell
Principal Consultant
Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd
T: +61 3 9596 3456
F: +61 3 9596 3625
W: <http://www.abelard.com.au/> www.abelard.com.au
Skype: geoffrey.marnell
_____
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Howard Silcock
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 11:23 AM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Helping your readers by avoiding minor usage [WAS RE: Re:
Spaces before and after slashes]
The immediate problem I have with this is that, in my experience, almost
everyone now (particularly those outside the writing field) seems to use the
word 'slash' and I wonder whether they'd even understand what a solidus (let
alone a virgule) is.
So, according to your principles, shouldn't we refer to them as 'slashes'?
Howard
On 23 December 2010 10:37, Geoffrey Marnell <geoffrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Oops. My last paragraph should have read:
In summary, if you want to write with respect for your readers, it pays not
to opt for just any recorded usage. Rather you should opt for the usage that
the majority of your readers will interpret in the way you intended it to be
interpreted.
Cheers
Geoffrey Marnell
Principal Consultant
Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd
T: +61 3 9596 3456
F: +61 3 9596 3625
W: <http://www.abelard.com.au/> www.abelard.com.au
Skype: geoffrey.marnell
_____
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Marnell
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 10:25 AM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Helping your readers by avoiding minor usage [WAS RE: Re:
Spaces before and after slashes]
Neil, Bruce
Many words-I'd guess most going by the entries in, and the size of, the
Shorter Oxford Dictionary on Historical Principles-have, or have had, more
than one use. If we want to communicate with the least effort-on our
readers' part-then we do well not to choose a usage that is a minor or less
common usage. The fear, obviously, is that some, perhaps most, readers will
interpret in the word in its major or most common usage. My comments on
Bruce's posting were to point out that the solidus is primarily interpreted
as as an exclusive or not an inclusive. Indeed, I gave a number of common
examples where an inclusive interpretation of the solidus is nonsensical: as
in the most common instance of all-and/or.
A parallel: the most common meaning of "regular" today is "frequent". (Don't
turn your nose up at this. Just ask folk around, folk who are not in the
writing game). A dictionary reporting contemporary usage would still list
"periodical" as a meaning of "regular", but it has become a minor use. If
you were a careful writer-wanting to get your meaning across without taxing
the reader,without making them work out from the context what you really
meant-then you wouldn't, nowadays, write "regular" if you meant
"periodical". Likewise, you wouldn't write "disinterested" if you meant
"objective and impartial", because nowadays almost everyone thinks that the
word means "uninterested".
It's exactly the same with the solidus. Irrespective of the minor uses
recorded in some manuals and dictionaries, the major use is, by a long
chalk, the exclusive or. Just ask the non-writing folk around you. So why do
you want to adopt a minor usage when you run the risk of a majority of your
readers misunderstanding you, thinking that you mean exclusive or when you
intended inclusive or. Why do you wan them to have to work out from the
context that you meant the solidus to be understood in a special, rarely
used way? Is it just laziness, perhaps? Why not write "A, B or both" if
that's what you mean, rather than expecting your reader to work it out.
Perhaps the necessary context is one or two paragraphs away, in which case
the chances of your readers remembering what you had earlier written, and of
them modifying their initial interpretation, will probably be close to
zilch. You will, quite simply, have failed to communicate.
Neil mentioned 6.113 in the Chicago manual of style. The entire section
reads:
"Technical use. The slash is used in certain contexts to mean and [as in] an
insertion/deletion mutation, a Jekyll/Hyde personality, an MD/PhD student"
This is poor advice. For a start, what does "technical use" mean? Is it
saying that in all forms of technical writing, the solidus means and: not
even "A, B or both" but just "A and B". Well that will confuse the hell out
of most readers. As I've said repeatedly most readers interpret the solidus
as meaning or (and exclusive or at that). Indeed, the first example given in
the quotation seems odd. How can a mutation be both an insertion and
deletion at the same time. (Perhaps there were multiple mutations, some
deleting genes and others inserting them. Bit certainly isn't obvious, is
it. As for "Jekyll/Hyde personality", the overwhelming idiom is "a Jekyll
and Hyde personality". And as for "an MD/PhD student", why is it more
natural to read that as an MD student who also doing a PhD rather than "an
MD or a PhD student". Once again, this minor use (if it really is a use at
all) is more likely to confuse the reader. In my 35 years of editing books
for many many publishers, I have never ever seen the solidus used to mean
just and. The closest non-idiomatic use is its substitution for the en dash,
which is not the same as and.
I'm with Peter Martin here. Because of the explosion in minor usages of the
solidus of late (and I listed a number in an earlier posting), it's best to
spell out what you mean without the solidus-unless the meaning is blatantly
clear and impossible to be interpreted in any other way, as in and/or and
true/false.
In summary, if you wan to write with respect for your readers, it pays not
to opt for any recorded usage. Rather you should opt for the usage that the
majority of your readers will interpret in the one you intended it to be
interpreted.
Cheers
Geoffrey Marnell
Principal Consultant
Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd
T: +61 3 9596 3456
F: +61 3 9596 3625
W: <http://www.abelard.com.au/> www.abelard.com.au
Skype: geoffrey.marnell
_____
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neil Maloney
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 8:54 AM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Spaces before and after slashes
In 6.113 "Technical Use", the Chicago Manual of Style (15th Ed.) says "A
slash is used in certain contexts to mean and."
Neil.
On 22/12/2010 11:46 PM, bja wrote:
As for the American CMoS stating the 'solidus' only offers alternatives, I
already knew this-and it was mentioned in an earlier post-but again, the
American Webster's dictionary defined the 'virgule' as inclusive (and/or) so
which American text is correct?
************************************************** To view the austechwriter
archives, go to www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter To unsubscribe,
send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe" in
the Subject field (without quotes). To manage your subscription (e.g., set
and unset DIGEST and VACATION modes) go to
www.freelists.org/list/austechwriter To contact the list administrator, send
a message to austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************
_____
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3331 - Release Date: 12/22/10
_____
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3332 - Release Date: 12/22/10
Other related posts:
