|
George Garnett
|
 |
« Reply #180 on: 11:15:36, 06-09-2007 » |
|
Phew! I am relieved to see that "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding" by the fat, bog-tumbling Scotchman, Mr David Hume ((c) S Grew)) is still called that even when published in the US. Despite my enthusiasm for embracing change I would have been saddened if that one had turned into an Inquiry.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 13:51:29, 06-09-2007 by George Garnett »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thompson1780
|
|
« Reply #181 on: 11:18:43, 06-09-2007 » |
|
Ah, George - In America it was obviously published in a foreign language (i.e. English).  Tommo |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Made by Thompson & son, at the Violin & c. the West end of St. Paul's Churchyard, LONDON
|
|
|
|
time_is_now
|
|
« Reply #182 on: 12:39:42, 06-09-2007 » |
|
I use the passive tense purposely That'll be passive voice.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
|
|
|
|
Kittybriton
|
|
« Reply #183 on: 13:05:06, 06-09-2007 » |
|
Ah, George - In America it was obviously published in a foreign language (i.e. English). Tommo do you gooks speak Amurkin?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 13:06:51, 06-09-2007 by Kittybriton »
|
Logged
|
Click me -> About meor me -> my handmade storeNo, I'm not a complete idiot. I'm only a halfwit. In fact I'm actually a catfish. |
|
|
|
TimR-J
Guest
|
|
« Reply #184 on: 13:53:15, 06-09-2007 » |
|
Reminds me of the US border guard I recently encountered: Border Guard (pointing at elderly Japanese couple): These folks from Chinatownland...  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
George Garnett
|
|
« Reply #185 on: 13:57:16, 06-09-2007 » |
|
Ah, George - In America it was obviously published in a foreign language (i.e. English). Tommo It could be, Tommo  An alternative explanation, which I like to hang on to despite mountainous evidence to the contrary, is that what is spoken on the other side of the pond is almost identical to pure eighteenth century Enlightenment English and it is we, on this tawdry, flotsam-poisoned side of the pond, who have declined from that. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 08:50:05, 07-09-2007 by George Garnett »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
roslynmuse
|
|
« Reply #186 on: 22:52:43, 06-09-2007 » |
|
Focused or focussed? I prefer the look of the former but the logic of the latter.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
time_is_now
|
|
« Reply #187 on: 23:43:54, 06-09-2007 » |
|
Focused or focussed?
That's actually one of the few cases where I don't have an instinctive preference (and where I'm never sure what I think until I write it down). I too prefer the logic of 'focussed', and I'm sure I must once have written 'focussing' in an article for publication, because I remember my editor telling me that 'focusing' was the magazine in question's house style. (They follow the Guardian on that.) After that conversation I think I decided to settle on 'focused/focusing' until a different editor talks me into something different again! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
|
|
|
|
roslynmuse
|
|
« Reply #188 on: 23:52:46, 06-09-2007 » |
|
And how do you feel about "house styles", particularly when it really goes against the grain?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Chafing Dish
Guest
|
|
« Reply #189 on: 00:06:57, 07-09-2007 » |
|
focusing makes me want to pronounce faux-QUEUE-zing
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
increpatio
|
|
« Reply #190 on: 00:11:32, 07-09-2007 » |
|
focusing makes me want to pronounce faux-QUEUE-zing
"Not a real lamb-chop?" he asked. "No, sir; not a real lamb-chop." |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
roslynmuse
|
|
« Reply #191 on: 00:14:09, 07-09-2007 » |
|
focusing makes me want to pronounce faux-QUEUE-zing
I have that response about half of the time... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
time_is_now
|
|
« Reply #192 on: 00:46:46, 07-09-2007 » |
|
And how do you feel about "house styles", particularly when it really goes against the grain? On the whole I'm not a fan of house styles. Or rather: I'm a fan of consistency and simplicity (not simplification!), and recognise that house styles are a way of achieving that, but I generally believe I know better and could have invented a better set of guidelines!  I like the principle of house styles but in practice I'm a worrier, and something of a control freak when it comes to my writing, and don't look forward to the prospect of decisions being taken out of my hands. Actually, the silliest one I've had in a long time - and this was quite recent - was the editor of a well-known quarterly music journal telling me that use of the word 'atonal' was against house style (because Schoenberg didn't approve of the word, was the reason I was given).I should add that on a few occasions I've had really useful editorial feedback, which makes me worry all the more that it's not all going to be like that ... |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 00:49:25, 07-09-2007 by time_is_now »
|
Logged
|
The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
|
|
|
|
increpatio
|
|
« Reply #193 on: 00:49:19, 07-09-2007 » |
|
Actually, the silliest one I've had in a long time - and this was quite recent - was the editor of a well-known quarterly music journal telling me that use of the word 'atonal' was against house style (because Schoenberg didn't approve of the word, was the reason I was given).
What was their proposed alternative? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
increpatio
|
|
« Reply #194 on: 01:02:13, 07-09-2007 » |
|
performative Don't you mean phatic? I am not too well acquainted with that word. I have looked "phatic" up; while it also applies just as well in the case you quoted, and is, indeed quite a lovely; certainly worthy of use in this subforum; it's meaning is rather different to mine, however. For the term I used, performative utterance, see http://www.stanford.edu/class/ihum54/Austin_on_speech_acts.htm. It's one of these things that one gets to use once or twice (I think I have already used it once here), and then it withers up and its use becomes rather MONSTROUSLY unfashionable. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
