diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/50366-0.txt | 3205 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/50366-0.zip | bin | 64798 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/50366-h.zip | bin | 170269 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/50366-h/50366-h.htm | 3533 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/50366-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 100970 -> 0 bytes |
8 files changed, 17 insertions, 6738 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7b82bc --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +*.txt text eol=lf +*.htm text eol=lf +*.html text eol=lf +*.md text eol=lf diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..66988c6 --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #50366 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50366) diff --git a/old/50366-0.txt b/old/50366-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 9280bd6..0000000 --- a/old/50366-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,3205 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Proof-Reading, by F. Horace Teall - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - -Title: Proof-Reading - A Series of Essays for Reading and Their Employers, and - for Authors and Editors - -Author: F. Horace Teall - -Release Date: November 2, 2015 [EBook #50366] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PROOF-READING *** - - - - -Produced by David Edwards and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net, in celebration -of Distributed Proofreaders' 15th Anniversary, using images -generously made available by The Internet Archive - - - - - - - - - -PROOF-READING. - - A SERIES OF ESSAYS FOR READERS AND - THEIR EMPLOYERS, AND FOR - AUTHORS AND EDITORS. - - BY F. HORACE TEALL, - - CRITICAL PROOF-READER AND EDITOR ON THE CENTURY AND STANDARD - DICTIONARIES; ALSO EDITOR OF PROOF-ROOM NOTES AND - QUERIES DEPARTMENT OF “THE - INLAND PRINTER.” - - - CHICAGO: - THE INLAND PRINTER COMPANY. - 1899. - - - - - COPYRIGHTED, 1898, - BY - THE INLAND PRINTER COMPANY, - CHICAGO, ILLINOIS. - - - PRESS OF THE HENRY O. SHEPARD COMPANY, CHICAGO. - - - - -PREFACE. - - -This collection of essays will show very plainly that they were not -written with a view to publication in a book. As a result of this, -the subject-matter is not treated consecutively, systematically, or -exhaustively. Some references to momentary events at the time of -writing, even, have been left unchanged. - -It is hoped, however, that, even with the acknowledged imperfections, -the book may be found suggestive and useful by those to whose service -it is dedicated in the title-page. - -Some of the chapters are slightly technical, having been originally -addressed to proof-readers only; but even these are thought to be -sufficiently general in their composition to be interesting and useful -to authors and editors. - - - - -CONTENTS. - - - The Proof-room 7 - - Some Practical Criticism for Proof-readers 11 - - The Proof-reader’s Responsibility 17 - - Style and Style-cards 22 - - Whim versus Principle 26 - - Authorities and Opinions 32 - - Authoritative Stumbling-blocks in the Study of - the English Language 37 - - Preparation of Copy 43 - - Copy and Proof-reading 48 - - The Dictionary in the Proof-room 53 - - The Proof-room Library 58 - - The Copy-reader 62 - - Proper Order of Parts in a Book 68 - - The Book Make-up 73 - - Grammar and Diction 79 - - Form of Words 86 - - Spelling and Dictionaries 97 - - - - -PROOF-READING. - -CHAPTER I. - -THE PROOF-ROOM. - - -Though commonly acknowledged theoretically, the relative importance -of good proof-reading is often practically unrecognized. Doubtless -few of those who employ readers will assent to this averment, and -the reason for their non-assent is also the basis of the assertion. -Usually the proof-room is under the authority of a general foreman or -superintendent, often not a good proof-reader himself, and who must -necessarily devote most of his time to other matters. If the foreman -is really competent to read proof, he will manage to secure and keep a -force of good readers with less trouble than those have who are not so -well fitted to judge the work done. - -When good work is to be done--and where is the man who avowedly does -not desire good work?--accomplished workmen are required, not properly -in any one department alone, but all through; and perhaps this fact -is partly responsible for the notion, not uncommon, but erroneous and -costly, that almost any intelligent person can read proof. - -Few persons realize fully the accomplishment and acuteness of -perception necessary for the best proof-reading. He is the best -reader who, in addition to mechanical experience and accuracy, has a -comprehensive education and can apply it practically. Of course, we can -not expect our reader to know absolutely everything, but he should at -least know enough to suspect error when there is evident occasion for -suspicion, and challenge it for the author’s attention when that is -possible. He should have general information sufficient to enable him -to correct absolute error when he can not refer the matter to author or -editor--a contingency frequently arising in newspaper-work. - -Above all, the thoroughly accomplished proof-reader will know enough -not to make changes in what is written when he has no right to do so. -He will often know that what is written can not be right, and yet will -have sense enough not to alter it without authorization. He will also -have sense enough to assume a certain amount of authority on proper -occasion, as in the case of an evident slip in the copy of work that -has a set form. A good example is work like the definitions of verbs -in the “Century Dictionary.” In these definitions the word _to_ is -used only with the first clause. The good proof-reader will have the -word omitted even if it does happen to be in the copy, notwithstanding -the strictest orders to follow copy; in fact, this is so plain a -case that a very good compositor even would not set the word in the -wrong place. Another forcible instance comes to hand at the moment of -writing, in a letter written by a New York proof-reader, who mentions -_Assemblyman_ Amos J. Cummings. Mr. Cummings never was an Assemblyman. -He is a _Congressman_, and Chairman of one of the important Congress -committees; moreover, he is an old-time New York compositor. When he -was an editor on a New York paper another present Congressman was -reporting Brooklyn news for the same paper. Almost every Brooklyn item -sent in at that time had, in the writing, parallel streets reported as -crossing, or cross-streets as being parallel; and these errors were -frequently corrected in the proof-room. - -The proof-reader who can and does make such corrections is much better -for such work than one who merely catches typographical errors, even if -he sometimes allows a wrong letter to pass in reading. Certainly a New -York reader, especially a union man, should know better than to write -of _Assemblyman_ Cummings; and it would be well for all proof-readers -to be sufficiently up in current affairs to correct the error, though -it would not be fair to insist upon such correction as part of the -reader’s qualification. - -The present difficulty will never cease until the money value of good -proof-reading is better recognized than it ever has been. At least -one union in this country has always made a maximum weekly scale, and -insisted upon classing readers with all other hands, at the same wages. -Employers should insist upon paying as much over the union scale as -they choose, and will always find it conducive to their interest to pay -liberally for proof-reading and demand first-class work. - -If any one is fortunate enough to have a first-class proof-reader in -his employ, he will be foolish to let that reader go, if money--within -reasonable bounds--will keep him. Fifty men may try to fill the place -and fail before another really competent man is found. - -A large proof-room should have its own foreman--not merely a head -reader, but one actually in authority, just as any foreman should be, -and with higher pay than the other readers have, and also with the -chief responsibility. The room must, of course, be subject to the -general foreman with regard to many details, whether it has a separate -foreman or not; but, whoever is in charge, the readers should not be -too much restricted in small, formal matters. An extreme instance that -will illustrate practically what is meant by this arose through strict -orders not to change anything from copy, too literally obeyed. A letter -was missing from a word always spelled the one way, and the reader -queried its insertion. He was an ordinarily good reader, too, who -certainly had not the natural habit of doing anything stupid. - -Undoubtedly better work will be turned out where there is no -possibility of such queries being made, for the necessity of making -them, under orders, imposes upon the reader an unfair burden of useless -watchfulness that inevitably rivets his attention where it is not -needed, and draws it away from matters that demand the utmost care. - - - - -CHAPTER II. - -SOME PRACTICAL CRITICISM FOR PROOF-READERS. - - -A periodical highly esteemed in literary circles, in reviewing a book, -said: “The proof-reading is so bad that we infer that its author -could not have seen the proofs.” The publishers of the book do their -own printing, and probably think their proof-reading is as good as -possible, though they may realize that it is not as good as it should -be. Many employers have had trying experiences in their efforts to -secure good proof-readers, and such experience may have operated in -favor of poor workmen, through sheer discouragement of their employers. - -An inference that “its author could not have seen the proofs,” while -possibly natural, is hasty; for, while many authors examine their -proofs carefully, and are reasonably quick to perceive and correct -errors, most authors are not good proof-readers. - -Errors in print were quite as common as they now are when “following -copy” was common, as it was in New York, for instance, about thirty -years ago. One of the best offices in which a man could set type was -Alvord’s, flourishing at the time mentioned. In it the compositor -measured for his bill absolutely everything for which a customer paid, -be it a cut, a blank page, or anything else. There, likewise, he was -seldom called upon to change a letter or a point except to make it -like his copy. Certain large offices in New York now are like Alvord’s -only in the fact that their proof-reading is not good--and the authors -see most of the proofs. In one important matter these offices are -utterly unlike Alvord’s--no compositor can earn decent wages in them. - -Employers are largely responsible for the common poorness of our -proof-reading, because they have not recognized the real nature of the -work, and have insisted upon classing it as mechanical. Proof-reading -will never be what it should be until the proof-reader ranks with -the editor both in importance and in pay. With no more pay than that -of the good compositor, and sometimes with less than the first-class -compositor’s pay, the proof-reader’s position will not be adequately -filled. Properly qualified proof-readers seldom remain long at the -reading-desk, because they can and will do better elsewhere. - -Something should be done to keep the best readers as such, for they are -all climbing up into other fields of labor where they find stronger -inducements, both in credit and in pay. Even in the case of our large -dictionaries and encyclopædias, almost every one of which is decidedly -bettered by the work of some one special proof-reader, there is little -acknowledgment of the fact, and so there is little encouragement for -the proof-reader to remain a proof-reader. - -No one is surely fit to be trusted with proof-reading on particular -work without having learned by practical experience. The best -proof-readers must have as a foundation a natural aptitude, and they -should have at least a good common education; but even these are not -sufficient without practical training. One of the poorest compositors -on a New York morning paper was very helpful in the proof-room -occasionally, while some of the best compositors were not so good -at reading. It is undeniable that printers themselves make the best -proof-readers when to their technical knowledge they add scholarship. - -A first-class compositor is worthy of special favor, and generally gets -it. A maker-up or a stone-hand who works well and quickly, or sometimes -even one who does excellent work without great speed, is a treasure. -Compositor, maker-up, and stone-hand, however, all do work that must -be examined and corrected by the reader; and of course that reader is -best who can also do any or all of the other work. What is said of -the reader’s qualifications is not altogether theoretical; it is all -in line with the practical needs of every good proof-room, and every -employer wants a good proof-room. - -The correction of the evil, which is certainly a desideratum, may -be secured eventually in one way, and that way is the one necessary -for authors as well as proof-readers. We need improved methods of -general education. We need more general training and development -of the thinking power. Seldom indeed do even our greatest thinkers -reason sufficiently. No amount of argument could prove this assertion -beyond question, but some examples will serve a good purpose as an -object-lesson. - -One of our most prominent philologists, a man of great learning, -addressed a meeting of scholars, speaking strongly in favor of what -he calls “reformed” spelling--which would be re-formed indeed, but is -not yet proved to be entitled to the epithet “reformed.” Here is one -of his assertions: “One-sixth of the letters on a common printed page -are silent or misleading. Complete simplification would save one-sixth -of the cost of books.” Of course, he must have meant the cost of -printing. Even with one-sixth less work in printing, very nearly the -old cost of binding would remain, if not all of it; and any sort of -good binding is no small item in the cost of a book. But one-sixth of -the space occupied by the print would seldom be saved by the omission -of one-sixth of the letters. The magazine article containing the report -of the address is printed with the proposed new spelling. There is -not a line in it that shows omission of one-sixth of the letters now -commonly used in its words. One line in a paragraph of seven lines has -“batl” for “battle,” and if the two missing letters had been inserted -the word “the” might have been driven over into the next line; but the -total effect on the paragraph of all possible changes would have been -nothing--the same number of lines would be necessary for it. Certainly -the assertion that one-sixth would be saved was not sufficiently -thoughtful. - -A recent pretentious work on the English language and English grammar -(by Samuel Ramsey) would afford an example of loose thinking from -almost any of its 568 pages. A few only need be given here. As to -Danish influence on early English speech, it is said that “the -general effect ... was to shorten and simplify words that were long -or of different utterance, and dropping or shortening grammatical -forms.” It should have been easy for the author to perceive that this -sentence was not well constructed; and what can be worse in a book on -grammar than an ungrammatical sentence? We are told that a feature of -English construction due to French influence is “the placing of the -adjective after the noun, or giving it a plural form--_sign manual, -Knights Templars_.” No English adjective ever has the plural form, -and _Templars_ is rightly pluralized simply because it is a noun. -“No grammar will help us to distinguish the _lumbar_ region from -the _lumber_ region,” Mr. Ramsey says. But grammar does help us by -teaching us that _lumbar_ is an adjective and _lumber_ a noun. In -careful speech accent would indicate the difference, which should be -indicated in writing by joining the elements of the second term as -a compound--_lumber-region_. In a chapter of “Suggestions to Young -Writers,” the advice is given, “Let all your words be English, sound -reliable English, and nothing but English; and when you speak of a -spade call it by its name, and when you mean _hyperæsthesia_, say so.” -If a young writer “says so” by using the word instanced, will he use -“nothing but English”? - -Lord Tennyson is reported to have said: “I do not understand English -grammar. Take _sea-change_. Is _sea_ here a substantive used -adjectively, or what? What is the logic of a phrase like _Catholic -Disabilities Annulling Bill_? Does _invalid chair maker_ mean that the -chair-maker is a sickly fellow?” But Tennyson showed plainly in his -writing, by making compounds of such terms as _sea-change_, that he -felt, at least, that _sea_ is not used adjectively, as “adjectively” -is commonly understood. He must have thought that the phrase whose -logic he asked for is wholly illogical and bad English, for he never -wrote one like it. His own writing would never have contained the -three separate words “invalid chair maker”; he would have made it -“invalid chair-maker” (or chairmaker) for the sense he mentions, and -“invalid-chair maker” if he meant “a maker of chairs for invalids.” -Tennyson certainly used English words well enough to justify the -assumption that he knew English grammar passing well. - -George P. Marsh, in a lecture on the English language, said that -“_redness_ is the name of a color,” and John Stuart Mill made a similar -assertion about _whiteness_ in his book on “Logic.” Very little thought -is necessary for the decision that neither _redness_ nor _whiteness_ is -the name of a color, though each of the words includes such a name. - -It is not fashionable nowadays to conclude with a moral, but this -occasion is especially enticing, and here is the moral: Every -proof-reader who cares for real success in his profession should -cultivate the thinking habit, and learn not to jump to a conclusion. - - - - -CHAPTER III. - -THE PROOF-READER’S RESPONSIBILITY. - - -Strictly speaking, the responsibility of a proof-reader, on any kind -of work, should be very narrowly defined. In an ideal state of affairs -it would never go beyond close following of copy in every detail. Even -that is by no means always easy, and for a reason that should cause -writers to be very lenient with proof-readers. This reason is that -writers make much manuscript that is almost positively illegible, and -are often careless in many details that should be closely attended -to in the writing. But, since there is little ground for hoping that -writers will ever generally produce copy that can be reproduced -exactly, the question remains open, How much responsibility must the -proof-reader assume? - -A good illustration of the legal aspect of this question is found in -Benjamin Drew’s book, “Pens and Types,” published in its second edition -in 1889, as follows: “In an action brought against the proprietor of -Lloyd’s paper, in London, for damages for not inserting a newspaper -advertisement correctly, the verdict was for the defendant, by reason -of the illegibility of the writing.” - -“Illegibility of the writing” is a more serious stumbling-block even -than most writers know it to be, although many writers do know that -they are great sinners in this matter. Notwithstanding the fact that -it has been a subject of wide discussion, much more might profitably -be said about it, and it would be a great boon to printers if somebody -could devise a way of instituting a practical reform in the handwriting -of authors, editors, and reporters; but the incessant necessity of -deciphering what is almost undecipherable is our immediately practical -concern just now. What should be the limit of the proof-reader’s -responsibility here? - -Some time ago a New York paper had frequent articles in a handwriting -so bad that the compositors were paid double price for setting type -from it. One of the compositors, in talking with a proof-reader, -expressed the opinion that the readers had very easy work, and part -of his reason for the assumption was the fact (as he put it) that all -the copy was read for them by the compositors before the readers got -it. That same evening this compositor had some of the bad manuscript -mentioned, and for what the writer had intended as “June freshets” -the proof-reader found in his proof “Sierra forests.” Well, the -compositor read the manuscript first, but how much good did that do the -proof-reader? If the latter had passed the “Sierra forests” into print, -he would have deserved to be discharged, for any intelligent man should -know that one of the quoted terms could not possibly be used in any -connection where the other would make sense. That compositor probably -knew as well as the proof-reader did that what he set did not make -sense, but he also knew that the proof-reader would have to do better -with it, and that, no matter how much correcting he had to do, it -would pay him better to do it than to lose too much time in the effort -to get it right at first. Again, the compositor had practically no -responsibility in the matter, though the one who shows most ability in -setting his type clean from bad copy is a better workman than others, -and correspondingly better assured of good employment. - -We have said that one who passed into print an error like the one -mentioned should be liable to discharge. This is true, because no -person reasonably fitted to read proof could fail to recognize it as -an error. The best proof-reader who ever lived, however, might in some -similar cases fail to read what is written exactly as it was intended -in the writing. Unfortunately, it is only too often the case that -proper names or generally unfamiliar words are written more illegibly -than common words, and names so written may easily be misprinted -after the best proof-reader has done his best with them. Where it is -possible, it should be the most natural thing in the world for anything -hard to decipher to be submitted to its writer. Commonly this can not -be done on daily newspapers, because there are so many writers who are -not within reach, reporters especially being generally away in search -of news; but even in the offices of newspapers, in extreme cases, -and with caution in deciding when it is well to do so, the matter -should be referred to an editor, for it is to the editors that final -responsibility for the wording of what is printed belongs. - -What has been said seems well calculated to indicate clearly the limit -which the writer would place in such matters upon the proof-reader’s -real responsibility. Naturally and equitably that limit is the exact -reproduction of what is written, as to the wording, but including -proper spelling and punctuation. Even at the expense of repetition, -this seems to be a good place for impressing upon writers the urgent -necessity for plain manuscript, in their own interest; for that is the -only sure instrument to secure beyond reasonable doubt the accuracy -that is desired by all writers. - -No careful author will allow his book to be printed without reading -it himself in proof; but this must be mainly for the wording only, as -the printer’s bill includes pay for good proof-reading. Here matters -are more simple as to the responsibility for getting the right words, -as even hurried work from manuscript can generally be referred to the -author in cases of real doubt. Occasionally this can not be done, -but these occasions are comparatively rare exceptions. Submission of -reasonable doubt to the author for his decision should be an important -feature of the reader’s responsibility. It hardly seems necessary to -dwell upon the question with regard to book-work, such work is seldom -done without time for necessary consultation. It is in newspaper and -job work that the greatest practical difficulty is encountered. - -One of the greatest annoyances to the newspaper-publisher and the -job-printer is the fact of having to reprint gratis advertisements or -jobs when some error has occurred in the first printing. Shall the -proof-reader be held responsible to the extent of paying for the work? -Only one answer is possible--No! Yet the proof-reader should not expect -too much leniency in this respect. He must be as careful as possible. -There is just one possible remedy for the trouble mentioned, and that -is that employers do not expect too much of such work to be done by the -reader, and that the reader insist upon having reasonable time in which -to do it. Nay, the employer should insist upon having a proof-reader -take sufficient time, in reading advertisements or job-work, to read -closely, letter by letter; and this should be had, even at the expense -of hiring an additional reader whenever such work becomes more in -quantity than the force already employed can handle properly. - - - - -CHAPTER IV. - -STYLE AND STYLE-CARDS. - - -A New York composing-room was run for many years without a regular -style-card, and the foreman would not allow any posting of decisions as -to style. When, however, an advertisement was printed with _bar rooms_ -as two words, and the foreman happened to notice it, the proof-reader -was asked sharply, “What is our style for _barroom_?” It was an -unwritten but established law in the office that _barroom_ should be -one word; and the foreman, in that instance, did not think of the -probability that the advertiser had insisted upon his own form for the -term--as, in fact, he had. - -In the office where this happened the workers were as little hampered -with style as any workers possibly could be, and the foreman always -said he would have no style; yet there certainly was a “style of the -office,” with many absurdities, such as making _base ball_ two words -and _football_ one word, capitalizing common words of occupation before -names, as Barber Smith, Coachman Brown, etc. Some of the old-time -absurdities have since been corrected, _baseball_, for instance, now -being printed as one word. - -In a neighboring office the opposite extreme is exemplified, the -style-card being so intricate that some good compositors have worked -there many years without really learning in full the “style of the -office.” Some of the compositors seldom do much correcting, but -the average of time lost in making really needless corrections is -unquestionably greater than in the office first mentioned. - -Book-offices also have their own intricacies of style, with the -additional bother of having to suit the varying whims of authors -and publishers. “Many men of many minds” write for the papers, but -their various whims need not be humored as those of book-writers must -be. Authors of books frequently insist upon having things their own -way, and too often the printers have to make that way for them, in -opposition to what the authors write. This is certainly something for -which the authors should be made to pay. If an author is determined -to have certain matters of style conform to a certain set of whims, -or even of good, logical opinions, he should write accordingly or pay -extra for the necessary changes. - -Nothing can be more sure than the fact that every printing-office -must have some working rules of the kind classed as the “style of -the office,” to which the work in general must conform, even when -authors’ whims sometimes interfere. At present almost every office -has some style peculiar to itself, that compositors and proof-readers -must learn in the beginning of their experience there, and which they -must unlearn on changing their place of employment. The greatest evil -in this lies in the fact that many of the peculiarities are purely -whimsical. Reformation is needed, and it is within the power of a -body of proof-readers to devise and inaugurate a practical reform, by -choosing from among the various items of style those which seem best -to a majority of the readers, and requesting their general adoption by -employing printers. - -Benjamin Drew’s book, “Pens and Types,” has a chapter on “style” that -gives valuable hints for such work of reform. We are there told that -the proof-reader “at the very threshold of his duties is met by a -little ‘dwarfish demon’ called ‘Style,’ who addresses him somewhat -after this fashion: ‘As you see me now, so I have appeared ever since -the first type was set in this office. Everything here must be done as -I say. You may mark as you please, but don’t violate the commands of -Style. I may seem to disappear for a time, when there is a great rush -of work, and you may perhaps bring yourself to believe that Style is -dead. But do not deceive yourself--Style never dies.... I am Style, and -my laws are like those of the Medes and Persians.’ And Style states his -true character.” - -Among the numerous differences of style mentioned by Mr. Drew are -some that should not be classed as style, because one of the two -possible methods is logical and right, and the other is illogical and -wrong. For instance, Mr. Drew says: “Here, the style requires a comma -before _and_ in ‘pounds, shillings, and pence’; there, the style is -‘pounds, shillings and pence.’” Such a point in punctuation should not -be a question of style, since one way must be better than the other -as a matter of principle. In this particular case there is not only -disagreement, but most people seem to have fixed upon the exclusion -of the comma before the conjunction in a series of three or more -items, notwithstanding the fact that its exclusion is illogical and -as erroneous as any wrong punctuation can be. The text-books, with -very few exceptions, teach that the comma should be used; and, as said -above, this seems to be the only possible reasonable teaching. Each -item in such an enumeration should be separated from the next by a -comma, unless the last two, or any two united by a conjunction, are so -coupled in sense that they jointly make only one item in the series. -This curious fact of common practice directly opposed to prevalent -teaching is instanced as showing how erratic style is, and how -necessary it is that the “style of the office” should be fully recorded. - -Nothing could be more helpful than a style-card, especially if it -be made the duty of some person to add thereto each new decision -affecting style, so that the type may be set with certainty that -arbitrary changes will not have to be made. Conflicting corrections are -continually made by different proof-readers in the same office, and -even by the same reader at different times. Such things should be made -as nearly as may be impossible, and nothing else will accomplish this -so well as a style-card that must be followed. - - - - -CHAPTER V. - -WHIM VERSUS PRINCIPLE. - - -Conscientious proof-readers are often confronted with the perplexing -problem of dealing with the whims of authors and editors. One of -the most difficult phases of the problem arises in the fact that -proof-readers themselves are, equally with the authors and editors, -possessed of whimsical notions, and the two sets of whims clash. - -What shall the conscientious proof-reader do? He can not let everything -go unchallenged just as it is written; if he does, he is not -conscientious in the true sense of the word, though of course writers -should know what they want, and should write their matter just as it is -to be printed. - -The only way successfully to combat unreasonable whim is by opposing -it with true principle; yet even this will not always succeed. When -a clear statement of principle fails to convince a writer that he is -at fault, of course the proof-reader must yield, often to his great -disadvantage. All intelligent people know that printed matter passes -through the hands of a proof-reader, and they naturally attribute to -his carelessness or incompetency all errors in printing. Examples are -not lacking. - -A paragraph in a magazine says that “the poet Will Carleton has -established a monthly magazine, and calls it _Everywhere_.” This is -not a true announcement of the name, as Carleton splits it into two -words--_Every Where_--and the word is so barbarously split each time it -is used in his periodical. Any one noticing this form _every where_ in -print would naturally wonder why the proof-reader did not know better. -It is a matter of personal knowledge that in this case the reader did -know better, but Carleton stuck to his whim, saying that he had a right -to make _where_ a noun, whether others considered it so or not. - -A New York newspaper says, with reference to political action, but in -words equally applicable otherwise: “There is nothing that we know of -in the Constitution of the United States, nor in the Constitution of -any State, nor in the United States Statutes at Large, nor in any State -law, nor any municipal regulation, that hinders any American citizen, -whatever his calling or his walk in life, from making an ass of himself -if he feels an irresistible impulse in that direction.” - -Every man has a right to refuse to conform to general practice and -principle, of course; but the arbitrary whimsicality shown in writing -_every where_, and not _everywhere_, must fail to find its mate in any -other mind, and can be applied to suit its writer only by himself. The -only way to work for such a writer is to follow copy literally always. -He has not a right to expect from the proof-reader anything more than -the correcting of wrong letters. - -_Everywhere_ is an adverb of peculiar origin that may itself be -classed as whim; but this whim is in accord with principle, and the -one that splits the word is not. Probably the word was suggested by a -question, as “Where are certain things done?” Answers are often made -by repeating a word prominent in the question, and so it must have been -in this case, “Every where.” This simulated a noun qualified by an -adjective, and the two-word form was used until people realized that -it was not right grammatically. Many years ago the correct single-word -form was universally adopted, and it should not be dropped. - -Real principle forbids the unifying in form of some words that may -seem to be like _everywhere_ but are actually of a different nature. -_Anyone_, _everyone_, and _oneself_ (the last being erroneously -considered as similar to _itself_, etc.) are as bad as single words as -_every where_ is as two words, notwithstanding the fact that they are -often so printed. Tendency to adopt such whimsicalities of form is, for -some unaccountable reason, very common. It is something against which -every competent proof-reader should fight, tooth and nail, because -it is subversive of true principle. The utmost possible intelligent -effort will not prevent common acceptance of some forms and idioms -that are, in their origin at least, unreasonable; but these particular -abominations are not fully established, and there is ground for belief -that their use may be overcome. - -Some Latin particles are used as prefixes in English, and have not the -remotest potentiality of being separate English words, if the matter -of making words is to be controlled by real principle. One of these is -_inter_, meaning “between.” A paper published in Chicago is entitled -the _Inter Ocean_, making the only possible real sense of the title -something like a command to “inter (bury) ocean,” as _inter_ is not, -and never can be, properly an English adjective. - -Many people are now printing as separated words such mere fragments as -_non_, _quasi_, _counter_ as in _counter-suit_ and _counter-movement_, -_vice_ as in _vice-chairman_, and a few others, though the writer has -not seen _ante_ or _anti_ so treated. These prefixes are all of the -same nature, and if one of them is treated as a separate word, every -one of the others should be so. - -These are things that should be combated by proof-readers who know the -main principles of language form, even though they know also that human -perversity is sufficiently willful at times to persist in the face of -all reason. - -Another sort of whim has full swing on the New York _Mail and Express_. -That paper prints the name of its own political party capitalized, -and that of the opposite party with a small initial--Republican and -democrat. How the editors can suppose that this belittles the Democrats -is past finding out, since it should be a matter of pride to a true -United States Republican that he is a democrat. Such ignoring of -language principle is silly, and belittling to those who indulge it -rather than to those at whom it is aimed. It is, however, beyond the -proof-reader’s province, unless the reader is sufficiently familiar -with the editor to influence him by moral suasion. - -Notwithstanding the certainty that authors will be more or less -whimsical, it is the proof-reader’s duty to do all he can to make -the matter he reads perfect in every respect. He should be able to -challenge anything that does not conform to generally accepted rules -of grammar, and to state clearly his reasons for desiring to make -changes. - -A thorough practical knowledge of English grammar is indispensable -to a good proof-reader, though it counts for nothing without a quick -eye to detect errors. If Bullions’s English Grammar had been read by -a proof-reader as well equipped in grammatical knowledge as every -reader should be, that book would have been cleared of one of the most -ludicrous blunders possible. After stating that abridging is cutting -short, examples are given, including the following: “When the boys -have finished their lessons we will play. _Abridged_--The boys having -finished their lessons we will play.” The second sentence is one word -shorter than the first, but the tense is changed, and so, of course, -the sense is changed. Real abridgment, of course, would not change the -time from future to present; yet this is what a noted teacher does in -each of his examples of abridgment, and it is something that a thorough -proof-reader would have helped him not to do. - -A proof-reader can not afford to neglect study, if he desires the best -kind of success. The more he studies, the better able he will be to -distinguish between whim and principle, and to combat one with the -other when the first is not such that he knows it can not be combated -successfully. Proper study, also, of men and events, as well as of -language, etc., will enable him to distinguish helpfulness from what -may be considered impertinence in making queries. By its aid he will be -able to give a reason with each query, in a helpful way. Many queries -on authors’ proofs pass unanswered, or are merely crossed off, because -their point is not apparent, or because they have been made in such a -manner as to give offense. - -In proof-reading, as in every other pursuit, the closest student of -principles and of men will ever be the most successful. Generally, -as we have said elsewhere, our best proof-readers eventually pass up -to an editorial chair, or into literary or other employment which -is more remunerative than reading proof. No employment should be -more remunerative, unless it may be some which involves the control -or disposition of large sums of money. A more difficult or rarer -accomplishment than that of humoring authors’ whims, while still -preserving much essentially good matter from the chaotic form it would -assume at the hands of unpractical writers, would be hard to name. - - - - -CHAPTER VI. - -AUTHORITIES AND OPINIONS. - - -It has been said that in certain points of style no two persons would -agree in their decision. The expression is too strong, but what is -really meant is certainly true. Almost every question of style finds -different answers. - -This has been noted as an objection to the forming of proof-readers’ -associations, the objectors assuming that none of the differences -of opinion can be overcome. A contrary assumption must be the basis -of accomplishment, and must be proved to be true, if anything is -accomplished. Discussion must be had, full and free; every opinion -that finds expression must be carefully considered, and all opinions -carefully compared, in order to select the best. With this object -clearly agreed upon, and always kept in view, and with each member of -the association pledged to support the decision of the majority, would -not much good result, at least in the way of agreement in matters that -are commonly left to the proof-reader’s decision? - -Except for the fact that nothing can be too foolish to find a parallel -in history, the assertion might be made that our proof-readers could -not be foolish enough to persist in holding individual opinions -obstinately in the face of real proof that they are erroneous, or -even that some other opinion is really more common and therefore -better. An instance that happens to present itself for comparison -is the tulipomania, or “craze for tulips,” in Holland early in the -seventeenth century. People were so crazy then as to sell and resell -tulipbulbs at ridiculously high prices, even to the extent of creating -a financial panic. Human nature is the same now as then; and although -the matter of choosing between variant spellings, or other variations -of style, never will create a financial panic, lack of agreement in -choice does cause much annoyance, and even in some cases loss of money, -by stealing compositors’ time through unnecessary changing of type. -The “stylomaniac” is as foolish, relatively, as were the old Dutch -tulipomaniacs. - -Nothing could be more advantageous to a proof-reader than a full record -of forms that could be followed without change. Such a record does not -exist, and probably could not be made really exhaustive. It is doubtful -whether any book or periodical ever fully reproduced the spelling -of any dictionary, for the simple reason that lexicographers do not -recognize the practical needs of printers. Spellings, word-divisions, -and capitalization have never had, in the making of a dictionary, such -analogical treatment as they must have to furnish thoroughly reliable -guidance for printers; yet the dictionary is and must be the principal -authority. - -One remarkable instance of false leading has arisen through the -old-time omission of technical words in dictionaries. _Indention_ has -always been the printers’ word for the sinking in of the first line of -a paragraph, yet many printers now say _indentation_, because it was -discovered that _indention_ was not in the dictionary. The right word -is given by our recent lexicographers. Drew’s “Pens and Types” protests -strongly against _indentation_, and MacKellar’s “American Printer” uses -_indention_, which is probably an older word than the other. Old-time -printers knew too much of Latin to put any reference to saw-teeth -in their name for paragraph-sinkage, and _indentation_ is properly -applicable only to something resembling saw-teeth. - -Printers and proof-readers must often reason from analogy in deciding -how to spell. They have not the time to look up every word, and so -they often differ from their authority in spelling. Every one knows -how to spell _referee_, and, because of the similarity of the words, -many have rightly printed _conferee_. A letter to the editor asked why -a certain paper did this, and the editor answered that he would see -that it did not happen again--because Webster and Worcester had the -abominable spelling _conferree!_ Why Webster ever spelled it so is a -mystery, especially as it violates his common practice. Why Worcester -copied Webster in this instance is a deeper mystery, since he had been -employed on the Webster dictionary and made his own as much different -in spelling as he could with any show of authority. The revisers of -the Webster work have corrected the misspelling, and the other new -dictionaries spell the word correctly. - -Word-divisions are a source of much annoyance. Here again we have the -lexicographers to thank, for no one of them has given us a practical -guide. There are many classes of words that should be treated alike -in this respect, and not one of these classes is so treated in any -dictionary. Here is a short list from the “Webster’s International”: - - ac-tive - contract-ive - produc-tive - conduct-ive - baptiz-ing - exerci-sing - promot-er - aëra-ted - pi-geon - liq-uid - depend-ent - resplen-dent - -The one thing needed here is simplification. We should be at liberty -to decide, without contradiction by our highest authorities, that -if _conductive_ is divided after the _t_, _productive_ should have -the same division. The difference arises from a false etymological -assumption. One of the words is held to be made of two English -elements--a word and a suffix--and the other is treated like its -Latin etymon. True science would take the Latin etymon as the source -of every word ending in _ive_, and divide every one of them between -the consonants, regardless of the fact that some such words did not -exist in Latin. It is sufficient that they all follow the Latin model, -as _conductivus_. Many other terminations are properly on the same -footing, as _ant_, _ent_, _or_; they are not real English formative -suffixes. In every word like those mentioned ending in _tive_ after -another consonant, the division should be between the consonants. This -would be truly scientific, as no real scholarly objection can be made, -and it leaves the right division in each instance unmistakable, no -matter how little may be known of Latin or etymology. - -Simplification is the great need in all matters of form or style--the -easy and scientific conclusion that in all exactly similar instances -the one reasoning applies, with the one result. The men who rank as our -highest authorities as to spelling, and who should be best qualified -to lead us, lack one necessary accomplishment--a practical knowledge -of the art preservative. Their efforts now are largely devoted to what -they call spelling-reform, but their kind of reform is _spoiling_ -reform. English spelling is said by them to be absurdly difficult -to learn, and they say they desire to make it easy by spelling -phonetically. The matter is one of large detail, the phonetic spelling -has many learned advocates, and there is a true scientific basis for -many radical changes; but what is proposed as our ultimate spelling -will be _harder_ to learn, as it is now indicated, than is our present -spelling. - -Reform is needed, but not of the kind advocated by those who now pose -as reformers. Universal agreement on a choice between _traveler_ -and _traveller_, _theatre_ and _theater_, etc., would be highly -advantageous; changing _have_ to _hav_, etc., is merely whimsical, -especially as some of the “et cæteras” are not so simple as they claim -to be--notably the arbitrary use of both _c_ and _k_ for the _k_ sound. - -Our philologists are not likely to do for us what we very much need to -have done. - -Why should not the proof-readers do it for themselves--and also for the -whole English-speaking world? - - - - -CHAPTER VII. - -AUTHORITATIVE STUMBLING-BLOCKS IN THE STUDY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. - - -Writers for publication ought to write just as their matter should -appear in print, but often they do not. Though every educated -English-speaking person is expected to know how to use his own language -correctly, no one needs such knowledge more than the proof-reader -does. Very commonly matters of form, as punctuation, capitalization, -compounding, and almost entirely the division of words at the ends of -lines, are left to the proof-reader’s decision. How shall he decide -reasonably if he have not the requisite knowledge? And how shall he -have knowledge without study? And how shall he succeed in his study if -he use not close thought and wise discretion? - -The proof-reader, like every one else, must get at least the foundation -of his knowledge through the medium of books. His practical use of -knowledge, his faculty for instant perception of error, and his equally -useful faculty for merely challenging what an author may wish to keep -unchanged--all these must be acquired or confirmed by experience; but -books must furnish the groundwork. One who desires thorough equipment -as a proof-reader may never cease studying. - -Good books on the English language are plentiful, but even the best -of them contain statements that are not beyond question. It is our -purpose here to note a few questionable teachings, by way of warning -against acceptance of anything simply because it is found in any book, -and our most prominent example is from a work really good and really -authoritative. - -An incident will illustrate the aim of the warning. A customer in a New -York store, taking up a book treating of word-forms, asked, “Does it -follow Webster?” Information that its author had not closely followed -any one dictionary, but had made the work for the special purpose of -selecting the best forms from all sources, caused instant and almost -contemptuous dropping of the book. Evidently that person had no idea -that anything in language could be right if not according to Webster. -Undoubtedly there are to-day thousands who would instantly decide such -a matter in just this way. Each of them has always been accustomed to -refer to some one authority, and to think that what is found there must -be right. Indeed, so far is this species of hero-worship carried that a -critic, reviewing the book on word-forms mentioned above, could hardly -find words strong enough to express his condemnation of its author, -theretofore unknown to the literary world, for daring to criticise -statements made by noted scholars. It is amusing to recall the fact -that one of the heroes of this champion’s worship began his career -in exactly the way objected to, having devoted a large part of his -first book to severe condemnation of some famous grammarians for doing -something that he did himself, namely, copying and preserving errors. - -Even yet we have not gone back to the earliest recorded condemnation of -such hero-worship. One of the most famous of the grammarians scored -by our preceding hero was Lindley Murray, and his stated reason for -writing on grammar was identical with that of his critic--the work of -his predecessors was not sufficiently accurate. Long before Murray’s -time, also, “peremptory adhesion unto authority,” as Sir Thomas Brown -wrote in the seventeenth century, had been “the mortallest enemy unto -knowledge, and that which hath done the greatest execution upon truth.” - -Where can “peremptory adhesion unto authority” be found better -exemplified than in children’s persistence in believing what they are -first taught? Impressions made in childhood days certainly retain a -strong hold long afterward, and this should be a powerful incentive -toward giving them true impressions. One of the most popular language -books now in use in primary schools, if not _the_ most popular, has -conversations between teacher and pupil. Here is one: “_T._--When I -say, _falling leaves rustle_, does _falling_ tell what is thought of -leaves? _P._--No. _T._--What does _falling_ do? _P._--It tells the -_kind_ of leaves you are thinking and speaking of.” Is it not simply -astounding that our children must learn in school that _falling leaves_ -means a _kind_ of leaves? - -There is plenty of the same quality in books at the other extreme of -schooling--the very popular university grammar, for instance, William -Chauncey Fowler’s “English in its Elements and Forms,” which says: -“While language has power to express the fine emotions and the subtle -thoughts of the human mind with wonderful exactness, still it must be -admitted that it is imperfect as a sign of thought. It is imperfect -because the thing signified by a term in a proposition either does -not exist at all in the mind of the hearer, or because it exists under -different relations from what it does in the mind of the speaker. In -other words, language is imperfect because the term in a proposition, -if it has any meaning in the mind of the speaker, has a different one -from what it has in the mind of the hearer. Hardly any abstract term -has precisely the same meaning in any two minds; when mentioned, the -term calls up different associations in one mind from what it does -in another.... The phrase ‘beast of burden’ might, to one mind, mean -a _horse_; to another, a _mule_; to another, a _camel_.... It should -be added that there is great vagueness in the common use of language, -which, in practice, increases its imperfection as a medium of thought.” - -Yes, there is “great vagueness,” and here, in passing, is an amusing -instance of it by a well-known writer on meteorology: “All cloud which -lies as a thin flat sheet must either be pure stratus or contain the -word _strato_ in combination.” Did any one ever see a cloud containing -the word _strato_ in combination? “Great vagueness” is exemplified also -in the grammarian’s own writing, and in a connection that demands a -full exposition of it. - -We need not quarrel with the expression “thoughts of the human mind” -because we do not suppose that animals have mind; but certainly _mind_ -would be sufficient, without _human_, in discussing language. It is -another matter, though, that the next sentence shows a constructive -method at variance with the rules of grammar, and of a kind which the -author himself brands as false syntax in his exercises. _Either_ in -the sentence is not in correct construction with the complementary -_or_; it would be if _because it_ were omitted--“because the thing ... -either does not exist at all, ... or exists under different relations.” -In the last clause, “it exists under different relations from what it -does in the mind of the speaker,” _what_ is improperly used, since -the antecedent is plural--_those which_ should have been used instead -of _what_; the construction makes _does_ a principal verb, wrongly, -because it is used for _does exist_ or _exists_, and even with the -right verb another preposition should be inserted, thus--“from those -under which it exists in the mind of the speaker.” The whole sentence -would have been much better expressed in this way: “It is imperfect -because sometimes a thing mentioned is either not known at all to the -hearer, or presents associations to his mind different from those -conceived by the speaker.” - -The third sentence ludicrously transposes _speaker_ and -_hearer_--“because the term, ... if it has any meaning in the mind -of the speaker, has a different one from what it has in the mind of -the hearer.” Possibly the writer accidentally placed these words in -the wrong order, and the error is one of carelessness; but error it -certainly is, for of course the _speaker_ in every instance must -suppose that his words mean something, whether his hearers think so or -not. - -In the fourth sentence “great vagueness” is again shown. What is the -meaning of “when mentioned”? As here used, it can mean only “when a -term is spoken of as a term,” and that is nonsense. The sentence would -be complete and accurately constructed without “when mentioned.” - -The fourth sentence also contains the only so-called imperfection which -the grammarian mentions, “beast of burden.” Undoubtedly there are many -possibilities of ambiguity, but this phrase, chosen to illustrate -imperfection, is really one of the beauties of the language. It is -absurd to suppose that any one would attribute to such an abstract -term a concrete meaning; but even if “beast of burden” does suggest to -one person a horse, to another a mule, and to another a camel, there -is nothing in that circumstance to prove that language is imperfect. -All that is _expressed_ in the phrase is “some kind of beast used for -carrying,” and it is not said imperfectly. The imperfection is in the -mind of the writer, not in the language--unless he can give a better -example. If this author had omitted this section of his work, he would -have shortened his book to the extent of half a page, and he would -not have afforded a text for preaching against imperfection of mental -training. If a thoroughly qualified proof-reader had suggested proper -corrections, in the proper way, it must be that the matter would have -been bettered; and every proof-reader should know how to make such -suggestions. - - - - -CHAPTER VIII. - -PREPARATION OF COPY. - - -While it is very natural, in these days of great mechanical progress, -that methods and machinery should be preëminent in printers’ -literature, it should not be forgotten that the “art preservative” is -not entirely mechanical. Our presses are not fed _with_ paper until -after the forms are fed _from_ paper. - -How much of the brain-work should be done by the printers, and how much -by writers? Mr. Theodore L. De Vinne spoke as follows concerning this -important question, at the bicentennial celebration of the setting up -of the first printing-press in New York by William Bradford: - -“I want to ask the question, What is the writer doing for us? Is he -making his copy any better? Do you get any clearer manuscript than you -used to? So far as handwriting is concerned, I should say no. What -we get through the typewriter is better. The copy which the author -furnishes has not kept pace with the improvement in machinery. Yet at -the same time the printer is asked to do his work better and quicker -than before. We are asked to make bricks without the proper straw. Too -much is expected of printers in regard to this matter. I have been in -the printing-office for nearly fifty years, and during that time I have -had occasion to handle the copy from a great many authors, and from all -ranks and conditions of men, and I find that the compositor and the -proof-reader are expected to do more work. - -“There was a time when the printer was merely expected to follow copy. -Now, I have no hesitation in saying that if every compositor was to -follow his copy strictly, and if every proof-reader was to imitate his -example, and neglect to correct errors; if books were printed as they -are written, there would go up a howl of indignation on the part of -authors as when the first-born of Egypt were slaughtered. I say that -too much is expected of the proof-reader. He is expected to take the -babe of the author and put it in a suitable dress for the public. The -author should do it. Now and then you get an idea of how badly copy is -prepared when out of revenge some newspaper editor prints it as the -author sends it in. The reader, when he reads that copy, printed as -it is written, with a misuse of italics, a violation of the rules of -composition, lack of punctuation, etc., is astonished that a man of -education can be so careless.” - -Among other things following this, Mr. De Vinne said: “I wish to -ask, on behalf of the proof-reader, a little more attention to the -preparation of manuscript. The people who furnish the manuscript -are not doing their share. I think it is an imposition that the -proof-reader should do more than correct the errors of the compositor.” - -We may well add to this plea on behalf of the proof-reader another on -behalf of the compositor. Although so much type-setting is now done on -time, many compositors are still at piece-work, and there is not one of -them who does not suffer through the gross injustice of losing time in -deciphering bad manuscript. It is properly a matter of mere justice to -the compositor that every letter in his copy should be unmistakable, -and that every point in punctuation, every capital letter, and every -peculiarity of any kind should appear on the copy just as the author -wishes it to be in the printed work. Copy should be really something -that can be copied exactly. - -Certainly such copy is seldom produced, and there are excellent reasons -for supposing that some authors--and many among the best--will never -furnish plain copy in their own handwriting. One of the best reasons is -indicated by this passage from a book entitled “Our English,” by Prof. -A. S. Hill, of Harvard: “Every year Harvard sends out men--some of them -high scholars--whose manuscripts would disgrace a boy of twelve; and -yet the college can hardly be blamed, for she can not be expected to -conduct an infant school for adults.” - -Probably “manuscripts” refers mainly to handwriting, though it may -include literary composition. The students have to take notes of -lectures, and, in order to secure the largest amount of information, -they write so rapidly that their manuscript can hardly be legible. -Through this practice, rapid and almost formless writing becomes -habitual. - -Another justification for much of the bad handwriting of authors may be -found in the fact that the matter is more important than the form, at -least in the first making, and writers are comparatively few who can do -the necessary thinking and at the same time put the thoughts on paper -in perfect form. If an author can write plainly and punctuate properly -without losing any of his thoughts or sacrificing literary quality in -any way, it is far better for his own interest, as well as for that of -the printers, that he should do so; but where this is not the case it -is necessary for some one to “put the babe of the author in a suitable -dress for the public.” - -Here is the point of the whole matter: If the work of finishing is to -be done by the printers, they should be paid for doing it. There should -be an extra charge for composition from poorly prepared copy, according -to the extra amount of time required beyond that necessary in working -from copy that can be read easily and followed literally. Nearly the -full extra charge should be added to the type-setter’s pay, unless the -proof-reader prepares the copy before the type is set, in which case, -of course, the extra charge should be simply for his time. - -Oliver Wendell Holmes, in “The Autocrat of the Breakfast-table,” says: -“I am a very particular person about having all I write printed as I -write it. I require to see a proof, a revise, a re-revise, and a double -re-revise, or fourth-proof rectified impression of all my productions, -especially verse.” A laudable desire to make his productions peculiarly -his in all details must have been the incentive to all this work on -proofs; but probably a close comparison of the finished work and the -original manuscript would disclose many differences. - -When good printers work from manuscript that can not be misread, with -all details of spelling, punctuation, etc., properly attended to, and -with explicit understanding that copy is to be followed literally, -one proof is sufficient for an author who does not have to make many -changes in the wording of what has been written. - -It will pay any author to make copy showing exactly what should appear -in print, and to make every stroke of the writing unmistakable. If -the writer can not himself produce such copy, his manuscript should -be carefully revised by some one else. Any person doing such work of -revision should be very cautious in order to preserve the writer’s -intended expression, for often even an extra comma is disastrous. This -applies also to proof-reading. The writer should be consulted, when -consultation is possible, about changes from copy. - -When authors have cultivated the habit of writing as they should write, -or of having their copy made good for them, there will be no reasonable -excuse for bad errors in printing. If Mr. De Vinne’s speech from which -I have quoted, for instance, had been carefully revised by its author -in the manuscript, a nonsensical misreading would probably have been -avoided. One of his sentences as printed is, “We always understand how -much the world is indebted to printing.” I have no doubt that he said, -“We all of us,” etc. - -No matter what plan is followed in its preparation, copy should -certainly go to the compositor in such shape that he can read it easily -and follow it absolutely. This is the only just way; and it is the -surest way to secure good work. - - - - -CHAPTER IX. - -COPY AND PROOF-READING. - - -In a novel published some time ago, the copy contained a great deal of -conversation that had to be printed in short paragraphs, each chapter -being written in one long paragraph, with no quotation-marks, and -almost no punctuation. The compositors had the injustice imposed upon -them of breaking the matter into paragraphs, and supplying punctuation, -with no recompense for doing this essential part of the author’s work. -How such manuscript could secure acceptance by a publisher has never -ceased to be a source of wonder, as it was not written by one whose -mere name would carry it through; but a greater source of amazement is -the fact that so many writers can make such abominable copy as they do -make. - -Certainly the writer should be the one most interested in having -printed matter say what it is intended to say, and this can not be -positively assured unless the written copy is accurate in form. Even -the presence or absence of a comma may affect the sense in such a way -that no person other than the writer can know positively whether the -comma should be in or not. - -Very few writers send to the printing-office such manuscript as every -writer should furnish, yet they all demand accuracy in the printed -matter. Let us make a bold proposition. Why should not employing -printers of books combine in the determination to make an extra charge -for every alteration from copy, even to the insertion or removal of -a comma? Why should not authors have to pay extra for the work that -should be and is not done by them in the first instance? Even this, -however, would not change the fact that much manuscript will not bear -close reproduction in print. An author who was making many expensive -alterations in proof was requested to revise his matter in manuscript, -and returned it unchanged, saying that he could find nothing wrong in -it. - -Compositors have always labored under the injustice of being expected -to punctuate the matter they set, regardless of bad punctuation in -their copy. How can they know better than the author should know? This -is an injustice to them mainly because they must often change the -punctuation in type, thus losing time for which they are not paid. -The decision is left to the proof-reader, and even the best and most -intelligent compositor simply can _not_ always be sure that he is doing -what the reader will decide to be right. Other matters of style present -the same difficulty. - -If any particular style is to be followed, as in capitalization, -punctuation, paragraphing, or any other formal matter, it is not just -to demand that piece-workers shall set their type accordingly unless -the copy is first carefully prepared. In other words, it is a matter -of the merest justice to compositors that ordinarily they should be -allowed to follow copy strictly in every detail. On some kinds of work -this is not so essential, as on newspapers, for instance, where there -are many writers, and matter of a certain kind is always to be set in -the one way. - -Publishers and editors of newspapers would be more just to all their -workers, and probably more sure of getting what they want in style, if -they could insist upon formal compliance at the hands of their writers -rather than to throw the burden upon compositors and proof-readers. -Responsibility for style does not rightly belong to the composing-room -and proof-room; but if it must be assumed there, as commonly it must, -every worker in those rooms should have an individual copy of a full -and clear record of style. Those who receive work in book-offices, and -who send it to the compositors, would certainly do well to question -customers closely on all matters of style, especially in the case of -anything other than plain reading-matter. It is well to have a distinct -understanding with regard to complicated matter, and to record it when -made, so that instructions may be clearly given to those who do the -work. - -An understanding having been had with the author or publisher, the -manuscript should go first to the proof-reader and be prepared by him, -so that the compositors need do nothing but follow copy closely. Of -course this will not be necessary when the author furnishes good plain -manuscript; but in other cases, of which there is no lack, it will -surely pay. - -The correction of authors’ errors is an important part of the reader’s -duty, yet he should be very careful not to make “corrections” where -there is a possibility that the writer wants just what he has written, -even though it seems wrong to the reader. The proof-reader should not -be held responsible for the grammar or diction of what he reads, except -in the plainest instances, as there are many points of disagreement -even among professed grammarians. Plain errors in grammar or diction, -as those following, the good proof-reader will correct. - -A New York newspaper mentioned Frenchmen who “content themselves with -sipping _thimbles full_ of absinthe.” The reader should have known -that the men do not use thimbles for the purpose of drinking, and that -_thimblefuls_ are what they sip. - -When the proof-reader had a paragraph saying that “the arrivals at the -hotels show a falling off of over 100 per cent.,” he should have known -that this is an impossibility, since it leaves the arrivals less than -none. - -When another reader saw something about “the buildings _comprising_ the -old brick row,” he should have corrected it to _composing_. Buildings -compose the row, and the row comprises buildings. - -It would not be fair to expect every proof-reader to be thoroughly -up in zoölogical nomenclature. No reader, though, should pass a word -like _depuvans_ unchallenged, because that is the best he can make -of what is written. He should ascertain in some way that the word is -_dipnoans_, or query it for some one else to correct. On the “Century -Dictionary” the editor struck out a quotation, “The miracles which they -saw, grew by their frequency familiar unto them.” His pencil happened -to cross only one word in the first line, and the next proof sent to -the editorial room contained the passage, “The miracles which they grew -by their frequency familiar unto them.” - -These are a few instances of remissness on the part of readers, the -last one showing absurdity that should be impossible. - -Some things are commonly expected of proof-readers that they can not -with any reason be asked to do. When a person whose initials are J. J., -for instance, writes them I. I., it is not reasonable to expect them -to be printed J. J. A script I is one thing and a J is another; and no -one can possibly know that the one which is written is not the right -one when there is no clue, as there would be in Iohn. One lesson that -writers seem bound not to learn is that proper names should be written -plainly. When not written plainly they are very likely to be printed -wrong. - -Some kinds of changes proof-readers should not make, even if they -think the writing is wrong. When a plainly written manuscript, showing -care at all points, contains something about the “setting up of the -first printing-press,” this should not be printed “setting-up of -the first printing press”; neither should _some one_ be changed to -_someone_, though the barbarous _someone_ happens to be the “style of -the office.” There is no good reason for making a compound of _setting -up_, and there is no reason for making anything but a compound of -_printing-press_; and _someone_ should certainly be removed from the -“style of the office” and the correct _some one_ substituted. These -two examples are selected because they were convenient, not for -criticism merely, but to enforce the fact that, at least in a book or -any work not containing matter from various writers, carefully written -manuscript should be followed in every respect. Some authors have in -this matter a just cause of complaint against printers; but it is -really the result of carelessness on the part of authors in not writing -as their matter should be printed and insisting upon having what they -want. - - - - -CHAPTER X. - -THE DICTIONARY IN THE PROOF-ROOM. - - -It is said that Horace Greeley’s estimate of qualification for -proof-reading called for more general knowledge than one would need in -order to be a good President of the United States. By this he meant, -of course, ability to read anything, from the smallest job, in the -commonest language, to the most learned and most scientific writing, -and to know that every thing is made right. How many proof-readers can -do this? Not many. Horace Greeley knew very well that the world could -not furnish such men for the proof-reader’s desk--and yet his remark -was justifiable even from a practical point of view. - -A recent paragraph in a trade publication said truly that “even -the daily newspapers use so many foreign and technical terms as to -demand a high grade of excellence among the readers.” This was said -in connection with an assertion that pay for the reader’s work, and -especially for the best work, is higher now than ever before. We might -easily show that this is not absolutely true, for very high pay has -been given for high-class work in the years that are gone, and the -writer of this essay can state from personal knowledge an instance of -higher pay than the highest mentioned in that paragraph; and it may be -well to tell of it, because it will serve as a good introduction to our -present theme. The paragraph says that its writer personally knew of -two men who were paid $50 a week for reading. If these men were mere -proof-readers, their pay was very high; but it is not unreasonable to -suppose that their work nearly approached the responsible editorial -status. On a certain large work published many years ago a man was -employed as proof-reader at what was then excellent pay. When that work -was revised he was still known as the principal proof-reader, but his -work included final editing of the copy, as well as reading the proofs, -which latter he did in a critical way, making such changes in the -matter as he knew were necessary. For this work he received $75 a week, -and the only men known to the present writer who were paid as much as -the sum first mentioned did the same kind of work. - -In each of these cases the money was paid because of one qualification -that stood in place of general knowledge, rather than for the actual -possession of such knowledge that seems to be demanded by Horace -Greeley’s estimate. Each of these readers had at hand a good reference -library, and knew where to look for information on any question that -arose. The special qualification was the ability to perceive or suspect -error of statement, and to correct it through positive knowledge, in -many cases with no need of reference, but more frequently through -consulting authorities. An important complement of this qualification -is the perception of correctness as well as of error, and ability to -leave unchanged what is right as well as to change what is wrong. - -Of course one who is really fitted to read proof must know how to spell -all the common words of the language, and this is not so general an -accomplishment as it is naturally supposed to be. Many writers are -somewhat weak in spelling, and the proof-reader must correct their -errors as well as those made by compositors, for often the editors can -not take time for such work, and copy is sent to the composing-room -just as it is written. But few proof-readers, if any, know all the -words that may rightly be classed as common. It is a matter of recent -experience that one who ranks among the best of newspaper readers, in -reading market reports, changed the lower-case initial of _muscovado_ -to a capital, and thought the name was a proper noun until another -reader, happening to have the same matter in hand, changed the -capital letter to lower-case and was called upon to give a reason for -it. Recently, also, a good proof-reader allowed the term “Romance -languages” to pass as “romance languages.” _Romance_ in this use should -not be unfamiliar, yet it was mistaken by compositor and reader as the -common noun _romance_, which mistake should be impossible, as every one -should know that romance is not confined to any special languages. - -What such people need is a good dictionary at hand and constant use -of it. Of course no busy proof-reader, especially during the rush -of newspaper work, can stop every few minutes to find a word in the -dictionary--much work must be dashed off at lightning speed, or as near -that as possible, and no sort of interruption can be tolerated, even -at the expense of printing a few typographical errors. But how much -more creditable it is to the proof-reader if, even in the utmost rush, -he can detect and mark all the errors, whether time can be taken to -correct them in the type or not. - -Few readers, comparatively, seem to realize the wonderful helpfulness -of intimacy with some good dictionary, for very few of them use one -as much as they would if they realized it. Probably most of them will -continue to do just as they have always done--taking it for granted -that they have no need of frequent consultation of the dictionary; but -if something can be written that will impress even a few with a desire -for the improvement to be attained through study of the dictionary, it -is worth while to try to write it. - -Every proof-room should possess a good dictionary. Some people -think that every proof-room of any consequence does possess a good -dictionary, but a little inquiry would soon convince them that this is -not so. Many readers are left to do their work without even such aid in -the way of reference, notwithstanding it is a fact that no certainty of -good work can be had without it, and that many more works of reference -are indispensable as aids to the best work. There are an amazing number -of proof-rooms that are not supplied even with an old Webster’s or -Worcester’s Dictionary, and a great many more than there should be -that have only one or the other of those antiquated works. Once upon a -time they were both good works, because they were the best yet made. -But lexicography has progressed, and we now have dictionaries that -surpass the old ones, in every respect, as much as our new books on any -scientific subject outrank those of our forefathers. - -The Century and the Funk & Wagnalls Standard dictionaries contain -practically full records of our language in all details, almost -sufficient to take the place of a large reference library, so far as -the proof-room is concerned. One or the other--or better, both--should -be in every proof-room, and the proof-reader who makes the most -constant studious use of one or both will soon find himself on firmer -ground than he could otherwise occupy. - - - - -CHAPTER XI. - -THE PROOF-ROOM LIBRARY. - - -How many proof-rooms are as well equipped with books of reference as -they should be? The proprietors of some large establishments have -always recognized their need and endeavored to supply it, but it is not -far from the truth to say that very few employers, if any, have done -all that would be profitable in this matter. A good selection of the -latest reference books is seldom found in a proof-room, notwithstanding -the fact that their intelligent use is one of the most important -adjuncts of good proof-reading. - -Reasons could easily be found for the common lack of books other -than a general dictionary, or that and one or two special technical -glossaries; but it will be more advantageous to give reasons why -proof-readers should have and use more books than most of them do use. - -Professional men have to read continually to keep up with progress in -scientific knowledge. It is absolutely necessary to their success. -Each of them, however, has a special demand for some particular branch -of knowledge. The books these men consult are written by specialists, -who choose their own subjects, and of course know the special words -that must be used. A proof-reader, on the contrary, can not choose -his subjects. He must undertake what is ready for him, whether it be -some ordinary work, using common words only, or a scientific book -filled with unfamiliar words. Authors of scientific works often make -abominable copy. They do not realize that the terminology so well known -by them is not equally well known to the workers in printing-offices, -and the most particular words are frequently written more carelessly -than the common words in their manuscript. Of course these authors read -their own proofs, and most of them think they are very careful in doing -it; but they are not trained proof-readers, and they see the words in -full rather than the individual letters, so that a wrong letter easily -evades their notice. When the trained proof-reader does not know the -particular words, and has no means at hand for their verification, the -result is bad. - -A pamphlet on ichthyological terminology will afford a good -illustration. Its author wrote what was intended for “the shorter -termination _-pidæ_ is adopted rather than _-podidæ_.” This was -printed with dashes instead of the hyphens, “termination--_pidæ_ -rather than--_podidæ_.” The pamphlet has _Opisthrarthri_ and -_Tenthidoidea_ instead of _Opistharthri_ and _Teuthidoidea_, and many -other typographical errors in such words. Probably the proof-readers -did their best to follow copy, and thought the author would be sure -to correct such errors as they failed to find. If in each doubtful -instance they had consulted a reasonably full list of ichthyological -names, as they should have done, most of the errors might have -been corrected. Proof-readers should certainly have some means of -handling work intelligently, and the only way this can be done is by -verification through the use of reference books. - -Our general dictionaries have never attempted to give full scientific -vocabularies. In fact, the two most used--the old Webster and -Worcester--are nearly useless in this respect, giving only the few -purely scientific terms that had become familiar when they were made. -Even technological terms were not freely inserted in their making. -Later dictionaries, however, have increased their vocabularies very -largely by adding the special terms of science. The Imperial, which -is very much like a larger Webster Unabridged, contains many names of -families and genera in natural history, also many special words of -other science; Webster’s International has more of all kinds than the -Imperial; the Century Dictionary has more than the International; but -they all come far short of the full vocabulary of any science. - -Forty years ago Mr. G. P. Marsh, in his “Lectures on the English -language,” quoted from a scientific journal a sentence containing -thirteen botanical words that have not even yet found their way -into the dictionaries above mentioned, one of these words being the -adjective _cissoid_, meaning “like ivy.” He also said, in the same -lecture: “Indeed, it is surprising how slowly the commonest mechanical -terms find their way into dictionaries professedly complete.” -Mechanical terms, however, as well as botanical and others, have found -their way into dictionaries since Mr. Marsh’s time freely, but by no -means exhaustively. - -Chemists and medical men string together words and word-elements -almost _ad nauseam_, so that common dictionaries simply can not -attempt to record all their combinations. Unless the proof-reader -is thoroughly versed in the Greek words used by the doctors, and -in the names of elements, etc., as used by the chemists, his only -hope rests upon special medical and chemical works. As an amusing -instance of what he may have to decipher--doctors and chemists are -commonly able to write illegibly, and often do so--a few words not -in the general dictionaries may be cited. Chemists use words like -_aldehydodimethylprotocatechuic_--a combination of _aldehyde_, -_dimethyl_, and _protocatechuic_. A little thought will suffice to -perceive these elements in the ugly-looking word, and in others -like it; but that is not equally true in the case of such a term as -_androgynoarion_ or _engastrimythismus_. - -Examination of any special scientific work would disclose easily the -fact that the proof-reader may be called upon at any moment to read -proofs of language he does not know, and can not verify without special -reference books. He should not be expected to do good work without such -aids. - - - - -CHAPTER XII. - -THE COPY-READER. - - -Much has been written about the proof-reader and his duties and -responsibilities, but comparatively little about his assistant, -commonly known as the copy-holder. This name “copy-holder” is in its -most frequent application a misnomer, and that is why we prefer to -consider the majority of the assistants as “copy-readers,” a name, -by the way, that is not new here, but has much local currency. Real -copy-holders are found mainly where proof-readers work in pairs, -one reading from the proof and the other following on the copy and -telling when that is different from what is read. Occasionally it may -be that proofs are read in this way by one regular reader and a mere -holder of copy, but as a rule such work is done by a team of readers -equal in standing, who alternate in the reading. Such is the common -method on morning papers. On evening papers it is not unusual for the -proof-reader to relieve his assistant occasionally by reading aloud -from the proof, but as a rule the assistant reads from the copy, and so -is a copy-reader. The distinction between “holder” and “reader” is not -generally important, but is useful for the purpose of this chapter. - -Until comparatively a few years ago nearly all the reading of copy -was done by boys, mainly for very low pay, as the real importance of -the work was not yet apprehended. Now, however, we have accomplished -almost a complete revolution, and copy-reading is understood to demand -intelligence and quick thought of an unusual order, among young persons -at least. The nearer a reader of copy comes to being truly qualified -for being a proof-reader, the better for that one’s welfare, and the -more fortunate the proof-reader who has that person as an assistant. -That last word is just right, for a good copy-reader is truly an -assistant to the proof-reader. - -Some very foolish things have been said about copy-readers, and none -more foolish than this one from a paper read before a society of -proof-readers: “Proof-readers complain of the bad copy _they_ have -to study over. Who has to read that copy--the proof-reader or the -copy-holder?” Another saying in the same paper may well be connected -with this for consideration. It is: “I have known of proof-readers -dozing--and even going to sleep--over proofs.” Unfortunately, the truth -of the accusation can not be doubted; but it is really only one phase -of something that is true of a majority of workers at anything--they do -not always faithfully perform their duty. The copy-reader who takes the -trouble to try to be sure that nothing is read when the proof-reader -does not hear it is sure to be a dutiful and conscientious worker; -yet is not even that a real duty, as well to one’s self as to one’s -employer? - -Again, it is the proof-reader’s duty to know that copy is read -correctly--not merely to make his proof conform to what he hears, but -to know that he is making it like the copy, when it should be so, which -is nearly always. The responsibility for getting the matter right on -the proof properly belongs to the proof-reader always--never in the -slightest degree to the copy-reader, with any propriety. A proof-reader -has no real right, under any circumstances, to shield himself from -blame by saying that “the copy-holder must have read it wrong.” Nothing -could be meaner than that. But he must have some protection against -such accidents, and there is a manly remedy in insisting that he shall -be the judge of the copy-reader’s efficiency, or else that there shall -be a distinct understanding that he must take the necessary time to -verify what is read whenever he suspects it, by seeing the copy. In -fact, the verification and the suspicion when necessary are very -important to the proper performance of a proof-reader’s duty. This does -not mean that a copy-reader has no responsibility, but only that that -responsibility does not properly extend to the finished work. It is in -this sense that proof-readers rightly speak of _their_ having to study -over bad copy. - -Another foolish direction about copy-reading is the following, from -Benjamin Drew’s book, “Pens and Types,” referring to the reading -of Greek: “The method of reading will, we think, be sufficiently -exemplified if we give but one line, which should be read by the -copy-holder thus: Cap. K, a, grave i; t, acute u, m, b, long o -subscript; k, r, long e, p, circumflex i, d, a; p, short e, r, acute -i, g, r, a, ph, short e; cap. P, short e, r, s, i, k, grave short o, -n; cap. smooth acute A, r, long e.” One of the best proof-readers -the writer knows would not understand such mummery, because he -does not know the Greek alphabet. Moreover, the reader who wastes -his employer’s time in having such spelling done is defrauding the -employer. Such work should always be compared. The main purpose in -referring to this, however, is to note the fact that both proof-reader -and copy-reader are much better equipped for their work if they know -the Greek alphabet than if they do not know it. And they are still -better off for each additional acquirement of unusual knowledge. - -A copy-reader will always find knowledge of any kind useful, and -one who is ambitious and eager for advancement will be a close and -ceaseless student, always acquiring new information, not only in books -and periodicals, but in and from the persons and things with which -one is surrounded. Particularly desirable is acquaintance with proper -names of all sorts, and with important public events. So long as the -world lasts, probably, reporters and editors, yea, and even authors -of books, will write proper names and unusual words less legibly than -they write common words. Even when reporters try to make names plain -by writing each letter separately, they often form the letters, or -write them without real form, so that little hope is left of absolute -certainty in deciphering them. The writer has seen names in roman -printing characters that would have been easier to read if written in -the ordinary way with any care. Familiarity with the names likely to -be written will enable a reader to master the writing with much more -certainty and greater ease. In cases where no means of familiarity -exist, as with initials of unknown persons, it frequently happens that -the best effort of either proof-reader or copy-reader must be mere -guesswork. If, as often occurs, a person’s initials are J. J., and -they are written I. I., and the name is not positively known, no one -can tell whether they will be printed right or wrong. - -The information that is most useful generally is that which gives -ability to distinguish words by their meaning, and to recognize a word -unmistakably through the sense of the other words of the sentence, or -sometimes through a clue given in the whole context. Very few persons -really know as much in this way as every one should know. A study of -etymology is very useful, and the ambitious copy-reader can not afford -to neglect it. Knowledge of the elements of words is one of the most -helpful kinds of knowledge. So is knowledge of diction, or the right -choice of words, and of syntax, or the right association of words. The -writer once wrote an article in which he used “protocatechuic” as a -test word, and wrote it as plain as any print, but the corrected proof -sent to him had the word printed “protocatechnic,” showing plainly that -the test had been too much for the reader. This probably resulted from -the reader’s ignorance of the word “catechuic”; but not only every good -proof-reader, but also every good copy-reader, should know that word. - -Unfortunately, there are many “cranky” proof-readers who are not -patient with a copy-reader who hesitates while deciphering bad -manuscript. Nine times out of ten the proof-reader himself could do -no better, notwithstanding that the responsibility is really his, -and that special ability in such work is one of his most important -qualifications. Well, such a proof-reader is simply not a gentleman, -and no remedy suggests itself. As nearly as the writer can decide, the -copy-reader under such circumstances must either “grin and bear it” -or find another situation. As in all relations in life, patience and -forbearance on both sides are necessary for comfort, if not rather more -so here than in most relations. - - - - -CHAPTER XIII. - -PROPER ORDER OF PARTS IN A BOOK. - - -The subject of this chapter is suggested by a letter mentioning -differences of opinion of various authors and publishers. Without that -suggestion the chapter would never have been written, because one -arrangement is so common that the writer has never thought it came -short of universality. Indeed, many books have been examined since -receiving the letter, and all show the same arrangement. But this, -while constituting evidence of agreement among the makers of these -books, is really stronger evidence of the fact that even in dealing -with commonplaces it pays to be cautious in making assertions about the -prevalence of any practice, and especially in asserting that anything -is universal practice. - -Personal experience and research fail to disclose any arrangement -other than this: Frontispiece, title-page, copyright, dedication, -preface, contents, list of illustrations, errata, introduction, text, -index. Of course not all books have all of these features, and some -books have others not here given. For instance, sometimes there is a -publisher’s note, giving some explanation or announcement. Often that -may appropriately occupy the copyright-page, with the copyright beneath -it. Again, “Errata” are comparatively seldom given, but not seldom -enough. Genuinely good proof-reading would reduce the necessity to -almost nothing; but genuinely good proof-reading is itself a rarity. - -Now, using some of the caution that has been indicated as necessary, it -must be admitted that some difference of opinion exists, and that the -arrangement given here is not universal. What is the printer to do if -the customer wishes some other arrangement? What is the proof-reader to -do if he finds the parts arranged in an unusual manner? - -Every printer who wishes to secure and keep a reputation for doing -good work must attend to preservation of the proprieties as far as he -can secure that. He can not, as a rule, take the matter of arrangement -into his own hands, any more than he can rewrite or edit his customer’s -work. Occasionally, but very exceptionally, he may be authorized to -change the order or even the substance of what is to be printed, but -probably no one would attempt it without distinct authorization, unless -it might be one of those few who can afford to insist upon having work -done in a certain way. A printer who can dictate methods or styles, -with the alternative that otherwise he will not do the work, must be -one who has secured sufficient permanent custom to make it unimportant -whether anything more is done or not. This amounts practically to an -assertion that, within reason, the customer must be allowed to have his -way. But most customers are amenable to reason, and it may be suggested -that it would be well to propose a change to one whose book-manuscript -is wrongly arranged. Consulting a few books will show a general -practice, and this, with the statement of that practice already made -before looking at the books, should be convincing. - -What has the proof-reader to do with this? Well, the careful -proof-reader will look after all details and endeavor to get everything -right. If authors wrote exactly as they should write--so that every -letter and every point in their manuscript could be reproduced in -print without a change--proof-readers need be nothing more than -they are commonly paid for being. They would then have little to do -beyond comparison of proof and copy, for the purpose of correcting -compositors’ errors. Authors do not and will not prepare manuscripts -as carefully as they should; indeed, they simply can not always do -so, often through lack of time, and too often through inability. Many -of them actually do not know how to punctuate, and they are not few -who do not even know how to spell as all should know. Therefore the -proof-reader must be qualified at all points for correcting not only -the compositor’s work, but also that of the author. - -The particular matter that we are considering is not likely to come -into question before it is taken up in the composing-room, where the -foreman may notice the arrangement if it is wrong, and consult some one -for authority to change it. Many foremen would be likely to make it -right without consultation, and then the question would arise only if -the customer directed a change on the proofs. Should the foreman not -notice the order--most good foremen would, though--the matter would -probably come to the proof-reader unchanged, and it is as much his -duty to look after this as to do anything else. Unless specifically -instructed beforehand, he should call attention to the error, and have -it corrected if he can. - -Proof-readers should be able to give a reason for everything they do or -desire to do, and in this, as in all matters, there are good reasons -for one method and against others. Let us take the features of the book -in order as given. First, the frontispiece. Why, of course. The very -name places that first, as the piece for the front or beginning. It is -the picture or piece that fronts or faces the title-page. This seems -hardly open to question, yet the letter mentioned above did not so -place the frontispiece, and it may be just possible that the position -had been disputed. - -Equally unquestionable seems the position of the title-page. All -writings begin with a title, so that must be the first page of reading -in the book. - -As the title-page necessarily is backed by a page on which no real -division of the book can begin, since all beginnings are made on -odd-numbered pages, it is backed by the copyright, and the dedication, -as being also something not connected logically with any other part, -follows next. - -If there is no dedication, the preface, as merely something about the -matter of the book, follows the copyright. Good reason is found for -this in the fact that the preface is that which is thought necessary to -say just before beginning the book proper. - -Before we begin the text, however, it is thought well to state in -detail what is to be found in the text, so here we place the table -of contents, always properly beginning on an odd page and followed -logically by the list of illustrations if there is one, as that is -itself really contents. - -All of these features naturally lead up to the main body of the book, -therefore they should all come before that. This is said before -mentioning the introduction because of the logic of circumstances. An -introduction, as its name implies, is that which introduces the subject -of the book. It is sometimes made the first chapter of a book, which is -a sufficient indication of its natural position. - -Last of all should be the index, because it is a résumé, and that can -not reasonably be given until we have given that upon which it is -founded. It can be made only after the text is finished, therefore its -natural position is after the text. - - - - -CHAPTER XIV. - -THE BOOK MAKE-UP. - - -Practical knowledge and ability in making up book-work are acquirable -only through experience. The process might be clearly described in all -its details, covering the entire range from the simplest page, of a -certain number of lines all of the same type, to the most complicated -congeries of different-sized type and small cuts, tables, or anything -else, and yet the closest student of the description would never know -how to do the work properly until he had done some of it. What is meant -by this may be elucidated by means of a story of personal happening, -though not dealing with any attempt at written instructions, but rather -with assumption from observation, and possibly some little previous -experience, on the part of a compositor. - -Some time ago I was foreman and proof-reader of the book-room of a -large jobbing establishment in New York. Having a large pamphlet in -hand, with three sizes of type, including a number of tables, and to -be printed from the type, the make-up was left till the last, as a -separate and special piece of work. Among the compositors were two -with whom I had been associated more or less for years, so that I knew -their capabilities. One of these two was first out of copy at the end -of the job, so that, all things being equal, the make-up should have -gone to him. All things not being considered equal, the make-up was -reserved for the other of the two mentioned, who was not ready for it -until most of the men had been told there was no more work for them -just then. My old acquaintance who had been passed by said nothing -at the time, but went out and fortified himself with fire-water and -came back, accompanied by one of the prominent union politicians, to -“make a kick.” His argument was that, as he was out of copy first, -he was entitled to the making-up work, which was admitted, with the -qualification that the office was entitled to my best effort to have -the work done right, and so the man thought best able to do it was the -only one to whom it could be given conscientiously, notwithstanding our -recognition of the union, with all that that implied. This was met with -a contemptuous sneer at the idea that anything so simple as the make-up -should be kept for a certain man at the expense of another. “What one -man can do another can,” said the slighted one; and thereby he exposed -the weakness of his position, for many men can do even the simplest -work much better than many other men. “Making up!” he exclaimed; -“putting in a lead, and taking out a lead, and tying a string around -the page! Making up!” - -Well, is making up anything more than this man said it was? Possibly -not, except that there is a right way to do these things, and there -are many wrong ways. Besides, the greatest objection in the case given -was the man’s known inexperience of imposition. That objection would -apply comparatively seldom now, as letterpress printing is done much -less than it was. Still, practical knowledge of imposition is really as -necessary now to the fully competent compositor as it ever was, for -with it he is enabled to undertake work that otherwise he can not do. - -Before the making up is begun the size of the page must be determined. -There is not and can not be any general rule for proportions, since -commonly many circumstances must be considered of which the maker-up -knows nothing, and frequently he must simply follow the directions of -the foreman. One thing, however, the wise maker-up can always regulate. -He should see that his page is exactly gauged to a certain number of -lines of the type most used in the text, since that is the only sure -guide to uniformity of length in the pages. It is not likely that any -foreman will ever object to a slight change in the gauge for this -purpose, if it happens that he has made or ordered one that does not -conform to it. - -Positive directions for determining the size of a page have been -published, but I know of none that will properly apply in all -cases, notwithstanding their positiveness of expression. Following -is what Marshall T. Bigelow says in his “Handbook of Punctuation”: -“In determining the form of a page of an oblong shape, whatever its -size, a certain proportion should always be maintained. The diagonal -measure of a page from the folio in the upper corner to the opposite -lower corner should be just twice the width of the page. This is no -arbitrary technical rule, but is in conformity to the law of proportion -establishing the line of beauty; it applies equally to all objects of -similar shape, and satisfies the eye completely. A long brick-shaped -page or book will not look well, however nicely it may be printed. -When we come to a quarto or square page, the true proportion of the -diagonal to the width will be found to be as 10½ : 6¼--the size of a -good-shaped quarto--instead of 2 : 1, as in the oblong, or octavo. -And this shape also proves as satisfactory to the eye as the former -one. However large or small the page may be, these proportions should -be maintained for a handsome book.” These proportions are maintained -in the book from which we quote, but its pages would have been much -better in shape a little narrower and a little shorter. Many handsomer -books have pages that do not conform to Mr. Bigelow’s rule, though the -proportions given by him are good as a general guide. A “Printers’ -Grammar” published in 1808 has “a long brick-shaped page,” and is a -good-looking book. It says: “Should the length of the page be left to -the discretion of the compositor, he sets so many lines as he conceives -a fair proportion, which is generally considered as double its width.” -The page in which this is printed is not quite twice as long as its -width, yet it is exceptionally long for its width, judged either by -other books of its own time or by later books. - -If the size of the page is not dictated by the customer--very often -he will indicate it by means of some book whose size suits him--the -foreman or employer will be guided by the size of the sheet and the -amount of matter. Of course everybody knows this, but it is a part -of the proceeding that it may be well to mention, and that may be -dismissed after remarking that the length of the page should usually be -such as to leave the margins nearly equal. - -Practice varies somewhat as to the length of title-pages, some being -sunk a little from the top, some a little shorter and some a little -longer than the other pages. Ordinarily they should be exactly the same -as other pages in length. The usual title-page gains nothing by either -shortening or lengthening. There being differences of opinion in this -respect, however, compositor and proof-reader should learn what is -wanted in the office where they are employed and act accordingly. - -When very little matter is to occupy a page by itself, as bastard -titles, copyrights, dedications, etc., the matter should stand a little -above the middle of the page. Practice differs here also, some books -having such pages exactly centered, and some having them placed almost -two-thirds of the way up. One of the best of the old-time New York -offices had a rule that a copyright, bastard title, or anything of that -kind should have just twice as much blank below as there was above. All -such pages in their books looked inartistic, because of such misplacing -of the matter, though otherwise the taste shown was excellent. The -effect generally desired is that such matter should appear at a glance -to be in the center of the page, and this effect is better produced by -placing the matter actually a little higher up, but only a little. - -The sinkage of chapter-heading and similar pages is a matter not -often treated in books, and for which there is no fixed rule. Here, -again, Mr. Bigelow comes near to stating the best practice, though -circumstances often necessitate differences, and tastes differ, so -that it may easily happen that a customer will order a sinkage not in -keeping with Mr. Bigelow’s rule, which is: “The first page of the text -of a book should have about two-thirds of the matter of a full page. -Where chapters or other divisions occur, a uniform sinkage of the same -division should be kept up through the book. In poetry this should be -done as nearly as possible; but allowance may be made for the different -stanzas which occur, so that they may be divided properly. A useless -repetition of a half-title over the first page following should be -avoided.” There are things in this that I can not understand. What does -the last sentence mean? What is the exact intention of the sentence -about poetry? But the prescription of uniform sinkage is good, and for -the commonest sizes of pages the proportion given for the first page -is about right. For a chapter-heading elsewhere in the book the same -sinkage as the actual blank at the top of the first page should be used. - -There are other points about the make-up of books that every compositor -and proof-reader should know, but they hardly come into question, being -always treated alike by all people concerned, and will be learned in -the right way only through actual experience. - - - - -CHAPTER XV. - -SOME QUESTIONS ANSWERED. - - -Following are a few actual questions of general interest, with their -answers, as they were given in the “Proofroom Notes and Queries” in -_The Inland Printer_. In each instance the letter precedes its answer, -the two being distinguished by the use of different type. - - -GRAMMAR AND DICTION. - -=Do you write “1½ inches,” or “1½ inch”?= - -The difficulty in deciding this question is purely logical. Two or -more things must be named to justify the plural verb, says Logic, and -“one and a half” is less than two. But “one and a half” is more than -one, and the singular verb is grammatically restricted to one only; -therefore the grammatical rule should apply, and the plural verb be -used with any subject that must be read as “one _and_ something more,” -even if the something is only a fraction. - - * * * - -=Which sentence is grammatically correct--“Ten dollars was paid,” or -“Ten dollars were paid”?= - -Simply as a matter of grammar, with no deference to sense, the second -sentence is right; but as a matter of fact, unless ten separate dollar -coins or bills are paid, which seldom happens, “was paid” is much more -accurate, as the real meaning is, “The amount of $10 was paid”--one -thing that is named by the words that express its equivalent in smaller -amounts. “Ten dollars” is logically singular when it means one amount -of money, and so is “ten million dollars,” although grammatically -plural; therefore it is better to use the singular verb for the common -intention in sense. - - * * * - -=Is it proper to say, “Nine and six is fifteen”?= - -Those who insist that the rules of grammar should govern all such -expressions use the plural verb in such cases, and say “Nine and six -are fifteen,” because the words used express more than one thing, and -that is plurality. But the logic of it is that “the sum of” the two is -so much, and many scholars consequently favor the singular verb. - - * * * - -=A correspondent incloses an advertisement containing the sentence, -“Failures is the current talk now days,” and requests an opinion as to -its correctness.= - -The sentence is clearly ungrammatical, but it is not uncommon to -violate grammar rules in this way under certain circumstances, and -it is to be presumed that the writer thought of such circumstances, -though he may not have done so. If he thought of a number of individual -failures in the plural sense, and wrote “is” to go with the clearly -plural sense of the noun, he did not express his thought correctly. But -he may have thought of “failures” simply as one subject of talk, and -this would at least so far justify the singular verb as to leave its -correctness open to discussion. We may say, “‘Failures’ is the subject -of his lecture,” and reasonably expect that no one will criticise the -expression. Here are three such sentences, noted within a half-hour’s -reading while having our correspondent’s question in mind: “The revived -Olympic games is the subject of two articles.” “A thousand shares of -short interest is one result of the raid.” “A few doses is sufficient.” -The late Prof. William Dwight Whitney, author of “Essentials of English -Grammar,” decided, while editing the Century Dictionary, that “two and -two is four” is better than “two and two are four,” because the full -sense is “the sum of two and two,” or something similarly unifying the -idea of “two and two.” The sentence above questioned would be better -if written, “Failure is the current talk,” but “now days” instead of -_nowadays_ is much more criticisable than the verb. - - * * * - -=Which of the following sentences are correct, and by what rule? -“Please state whether one or six bottles is desired.” “Please state -whether one or six bottles are desired.”= - -In this question as written there is an erroneous use of the -plural that is not at all questionable. “Which ... _is_ correct” -should have been written. Only one is contemplated, as a choice, -by “which,” therefore the verb should be singular. In the sentence -inquired about _are_ is the proper verb, because the plural subject -immediately precedes it, and the singular verb agreeing with “one” -is understood, not expressed. Logical fullness of expression would -demand something like “whether one bottle is or six bottles are”; but -that is plainly undesirable. The rule is that in such cases the verb -should agree with its immediate subject. Objection to the plural verb -in the other sentence does not conflict with this rule, because, the -pronoun “which,” meaning “which sentence,” is the direct subject, -notwithstanding the intervention of other words between it and the -verb. - - * * * - -=I inclose two clippings from papers, which I have numbered (1) and -(2). Will you kindly inform me if these two sentences are grammatically -correct as printed? If not, please explain why. (1) “He made many -friends, but all were in moderate circumstances, and none wanted to -know any other language than their own.” (2) “This thing is so simple -and so clear in my own mind that I can not see how any one can think -differently; but if anybody does, I would like to hear from them.”= - -The first sentence can not rightly be utterly condemned, although -“none” is simply “no one,” and so is primarily singular. It is not -uncommon to use the word with a plural pronoun or verb, as including -more than one, and it is not wrong to do so. It would undoubtedly be -right, however, to say “none wanted other than his own.” The second -sentence is positively and unqualifiedly bad, notwithstanding the -fact that the error is a very common one. “I would like to hear from -him” would be right. In cases like both of these (supposing that one -prefers the singular pronoun in the first) it is preferable to use the -masculine singular, despite the inclusion of women among those meant by -the other words, because it agrees in number, and while it means a man -and not a woman, “man” is inclusive of women, though it is essentially -a masculine word. - - * * * - -=Will you kindly inform me whether the subjoined sentence is wrong? -“The events in Field’s life--his birth at St. Louis in 1850; his -education at Williams, Knox, Amherst, and Missouri State Universities; -his connection with the St. Louis _Journal_, Kansas City _Times_, -Denver _Tribune_, and Chicago _News_; and his rise in journalism--were -sufficiently commented upon at the time of his unfortunate death a -little over a year ago to require special mention now.” It is claimed -by a literary friend that the word “not” should be inserted after -“ago,” making the phrase read “not to require special mention now.” -I maintain that the clause beginning with “to” is a clause of result. -For substitute the word “enough” for “sufficiently”--which means the -same--and see how it reads: “The events in F’s life ... were enough -commented upon at the time of his ... death ... to require special -mention now.”= - -The sentence is incomplete without “not” after “ago,” or a -corresponding change, as “to require no special mention.” Its intention -is that no mention is now required, and why not say so? Substitution -of “enough” for “sufficiently” makes no difference, and I must confess -that I do not know what “a clause of result” is, as I never heard -of one before, at least with any meaning that is at all fitting for -anything that can be intended here. - - * * * - -=Many authors, especially those who dabble with statistics, use -the words “native language.” On consulting the Century Dictionary, -under the head “Native,” I find the following definitions: “3. Of or -pertaining to one by birth, or the place or circumstance of one’s -birth; as, native land, native language. 4. Of indigenous origin -or growth; not exotic or of foreign origin or production.” Now, -will you kindly explain the native language of a person born in -Switzerland, where it is stated that in one canton the language used is -Italian, in another German, and in still another French? Likewise of -Alsace-Lorraine, which at one time is a part of France and at another -time is an integral portion of Germany? Then, let us take Brazil. A -person born in that country is called a Brazilian, yet speaks the -Portuguese tongue. Colonization, also, leads to a strange condition of -affairs. When this country was settled there were several languages, -yet English became the predominant one. Still, if I am not mistaken, -English is not of indigenous origin or growth here. While I am well -aware that the words have been used by some of the best writers, I am -still of the opinion that it is not strictly correct, and that some -other expression might be used. As an example, I will state that I saw -recently a case where it was printed that a child was born in Canada of -Italian parents and that he could read and write his native language. -What is his native language?= - -One’s native language is that to which he is born--that is, it is -the one he acquires most naturally, being, of course, his parents’ -native speech, wherever he may be born. Dictionaries can not multiply -definitions for every possible mutation of human affairs. The -definitions quoted are absolutely right, even if various languages are -spoken in one country. An Italian Swiss’s native language is Italian; -in Alsace-Lorraine the native language of some of the people is German, -and that of others is French; in Brazil the native language of natives -is Portuguese. The second definition quoted has no connection with -languages, except that of the kind shown in saying that “the native -languages of America are the Indian languages”; it is not intended for -the case in question. Our native language is English, not primarily -through the place of our birth, but because of the circumstance that -we are born to that language, born of parents who use it and from whom -we instinctively acquire it. In the last case noted--the child born in -Canada--the native language is Italian. No reasonable objection to the -expression seems possible. - - * * * - -=Would you say, “About one person in ten doesn’t know that their -neighbors are saving money,” or do you think “his neighbors” better?= - -“His” is decidedly better. It is never right to use a singular noun -and a plural pronoun, or any other disagreement in number. It seems -advisable in a case like that of the question here to say “About one -man in ten,” etc., because it is a business matter, and presumably -men are principally concerned. However, if generalizing by the noun -“person” is preferred, that need not lead to the real grammatical error -of using a plural pronoun. Of course a person may not be masculine, and -that is why so many people make the error in number--to avoid supposed -conflict in gender. But “man” is sufficiently generic to include all -mankind, and the fact of its being masculine in gender, and demanding a -masculine pronoun, need not be considered an insuperable objection to -its use in the inclusive sense. All readers would know that the mere -matter of general expression did not exclude women and children from -business dealings. Changing “man” to “person,” though, still leaves the -masculine pronoun good, for grammar demands agreement in number, and it -has been custom from time immemorial to use in such cases the word that -denotes the supposedly stronger sex. Thus we should say, “The animal -draws his load better under certain conditions,” in a general sense by -no means precluding the female animal from consideration; and why not -“the person” also? We are the more willing to discuss this matter now -because of a recent revival of the silliness that would have us use the -ridiculous word “thon,” meaning “that one,” in such cases. Here is the -latest outcropping of this nonsense: “We are prone to prefer the new -words to the old, and many men and women find a pleasure in introducing -a word not familiar to the average individual. Such a word is ‘thon,’ a -contraction of ‘that one,’ proposed in 1858 by Charles Crozat Converse, -of Erie, Pennsylvania, as a substitute for the clumsy combinations ‘he -or she,’ ‘him or her,’ etc., as in the sentence, ‘The child must be -taught to study thon’s lesson.’ The word is so convenient that it is a -wonder that it remains new to most people. The want of it caused the -United States Supreme Court once upon a time to render a decision that -‘his’ in a law should be construed ‘his or her,’ so that women might be -as amenable to the law as the male lawmakers themselves. This ruling -allows writers of laws to avoid the use of ‘his or her,’ etc., every -time a personal pronoun has to be used. But in every-day use the ruling -of the courts does not count, and we need to use ‘thon’ every day of -our lives.” It was not the want of any such abominable formation as -“thon” that led to the court decision, but that decision merely fixed -in law what had always been a real principle in language. With correct -understanding of language facts, no one ever need say “his or her,” for -“his” alone is really sufficient. The abomination “thon” remains new to -most people because there is absolutely no need of it. - - * * * * * - -FORM OF WORDS. - -=Is it possible to construct the following sentence so as to give -three distinct and separate meanings without changing the wording? -The sentence is, “Twenty two dollar bills weigh as much as a silver -dollar.”= - -Yes. Twenty-two dollar bills, twenty two-dollar bills, and -twenty-two-dollar bills (though there is no bill issued for $22). - - * * * - -=Please explain the correct manner of compounding the following -adjectives: “Life-insurance company,” “fire insurance company,” -“tornado insurance company.” I am under the impression that they -should be used as written above, for this simple reason, namely: In the -first instance it is possible to place an insurance upon your life, and -therefore the two adjectives adhere and become compound. In the latter -two cases it is different--you do not place insurance upon fire or -tornado, but you insure _against_ them, and you do not insure against -life; therefore, in the last two instances, the two adjectives do not -adhere directly and should not be used as compound adjectives. I would -also like to inquire further, if either of the above is incorporated -in the full name of an organization, should they in any such case be -compounded?= - -If compounding occurs in any of the terms, it should in all, as -they are exactly alike grammatically. Difference of meaning in the -understood prepositions should not affect the forms. No compounding is -really necessary, although the terms are compounds etymologically. If -we tried to compound every term that could be reasonably joined in form -no dividing line would ever be reached. Usage, especially in the names -of corporations, is against compounding in these cases. - - * * * - -=A large book is now in press (about 150 pages having been -electrotyped). Throughout these pages the apostrophe and additional -_s_ were used in names ending with _s_, viz., Lewis’s, Parsons’s, -Adams’s, etc. Proofs are now returned with final _s_ deled, which -fact leads the Autocrat of the Composing-room (the Chairman) to arise -and assert that “while the practice may be correct, it is behind the -times,” “all good enough fifty years ago,” “won’t go in _good_ offices -nowadays,” “never used in first-class work,” closing with the remark -that he doesn’t see why it is not used in griffins’ [griffins’s] heads -(!), Orphans’ [Orphans’s] Home (!), calmly ignoring the fact that in -the first instance a common noun, plural, is used, and in the latter -a proper noun, same number. The reader contends that the apostrophe -and additional _s_ as marked are correct, and refers to the Harper -publications, _Scribner’s_, the _Century_, and the work of any _good_ -printing house. Who _is_ right, or which is right (all questions of -“style” aside)?= - -That Chairman evidently does not know the difference between singular -and plural, or at least does not know the grammatical distinction of -the forms, that has been just what it now is for more than fifty years. -“Adams’s,” etc., are the right forms, beyond any possible reasonable -objection; the only difficulty is that some people will not use the -right forms, and have been so thoroughly drilled in the use of wrong -forms that they insist that the wrong ones are right. - - * * * - -=Please tell me what kind of mark (if any) should be placed after 4th, -21st, and like words used in a sentence where if the word were spelled -out there would be no mark; as, “On the 21st of September.” My opinion -is that the form is not an abbreviation. It certainly is a contraction, -but nothing seems left out.= - -No mark should be used. The opinion that the form is not an -abbreviation is a good opinion, because there is no abbreviating. -Abbreviating is done by leaving off a part of the word, and it is -commonly shown by using a period at the end of the short form; but some -short forms, while they really are abbreviations, are not technically -known as such, because they are quite properly included in another -category, that of nicknames or merely short names. In this latter class -are “Ed,” “Fred,” “Will,” etc. In the ordinal words of our question -there is no cutting off from the end, but only substitution of a figure -for the numeral part of the word, with the same ordinal termination -that is used in the word when spelled out. How can anything “certainly” -be a contraction when nothing seems left out? A contraction is a form -made by leaving out a part from between the ends and drawing the ends -together, commonly with an apostrophe in place of the omitted part, -as in “dep’t” for “department”; but some real contractions are known -as abbreviations by printers, because they are printed in the form of -abbreviations, as “dept.,” which is often used instead of the other -form. The dates with figures certainly are _not_ contractions, as there -is no omission, but mere substitution of a figure for the corresponding -letters. Possibly the doubt arose from the fact that the Germans do -make abbreviations of ordinal words by using a figure and a period, -omitting the termination, as “21. September,” which shows plainly why -the point is used. - - * * * - -=In reading the proofs of a bicycle catalogue recently the writer -compounded the words handle-bar, tool-bag, seat-post, etc., on the -ground that they were all technical terms in this connection and were -therefore properly compounded. For this action he was criticised, his -critic claiming that handle-bar is the only proper compound of the -three words mentioned, inasmuch as neither the bar nor the handle is -complete alone, while in the other cases named the parts are complete -by themselves. Will you kindly give your opinion on this matter?= - -The words mentioned are compounds, though they are more frequently -printed in the wrongly separated form than in their proper form. Mere -technicality, however, is not a good reason for compounding any words. -It is the fact that “handle” and “bar” are two nouns joined to make a -new noun that makes them become one word instead of two. “Handle-bar” -is no more technical than “spinal column,” for instance, is anatomical -(another kind of technicality), yet the first term is one word and -the other is two. In the latter term the first word is an adjective, -fulfilling the regular adjective office of qualifying. The other name -has no qualifying element, being a mere name, representing the phrase -“bar used as a handle.” How any one can imagine such a difference -as that neither the bar nor the handle is complete alone, while in -the other cases named the parts are complete by themselves, passes -understanding. The circumstances are identical--two nouns in each case -joined to make a new noun representing such phrases as “bag used to -hold tools,” “post to support a seat,” etc. Even the accent as heard in -the first part of each name truly indicates compounding. The principle -is exactly the same as that which made the Greeks and Latins join two -nouns in one, through which we have “geography,” which is no more truly -one word than is its literal English translation, “earth-writing.” - - * * * - -=One of our printers, in setting up a job, came across the words “large -tobacco firm.” He felt sure a hyphen should be used after the word -“tobacco,” so it would not be understood as a large-tobacco firm. To -please him, I told him to put it in, but told him its absence showed -that the tobacco firm was large, and not the tobacco. What do you do -with such words as “honey crop”? I compound it when it means the first -stomach of the bee, but not when the word “crop” means harvest.= - -Certainly, if any hyphening is done in the first words instanced, it -must be that which is mentioned; but none is necessary, and probably -few persons would ever think of it. Our correspondent seems to have -given a hasty answer to the question, as in fact it is not strictly -true that the separated words show that the firm is large, and not -the tobacco. It would seem more accurate to say that no one (speaking -generally) would misunderstand the separated words, because the natural -conclusion is that the firm does a large business. On the contrary, if -the actual intention should be that the firm dealt in large tobacco, -that fact would be fixed beyond question by making a compound adjective -“large-tobacco.” The distinction between “honey crop” and “honey-crop” -is excellent. A principle is illustrated by it that would be worth a -great deal to everybody, if only it could be established and widely -understood and applied. It is difficult to state it clearly, although -the two kinds of meaning seem to show a very plain difference, that -might easily be less apparent in a sentence containing only one of -them. We can not say that “honey” is a true adjective in the separate -use, but it comes much nearer to the true adjective force in one use -than it does in the other. “Honey-crop” for the stomach, as “the -crop (stomach) in which honey is stored,” is simply one noun made by -joining two nouns. “Honey-bag” is the word given in dictionaries for -this. All the grammarians who ever wrote about this subject say that -in our language two nouns so used together simply to name one thing -become one word (meaning merely that they cease to be two words in -such use). Of course there is much disagreement, and it does not seem -probable that everybody will ever write all such terms alike; but it -is absolutely certain that some compound words of such make are as -fully established as if their elements were not usable separately, -and it seems impossible to distinguish in any reasonable way between -one such name and any other. In other words, if “honey-bag” is a -compound--and it is, no matter how many or what persons write it as -two words--“mail-bag,” “meal-bag,” and every similar name of a bag is -a compound; and if names of bags, then likewise every similar name of -anything else is a compound. - - * * * - -=The appended clipping is from a proof of a college publication, and is -part of a class history. It appears as it came from the compositor’s -hands. The editor of the annual in which it will appear submitted -the first of my questions (indicated below) to the president of his -college, and though the latter enjoys considerable local prominence -as an educator and a Greek scholar, yet was he unable to enlighten -us upon this point. “In oratory we have shown our powers, and look -forward to the time when the Demosthenes of ’Ninety-eight will sway -senates and our Ciceros the political world.” What is the plural form -of “Demosthenes”? The plural is clearly the form the author had in -mind while writing it, but I am ignorant of either rule or authority -governing such cases. Would you prefer reconstructing the sentence? To -cover our ignorance somewhat, I suggested the following: “In oratory -we have shown our powers, and now look forward to the time when -’Ninety-eight’s disciples of Demosthenes will sway senates, and its -Ciceros the political world.” In the word “Reinoehl” (a proper noun), -should the diphthong be used? I stated that it should not be used, and -was contradicted by the editor of this same publication, who said that -the president of the college maintained that the diphthong was correct. -Though I could quote no authority, yet I believe I am right. The word -is a German one, as you will have noticed. The words Schaeffer, Saeger, -and Steinhaeuser appear without the diphthong on the same page with the -word Reinoehl, yet they passed unchallenged by the editor. Would they -not come under the same head as the one mentioned first?= - -The quotation does not seem to show positively that a plural was -intended. As there was only one Demosthenes sufficiently famous for -the comparison, so the writer might mean only the one best oratorical -student. It is not an unnatural inference, though, that the plural was -intended. The plural form of “Demosthenes” is “Demostheneses.” Why -hesitate over that any more than over “Ciceros”? A regular English -plural is as good for one as for the other. Greek common nouns with -the termination _es_ form the plural by substituting _æ_ for that -ending, as “hoplites, hoplitæ; hermes, hermæ.” Our second example is -originally a proper name, but was and is used as a common noun, meaning -a bust that may or may not represent the god Hermes; but this is not a -good argument in favor of a Greek plural of “Demosthenes.” The change -suggested is not good, because “disciples” is not meant, the intention -being merely to note a similarity, and not a studied imitation: In the -German name separate letters should be used, as they represent umlaut -interchangeably with a double-dotted vowel without the _e_; thus, -either “Reinoehl” or “Reinöhl” is right, but “Reinœhl” is wrong. The -college president must have had the umlaut character (ö) in mind, not -the ligature (æ), in answering the question. All the names mentioned -are amenable to the same decision; what is right in one is right in all. - - * * * - -=An advertisement writer brought to the office, a few days since, -copy for an advertisement for a certain complexion soap in which the -word which is underlined occurred: “Combined with the _emollience_ -of cucumber juice.” The proof-reader queried the word to the -author, informing him that it could not be found in the dictionary -(International, 1891); his response was that the word expressed the -idea intended to be conveyed better than any other that he knew of, and -therefore he should use it, regardless of the dictionary. I have since -examined the Century Dictionary and fail to find the word. The question -arising in my mind is, Should the proof-reader endeavor, when the -author is present, as he was in this case, to induce him to use a word -for which authority can be produced, or should the author be allowed, -without a word of protest, to coin words at his own sweet will? It -seems to me that the proof-reader should not be required to blindly -follow an author in a case of this kind after he has satisfied himself -that there is no warrant, except the whim of the author, for the use of -such words. - -Not long since, in reading a catalogue of road machinery I noticed -“barrow-pit.” Being somewhat in doubt whether it should be compounded, -as already written, or two words, I consulted the International, and -also the Century Dictionary, but failed to find the word in either, -finally concluding to use the hyphen. Which is correct--barrow-pit, or -barrow pit, or barrowpit? My preference is for the use of the hyphen.= - -The writer was perfectly justifiable. If no word not in a dictionary -could be used, the language could not grow, and there would be many -ideas left inexpressible, for want of words. Johnson’s dictionary -contained many more words than any preceding work, and each new -dictionary since issued has increased the record. This could not have -been done if people had not used new words. Although “emollience” is -not in any dictionary, there is sufficient authorization in the fact -that -ence is used in forming nouns from adjectives in -ent, something -that any one may do at any time, just as one may add -less to any -noun, as “cigarless,” having no cigar. Emollience is the only possible -single word for “character of being emollient (softening).” This is not -properly a case of “whim.” The only proper restriction against such -neologism is that it should not be indulged unnecessarily, as when -there is already existent a good word for the sense to be expressed. - -“Barrow-pit” is the only form that principle and commonest usage -will justify for this word--but the same principle gives also -“advertisement-writer,” “complexion-soap,” “cucumber-juice,” and -“road-machinery,” each of which you write as two words. Your decision -to use the hyphen in “barrow-pit” is in accordance with all text-book -teaching on the subject, and unless such teaching is applicable in all -strictly similar cases it is _all bad_. It can hardly be necessary to -reach any such pessimistic conclusion as that expressed in a letter -from a country superintendent of schools--“I do not know anything about -it, and I do not believe any one else does.” Our grammarians are not -all idiots. What possible principle could justify such a difference -as “advertisement writer” and “proof-reader” (for “one who writes -advertisements” and “one who reads proof”)? If one of them is one -word, the other also is one, the only difference being that some such -familiar short words are written without a hyphen. - - * * * - -=You in a recent edition, speaking of Roman type, used lower-case -_r_. We write to ask what, if any, warrant you have among grammarians -or lexicographers for the lower-case initial letter in an adjective -of this class. Would it by the same authority be proper to use a -lower-case in the word “Parisian,” “Chicago” used as an adjective, -etc.?= - -No rule as to capitalizing has wider acceptance or better basis in -principle than that an adjective derived from a proper noun should -be capitalized, and “Roman” is such an adjective. However, in the -connection this word has in the matter with which we are dealing, -the lower-case letter is not wrong, though “parisian,” “chicago” in -any use, or any other such use of a lower-case initial letter would -be wrong. Reasons will be given after some authorities are cited. -The “Century Dictionary” says: “Roman, _a._ ... [_l. c._ or _cap._] -Noting a form of letter or type of which the text of this book is an -example”; also, “Roman, _n._ ... [_l. c._] A roman letter or type, in -distinction from an _italic_.” The “Standard,” under the noun, “[R- or -r-] A style of ceriphed type. ... also, a black gothic letter, etc.” -The “Imperial,” the standard Scotch dictionary, says of the adjective, -“applied to the common, upright letter in printing, as distinguished -from _italic_,” and of the noun, “A roman letter or type.” Benjamin -Drew, in “Pens and Types,” page 199, in speaking of specimens of -old-style type given in his book, says: “The next is a Fac-simile of -four roman and three italic Lines.” He says on page 57, in introducing -two lists of foreign words: “The roman list is destined to be -continually lengthening, while the italic, save as it receives new -accretions from foreign sources, must be correspondingly diminishing.” -Webster and Worcester missed the point of distinction in usage that was -discerned by the other lexicographers, and they capitalize “Roman” and -“Italic.” The questioner does not say anything about “italics,” used -in the same paragraph with “roman,” yet evidently the two words should -be treated alike. In fact, neither word in this use has its literal -sense, nor conveys a thought of Italy or Rome. When this literal sense -is expressed the words should be capitalized, just as “Parisian” and -“Chicago” should be. Webster actually says that “Roman” means “upright, -erect,” which is plainly not a meaning showing connection with a proper -noun, and, in fact, is not a true definition for the word with which it -is given. The word has no real sense other than its literal one, but -the literal allusion is so far removed from conscious apprehension in -the printing use that it is proper and prevalent usage to write it as -a common noun or adjective, just as such form has become prevalent in -many other cases, as-- - - boycott - bowie-knife - badminton - gothic - herculean - protean - china - india-rubber - ampere - -Have our correspondents ever noticed these words in books? The writer -of this answer has no hesitation in asserting that “italics” and -“italicize,” which have far more literary use than “roman,” will be -found with a lower-case initial much more frequently than otherwise; -and the same is true of “roman” in printers’ use, which must be looked -for mainly in printers’ books. What is here said, however, should not -be applied too strictly; the word in question should be capitalized in -special work such as that of our correspondents, where probably all -similar words have capitals, as Gothic, Doric, Ionic, etc. - - * * * * * - -SPELLING AND DICTIONARIES. - -=Kindly permit me to make a few comments. As to “honour, fervour, -ardour,” etc., you say that “undoubtedly the American way (_i. e._, -honor, etc.) is better than the other, historically as well as -economically.” I suppose that “economically” means the saving of one -letter; that I do not consider as worthy of note at all. As to the -historical point, the words in Latin are all “honor, ardor, fervor, -labor, color,” etc.; but then in French, through which they came into -English, they are “honneur, couleur,” etc., so that it seems to me that -the _u_ is historically defensible. - -“Sceptical” or “skeptical”--a matter of indifference; the hard -_c_ represents the Greek kappa in any case. I suppose you spell -“speculator,” yet the Greek is σπεκουλάτωρ; so “sceptre” is the Greek -σκήπτρον. So we might write “spektakle” if we cared to do so; indeed, -many Greek scholars do use _k_ where ordinary people would use _c_, as -“Asklepiad, Korkyra,” etc. - -“Ascendant, ascendancy”--the usual plan is to take the letter found -in the supine of the Latin verb; thus, “dependent,” from Latin -“dependens,” “intermittent,” from Latin “intermittens,” “dominant,” -from Latin “dominans,” and so on. On this plan “ascendent” and -“ascendency” would be right, as “scando” and “ascendo” make “scandens” -and “ascendens.” - -You say, “Each of the large dictionaries is worthy of acceptance as -final authority in every instance.” Not by everybody, by any manner of -means. There are many better scholars than the dictionary-makers. Would -you expect Mr. Gladstone, John Ruskin, Andrew Lang, Archbishop Temple, -Bishops Lightfoot and Westcott, Dean Farrar, and many others to accept -the dictum of a dictionary man in every instance? Why, I do not do it -myself. Indeed, though I possess Greek, Latin, and French dictionaries, -I have never possessed an English one, and do not much regard them or -the people who think them infallible. Educated people in England have -no such opinion about dictionaries; in fact, they consider _themselves_ -the source of authority in matters of usage and pronunciation. Oxford -and Cambridge men and members of the educated classes in England are -the sole arbiters in such matters; there is no appeal against them. -Richard Grant White thoroughly grasped this and expressed it very well. -Just as all classical scholars try to write Attic Greek, _i. e._, the -Greek of the inhabitants of one Greek city, and entirely disregard -the millions of other Greeks (even though so eminent as Homer and -Herodotus), so all English-speaking people should model their language -on that of the educated classes of Great Britain.= - -“Economically,” as used in the article criticised above, meant the -saving of one letter, and as many scholars, both English and American, -are noting such economy, and making it very important, it may be -concluded that it is worthy of note. Certainly the spellings “honour,” -etc., are defensible historically--but no assertion has been made that -they were not; the saying was merely that the other way is better -historically. The words came into English through French, but the Latin -spelling is preferable for more reasons than one. If we are to preserve -the _u_ because it is in the French words, is not the reasoning -equally applicable to the whole syllable in which the letter is used? -Would it not be equally reasonable to preserve the other _u_ in the -first syllable of “couleur”? The French themselves once spelled these -words--or most of them--_or_. They changed them probably to represent -better the natural French sound of such syllables. Because Englishmen -first learned such words from Frenchmen does not seem a valid reason -why the former may not revert to the historical original, which is more -in keeping with English analogy, and better represents the English -sound. - -As to “sceptical” and “skeptical,” one who knows the need of a vast -majority of English-speaking people of an authoritative choice -between the two forms can never admit that the spelling is “a matter -of indifference,” even if it could be reasonably admitted on any -ground. Our correspondent is unfortunate in his selection of an -example here, for σπεκουλάτωρ seems to be not a true Greek word, but -only a transliteration of Latin “speculator,” the true etymon of the -English word, which does not come from Greek. We might have written -“spektakle” if we had cared to do so, as it is spelled with _k_s in -some Teutonic languages; but in the close connection here there is a -strong suggestion that this word might also be Greek, which it is not. -The reason for preferring “skeptical” is that there is not another -English word in which _c_ in the combination _sce_ is hard, and so -“sceptical” is a very bad spelling, even if it is prevalent in Great -Britain. - -On the plan mentioned in the letter “ascendent” and “ascendency” are -right; but the other spellings are copied from the French, so potent -with our correspondent in the other case, and are prevalent in present -usage. “Ascendant” and “ascendancy” are preferable for this reason, -and because the use of these spellings removes one of the puzzling -differences which most people can not understand or explain. The plan -mentioned would also give “descendent,” which has no currency as a -noun, though it has been used as an adjective, and “descendant” and -“ascendant” are so much alike in their nature that it is better not to -make them different in form. - -“Each of the large dictionaries is worthy of acceptance as final -authority in every instance” was intended only as an assurance that -those who desired such an authority--and there are many such--might -reasonably accept the one chosen, without trying to make exceptions. -There could be no intention of dictating that scholars should “accept -the dictum of a dictionary man” in every instance, for that would be -“putting the cart before the horse” with a vengeance. One need feel no -hesitation in saying, however, that the English-speaking educated man -does not live, and never will live, who can afford to ignore utterly -dictionaries of English. No dictionary is made as our correspondent -seems to assume that all are made, though probably every one of them -has provided employment for some men not so thoroughly educated as men -can be. Educated people, in America as well as in England, make the -scholarly part of the language, though it contains much that is made by -the common people and that finds just as thorough establishment as that -made by the scholars. Dictionary-makers never pose as language-makers. -They are recorders of what is already made, which is so great in -quantity that no scholar can hope to master the fiftieth part of it -so thoroughly as to need no record of it. Even supposing that Oxford -and Cambridge men and members of the educated classes in England are -the sole arbiters in such matters--it is not supposable, though--how -is the rest of the world to know their decisions if they are not -recorded? Any record of them will constitute a dictionary, for that is -exactly what a dictionary is--namely, a record of the accepted details -of diction. As a matter of fact, also, our actual dictionary-makers, -those who are vested with authoritative decision, are selected from -among the very men for whom independence of dictionary men’s dicta is -claimed. Noah Webster, Dr. Worcester, Professor Goodrich, Professor -Whitney, Dr. March, President Porter, Dr. C. P. G. Scott, and Dr. J. -A. H. Murray--not to mention the many other English scholars who have -been dictionary-makers--rank with the men named in the letter, if some -of these do not outrank some of those in scholarship, and they are -the ones who choose where there is a choice in making the record. -Dictionaries contain errors, and scholars are independently above -acceptance of the errors; but we may repeat the saying that when once a -large dictionary is chosen as authority it is better, as to matters of -spelling, to accept it in full. - - - - -_HINTS ON IMPOSITION._ - -A handbook for printers by T. B. WILLIAMS. - -This book is a thoroughly reliable guide to the imposition of book -forms, and shows, in addition to the usual diagrams, the folds of the -sheet for each form, with concise instructions which may be readily -understood by the advanced printer or the apprentice. Several chapters, -fully illustrated, are devoted to “making” the margins, and this -feature alone is well worth the price of the book. 96 pages, 4 by 6 -inches, bound in full leather with gold side stamp; $1.00. - - -_EVERYBODY’S POCKET DICTIONARY._ - -Contains 33,000 words; the pronunciation, syllable divisions, part of -speech, capitalization, participles, and definitions being given. It is -an invaluable companion to everybody who has occasion to talk, read or -write. This book is not a “speller,” made hastily only to sell; but is -an accurate and complete dictionary, compiled from the latest edition -of Webster’s great International. Especially valuable to every editor, -printer, pressman, student and stenographer, and worth ten times its -cost to anybody. Size, 2½ by 5½ inches; leather, indexed, 50 cents; -cloth, not indexed, 25 cents. - - -_STEREOTYPING._ - -By C. S. PARTRIDGE, Superintendent of Stereotyping for A. N. Kellogg -Newspaper Company. - -This is the only book devoted exclusively to papier-maché stereotyping -which has ever been published, and is an exhaustive treatise of the -subject, containing detailed descriptions of all the best methods -of work in present use, including Cold Process, instructions for -operating the Rolling Machine, Paste Recipes, Metal Formulas, Hints -for the Protection of Type, Suggestions for the Operating and Care of -Machinery, Instructions for Grinding Tools, and a complete list of -unexpired patents pertaining to Stereotyping Methods and Machinery, -including number of patent, date of issue and name of inventor. 140 -pages, 6 by 8½ inches; 50 illustrations; $1.50. - - -_MAGNA CHARTA BOND ADS._ - -The complete set of 148 designs submitted in the recent advertisement -competition of the Riverside Paper Company can now be obtained in book -form. This is a valuable work for the compositor, the apprentice, -the advertiser or the writer of advertisements, as it gives many -suggestions as to proper display. A 160-page book, 9 by 12 inches in -size. Sent to any address on receipt of 50 cents. - - ◉ ◉ ◉ - - _The above for sale by The Inland Printer Company, - 150 Nassau Street, NEW YORK. 214 Monroe Street, CHICAGO._ - - - - -The Inland Printer. - - -What it is. - -THE INLAND PRINTER is a monthly magazine of from 100 to 120 pages, -9 by 12 inches in size, devoted to printing, publishing, engraving, -electrotyping, stereotyping, bookbinding, papermaking and all the -kindred trades. It is a work of art, and should be in the hands of -every lover of the typographic art or anyone interested in newspaper -work or advertising. Issued promptly on the first of every month. -Subscriptions can begin with any number. - - -What it Contains. - -Its pages are filled with the most instructive and interesting original -articles relating to the matters that properly come within its domain, -besides an amount of valuable data, trade topics, correspondence, -craft items, recent patents, recipes, hints and suggestions that will -surprise you. In addition to this, it is copiously illustrated, and the -whole make-up and general character of the work is such as to challenge -admiration. - -The Illustrations. - -The full page illustrations and those worked in with the text are -all of a high order, and include half-tone, zinc etching and other -methods of engraving, alike valuable to the engraver, process-worker, -compositor and pressman. Colored plates, by various processes, are also -shown. - -The Text. - -Taking up a copy at random one finds articles on proofreading, the -point system in type founding, notes on bookbinding, natural colors -in the printing press, newspapers and newspaper men, the country -newspaper, typographical make-ready, advertising, convention notes, -review of type designs, pressroom queries and answers, process -engraving, new patents, trade notes and much general information. - -The Advertisements. - -These are as important in a way as any other part of THE INLAND -PRINTER, for the reason that they are set in attractive and catchy -style, alike beneficial to the compositor, and “ad.” writer, and -printed in the same excellent way that the other part of the journal -is. This part will interest you as well as the text. - - -SUBSCRIPTION PRICE: - -$2.00 per Year; $1.00 for Six Months; 20c. per Copy. - -No free copies and no exchanges. Subscribe through your type founder, -material dealer or news agent, or send direct to - - The Inland Printer Company, - 150 NASSAU ST., 212-214 MONROE ST., - NEW YORK. CHICAGO. - - - - -Transcriber’s Note: - -The text has been preserved as closely as possible to the original -publication. - -Page 79 refers to the use of a different type to distinguish question -and answer text. The questions start and finish with equals signs = in -this ebook. - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Proof-Reading, by F. Horace Teall - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PROOF-READING *** - -***** This file should be named 50366-0.txt or 50366-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/5/0/3/6/50366/ - -Produced by David Edwards and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net, in celebration -of Distributed Proofreaders' 15th Anniversary, using images -generously made available by The Internet Archive - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - diff --git a/old/50366-0.zip b/old/50366-0.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index cb50673..0000000 --- a/old/50366-0.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/50366-h.zip b/old/50366-h.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index abdba28..0000000 --- a/old/50366-h.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/50366-h/50366-h.htm b/old/50366-h/50366-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index d08d37a..0000000 --- a/old/50366-h/50366-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,3533 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" - "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> - <head> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" /> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" /> - <title> - The Project Gutenberg eBook of Proof-reading, by Horace Teall - </title> - <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" /> - <style type="text/css"> - body {margin: 0 10%;} - - h1,h2 {text-align: center; clear: both;} - h2 {line-height: 2em;} - - p {margin-top: 1em; text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 1em; text-indent: 1em;} - - /* General */ - .noi {text-indent: 0;} - .center {text-align: center; text-indent: 0;} - .center-left {text-align: center; padding-right: 20em;} - .smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} - blockquote {margin: 0; font-weight: bold; font-size: .8em;} - - /* Books */ - .fancy {font-family: "EastMarket", Trebuchet MS, Impact, Verdana, sans-serif;} - .p120, .p130, .p150, .p180 {font-weight: bold;} - .p120 {font-size: 1.2em;} - .p130 {font-size: 1.3em;} - .p150 {font-size: 1.5em;} - .p180 {font-size: 1.8em;} - .inline {display: inline;} - .inline-head {padding-top: 1em;} - .sans {font-family: sans-serif;} - .wordspacing {word-spacing: 2em;} - .floatleft {float: left;} - .floatright {float: right;} - .books-container {max-width: 40em; width: 40em; margin: auto;} - - /* Table */ - table {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; border-collapse: collapse; max-width: 31em;} - .tdl {text-align: left; margin-left: 0; padding-left: 2em; text-indent: -1em; padding-right: 1em;} - .tdr {text-align: right; vertical-align: top;} - - /* Notes */ - ins {text-decoration: none; border-bottom: 1px dotted #dcdcdc;} - em {font-style: italic;} - strong {font-weight: bold;} - .tn {width: 60%; margin: 2em 20%; background: #dcdcdc; padding: 1em;} - ul {list-style: square;} - ul.nobullet {list-style: none; text-align: left;} - li {margin-bottom: .5em;} - a:link {text-decoration: none;} - - /* Horizontal rules */ - hr {width: 40%; margin: 2em 30%; clear: both;} - hr.short {width: 40%; margin: 2em 30%;} - hr.divider {width: 65%; margin: 4em 17.5%;} - - /* Page numbers */ - .pagenum {position: absolute; right: 2%; text-indent: 0em; - text-align: right; font-size: x-small; - font-weight: normal; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; - letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; - color: #999; border-top: 1px solid; border-bottom: 1px solid; - background-color: inherit; padding: 1px 4px;} - - /* Images */ - .figcenter {clear: both; margin: 2em auto; text-align: center; max-width: 100%;} - img {max-width: 100%; width: 100%; height: auto;} - .width500 {width: 500px;} - - /* Drop caps */ - .dropcap {font-size: 2.8em; float: left; line-height: 0.85em; height: 0.85em; padding: 0 .02em 0 0; font-weight: normal;} - .dropcap2 {font-size: 1.8em; float: left; line-height: 1em; height: 1em; padding: 0 .02em 0 0; font-weight: normal;} - - /* Text columns */ - .columns {width: 400px; margin: auto;} /* width of image */ - ul{margin: 0 0 1em 2em; padding: 0;} - ul li {line-height: 1.2em; margin: 0; padding: 0;} - html ul li {position: relative;} /* for IE */ - ul li.column1 { margin-left: 0em; } - ul li.column2 { margin-left: 8em; } - ul li.column3 { margin-left: 16em; } - li.reset {margin-top: -4.8em;} - /* top margin 4 rows x 1.2em high */ - li.reset3 {margin-top: -3.6em;} - - @media handheld { - body {margin: .5em; padding: 0; width: 95%;} - p {margin-top: .1em; text-align: justify; margin-bottom: .1em;} - p {text-indent: 1em;} - hr {border-width: 0; margin: 0;} - img {max-width: 100%; width: auto; height: auto;} - .tn {width: 80%; margin: 0 10%; background: #dcdcdc; padding: 1em;} - .hidehand {display: none; visibility: hidden;} - a.label:link, .fnanchor {vertical-align: top;} - - /* Drop caps */ - .dropcap, .dropcap2 {float: left;} - ul li.column1 { margin-left: 0em; } - ul li.column2 { margin-left: 0em; } - ul li.column3 { margin-left: 0em; } - li.reset, li.reset3 {margin-top: 0em;} - .floatleft {float: left;} - .floatright {float: right;} - .books-container {margin: 2em 1%; width: 98%; text-align: center; max-width: 100%;} - } - </style> - </head> -<body> - - -<pre> - -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Proof-Reading, by F. Horace Teall - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - -Title: Proof-Reading - A Series of Essays for Reading and Their Employers, and - for Authors and Editors - -Author: F. Horace Teall - -Release Date: November 2, 2015 [EBook #50366] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PROOF-READING *** - - - - -Produced by David Edwards and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net, in celebration -of Distributed Proofreaders' 15th Anniversary, using images -generously made available by The Internet Archive - - - - - - -</pre> - - -<div class="figcenter width500"> -<img src="images/cover.jpg" width="500" height="763" alt="Cover" /> - -<p class="center">The cover was produced by the transcriber, using elements -from the original publication, and placed in the public domain.</p> -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="divider" /> -<h1>PROOF-READING.</h1> -</div> - -<div class="books-container"> -<p class="center p120">A SERIES OF ESSAYS FOR READERS AND -THEIR EMPLOYERS, AND FOR -AUTHORS AND EDITORS.</p> - -<p class="center p120">BY F. HORACE TEALL,</p> - -<p class="center smcap"><strong>Critical Proof-reader and Editor on the Century and Standard -Dictionaries; also Editor of Proof-room Notes and -Queries Department of “The -Inland Printer.”</strong></p> - -<hr class="short" /> - -<p class="center smcap"><strong>Chicago:<br /> -The Inland Printer Company.</strong><br /> -1899.</p> -</div> - - - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="divider" /> -</div> -<div class="books-container"> -<p class="center smcap"><strong>Copyrighted, 1898,<br /> -by<br /> -The Inland Printer Company,<br /> -Chicago, Illinois.</strong></p> - - -<p class="noi smcap"><strong>Press of The Henry O. Shepard Company, Chicago.</strong></p> -</div> - - - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="divider" /> -</div> -<h2>PREFACE.</h2> - -<p class="noi"><span class="dropcap2">T</span>HIS collection of essays will show very plainly that they were not -written with a view to publication in a book. As a result of this, -the subject-matter is not treated consecutively, systematically, or -exhaustively. Some references to momentary events at the time of -writing, even, have been left unchanged.</p> - -<p>It is hoped, however, that, even with the acknowledged imperfections, -the book may be found suggestive and useful by those to whose service -it is dedicated in the title-page.</p> - -<p>Some of the chapters are slightly technical, having been originally -addressed to proof-readers only; but even these are thought to be -sufficiently general in their composition to be interesting and useful -to authors and editors.</p> - - - - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="divider" /> -</div> - -<h2><a name="contents" id="contents"></a>CONTENTS.</h2> - -<table summary="Contents"> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">The Proof-room</td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#i">7</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Some Practical Criticism for Proof-readers</td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#ii">11</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">The Proof-reader’s Responsibility</td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#iii">17</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Style and Style-cards</td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#iv">22</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Whim versus Principle</td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#v">26</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Authorities and Opinions</td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#vi">32</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Authoritative Stumbling-blocks in the Study of the English -Language</td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#vii">37</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Preparation of Copy</td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#viii">43</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Copy and Proof-reading</td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#ix">48</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">The Dictionary in the Proof-room</td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#x">53</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">The Proof-room Library</td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#xi">58</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">The Copy-reader</td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#xii">62</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Proper Order of Parts in a Book</td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#xiii">68</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">The Book Make-up</td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#xiv">73</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Grammar and Diction</td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#xv">79</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Form of Words</td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#xvi">86</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl">Spelling and Dictionaries</td> -<td class="tdr"><a href="#xvii">97</a></td> -</tr> -</table> - - - -<div class="chapter"> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">7</a></span> -<hr class="divider" /> -</div> - -<p class="center p180"><a name="i" id="i"></a>PROOF-READING.</p> - -<hr class="short" /> - -<h2>CHAPTER I.<br /> -<small>THE PROOF-ROOM</small>.</h2> - - -<p class="noi"><span class="dropcap">T</span>HOUGH commonly acknowledged theoretically, the relative importance -of good proof-reading is often practically unrecognized. Doubtless -few of those who employ readers will assent to this averment, and -the reason for their non-assent is also the basis of the assertion. -Usually the proof-room is under the authority of a general foreman or -superintendent, often not a good proof-reader himself, and who must -necessarily devote most of his time to other matters. If the foreman -is really competent to read proof, he will manage to secure and keep a -force of good readers with less trouble than those have who are not so -well fitted to judge the work done.</p> - -<p>When good work is to be done—and where is the man who avowedly does -not desire good work?—accomplished workmen are required, not properly -in any one department alone, but all through; and perhaps this fact -is partly responsible for the notion, not uncommon, but erroneous and -costly, that almost any intelligent person can read proof.</p> - -<p>Few persons realize fully the accomplishment and acuteness of -perception necessary for the best proof-reading.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">8</a></span> He is the best -reader who, in addition to mechanical experience and accuracy, has a -comprehensive education and can apply it practically. Of course, we can -not expect our reader to know absolutely everything, but he should at -least know enough to suspect error when there is evident occasion for -suspicion, and challenge it for the author’s attention when that is -possible. He should have general information sufficient to enable him -to correct absolute error when he can not refer the matter to author or -editor—a contingency frequently arising in newspaper-work.</p> - -<p>Above all, the thoroughly accomplished proof-reader will know enough -not to make changes in what is written when he has no right to do so. -He will often know that what is written can not be right, and yet will -have sense enough not to alter it without authorization. He will also -have sense enough to assume a certain amount of authority on proper -occasion, as in the case of an evident slip in the copy of work that -has a set form. A good example is work like the definitions of verbs -in the “Century Dictionary.” In these definitions the word <em>to</em> is -used only with the first clause. The good proof-reader will have the -word omitted even if it does happen to be in the copy, notwithstanding -the strictest orders to follow copy; in fact, this is so plain a -case that a very good compositor even would not set the word in the -wrong place. Another forcible instance comes to hand at the moment of -writing, in a letter written by a New York proof-reader, who mentions -<em>Assemblyman</em> Amos J. Cummings. Mr. Cummings never was an Assemblyman. -He is a <em>Congressman</em>, and Chairman of one of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">9</a></span> the important Congress -committees; moreover, he is an old-time New York compositor. When he -was an editor on a New York paper another present Congressman was -reporting Brooklyn news for the same paper. Almost every Brooklyn item -sent in at that time had, in the writing, parallel streets reported as -crossing, or cross-streets as being parallel; and these errors were -frequently corrected in the proof-room.</p> - -<p>The proof-reader who can and does make such corrections is much better -for such work than one who merely catches typographical errors, even if -he sometimes allows a wrong letter to pass in reading. Certainly a New -York reader, especially a union man, should know better than to write -of <em>Assemblyman</em> Cummings; and it would be well for all proof-readers -to be sufficiently up in current affairs to correct the error, though -it would not be fair to insist upon such correction as part of the -reader’s qualification.</p> - -<p>The present difficulty will never cease until the money value of good -proof-reading is better recognized than it ever has been. At least -one union in this country has always made a maximum weekly scale, and -insisted upon classing readers with all other hands, at the same wages. -Employers should insist upon paying as much over the union scale as -they choose, and will always find it conducive to their interest to pay -liberally for proof-reading and demand first-class work.</p> - -<p>If any one is fortunate enough to have a first-class proof-reader in -his employ, he will be foolish to let that reader go, if money—within -reasonable bounds—will keep him. Fifty men may try to fill the place -and fail before another really competent man is found.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">10</a></span> -A large proof-room should have its own foreman—not merely a head -reader, but one actually in authority, just as any foreman should be, -and with higher pay than the other readers have, and also with the -chief responsibility. The room must, of course, be subject to the -general foreman with regard to many details, whether it has a separate -foreman or not; but, whoever is in charge, the readers should not be -too much restricted in small, formal matters. An extreme instance that -will illustrate practically what is meant by this arose through strict -orders not to change anything from copy, too literally obeyed. A letter -was missing from a word always spelled the one way, and the reader -queried its insertion. He was an ordinarily good reader, too, who -certainly had not the natural habit of doing anything stupid.</p> - -<p>Undoubtedly better work will be turned out where there is no -possibility of such queries being made, for the necessity of making -them, under orders, imposes upon the reader an unfair burden of useless -watchfulness that inevitably rivets his attention where it is not -needed, and draws it away from matters that demand the utmost care.</p> - - - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="divider" /> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">11</a></span> -</div> - -<h2><a name="ii" id="ii"></a>CHAPTER II.<br /> -<small>SOME PRACTICAL CRITICISM FOR PROOF-READERS</small>.</h2> - - -<p class="noi"><span class="dropcap">A</span> PERIODICAL highly esteemed in literary circles, in reviewing a book, -said: “The proof-reading is so bad that we infer that its author -could not have seen the proofs.” The publishers of the book do their -own printing, and probably think their proof-reading is as good as -possible, though they may realize that it is not as good as it should -be. Many employers have had trying experiences in their efforts to -secure good proof-readers, and such experience may have operated in -favor of poor workmen, through sheer discouragement of their employers.</p> - -<p>An inference that “its author could not have seen the proofs,” while -possibly natural, is hasty; for, while many authors examine their -proofs carefully, and are reasonably quick to perceive and correct -errors, most authors are not good proof-readers.</p> - -<p>Errors in print were quite as common as they now are when “following -copy” was common, as it was in New York, for instance, about thirty -years ago. One of the best offices in which a man could set type was -Alvord’s, flourishing at the time mentioned. In it the compositor -measured for his bill absolutely everything for which a customer paid, -be it a cut, a blank page, or anything else. There, likewise, he was -seldom called upon to change a letter or a point except to make it<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">12</a></span> -like his copy. Certain large offices in New York now are like Alvord’s -only in the fact that their proof-reading is not good—and the authors -see most of the proofs. In one important matter these offices are -utterly unlike Alvord’s—no compositor can earn decent wages in them.</p> - -<p>Employers are largely responsible for the common poorness of our -proof-reading, because they have not recognized the real nature of the -work, and have insisted upon classing it as mechanical. Proof-reading -will never be what it should be until the proof-reader ranks with -the editor both in importance and in pay. With no more pay than that -of the good compositor, and sometimes with less than the first-class -compositor’s pay, the proof-reader’s position will not be adequately -filled. Properly qualified proof-readers seldom remain long at the -reading-desk, because they can and will do better elsewhere.</p> - -<p>Something should be done to keep the best readers as such, for they are -all climbing up into other fields of labor where they find stronger -inducements, both in credit and in pay. Even in the case of our large -dictionaries and encyclopædias, almost every one of which is decidedly -bettered by the work of some one special proof-reader, there is little -acknowledgment of the fact, and so there is little encouragement for -the proof-reader to remain a proof-reader.</p> - -<p>No one is surely fit to be trusted with proof-reading on particular -work without having learned by practical experience. The best -proof-readers must have as a foundation a natural aptitude, and they -should have at least a good common education; but even these are not<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">13</a></span> -sufficient without practical training. One of the poorest compositors -on a New York morning paper was very helpful in the proof-room -occasionally, while some of the best compositors were not so good -at reading. It is undeniable that printers themselves make the best -proof-readers when to their technical knowledge they add scholarship.</p> - -<p>A first-class compositor is worthy of special favor, and generally gets -it. A maker-up or a stone-hand who works well and quickly, or sometimes -even one who does excellent work without great speed, is a treasure. -Compositor, maker-up, and stone-hand, however, all do work that must -be examined and corrected by the reader; and of course that reader is -best who can also do any or all of the other work. What is said of -the reader’s qualifications is not altogether theoretical; it is all -in line with the practical needs of every good proof-room, and every -employer wants a good proof-room.</p> - -<p>The correction of the evil, which is certainly a desideratum, may -be secured eventually in one way, and that way is the one necessary -for authors as well as proof-readers. We need improved methods of -general education. We need more general training and development -of the thinking power. Seldom indeed do even our greatest thinkers -reason sufficiently. No amount of argument could prove this assertion -beyond question, but some examples will serve a good purpose as an -object-lesson.</p> - -<p>One of our most prominent philologists, a man of great learning, -addressed a meeting of scholars, speaking strongly in favor of what -he calls “reformed” spelling—which would be re-formed indeed, but is -not<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">14</a></span> yet proved to be entitled to the epithet “reformed.” Here is one -of his assertions: “One-sixth of the letters on a common printed page -are silent or misleading. Complete simplification would save one-sixth -of the cost of books.” Of course, he must have meant the cost of -printing. Even with one-sixth less work in printing, very nearly the -old cost of binding would remain, if not all of it; and any sort of -good binding is no small item in the cost of a book. But one-sixth of -the space occupied by the print would seldom be saved by the omission -of one-sixth of the letters. The magazine article containing the report -of the address is printed with the proposed new spelling. There is -not a line in it that shows omission of one-sixth of the letters now -commonly used in its words. One line in a paragraph of seven lines has -“batl” for “battle,” and if the two missing letters had been inserted -the word “the” might have been driven over into the next line; but the -total effect on the paragraph of all possible changes would have been -nothing—the same number of lines would be necessary for it. Certainly -the assertion that one-sixth would be saved was not sufficiently -thoughtful.</p> - -<p>A recent pretentious work on the English language and English grammar -(by Samuel Ramsey) would afford an example of loose thinking from -almost any of its 568 pages. A few only need be given here. As to -Danish influence on early English speech, it is said that “the -general effect ... was to shorten and simplify words that were long -or of different utterance, and dropping or shortening grammatical -forms.” It should have been easy for the author to perceive that this -sentence was not well constructed; and what can be<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">15</a></span> worse in a book on -grammar than an ungrammatical sentence? We are told that a feature of -English construction due to French influence is “the placing of the -adjective after the noun, or giving it a plural form—<em>sign manual, -Knights Templars</em>.” No English adjective ever has the plural form, -and <em>Templars</em> is rightly pluralized simply because it is a noun. -“No grammar will help us to distinguish the <em>lumbar</em> region from -the <em>lumber</em> region,” Mr. Ramsey says. But grammar does help us by -teaching us that <em>lumbar</em> is an adjective and <em>lumber</em> a noun. In -careful speech accent would indicate the difference, which should be -indicated in writing by joining the elements of the second term as -a compound—<em>lumber-region</em>. In a chapter of “Suggestions to Young -Writers,” the advice is given, “Let all your words be English, sound -reliable English, and nothing but English; and when you speak of a -spade call it by its name, and when you mean <em>hyperæsthesia</em>, say so.” -If a young writer “says so” by using the word instanced, will he use -“nothing but English”?</p> - -<p>Lord Tennyson is reported to have said: “I do not understand English -grammar. Take <em>sea-change</em>. Is <em>sea</em> here a substantive used -adjectively, or what? What is the logic of a phrase like <em>Catholic -Disabilities Annulling Bill</em>? Does <em>invalid chair maker</em> mean that the -chair-maker is a sickly fellow?” But Tennyson showed plainly in his -writing, by making compounds of such terms as <em>sea-change</em>, that he -felt, at least, that <em>sea</em> is not used adjectively, as “adjectively” -is commonly understood. He must have thought that the phrase whose -logic he asked for is wholly illogical and bad English, for he never -wrote one like it. His own<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">16</a></span> writing would never have contained the -three separate words “invalid chair maker”; he would have made it -“invalid chair-maker” (or chairmaker) for the sense he mentions, and -“invalid-chair maker” if he meant “a maker of chairs for invalids.” -Tennyson certainly used English words well enough to justify the -assumption that he knew English grammar passing well.</p> - -<p>George P. Marsh, in a lecture on the English language, said that -“<em>redness</em> is the name of a color,” and John Stuart Mill made a similar -assertion about <em>whiteness</em> in his book on “Logic.” Very little thought -is necessary for the decision that neither <em>redness</em> nor <em>whiteness</em> is -the name of a color, though each of the words includes such a name.</p> - -<p>It is not fashionable nowadays to conclude with a moral, but this -occasion is especially enticing, and here is the moral: Every -proof-reader who cares for real success in his profession should -cultivate the thinking habit, and learn not to jump to a conclusion.</p> - - - - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="divider" /> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">17</a></span> -</div> - -<h2><a name="iii" id="iii"></a>CHAPTER III.<br /> -<small>THE PROOF-READER’S RESPONSIBILITY</small>.</h2> - - -<p class="noi"><span class="dropcap">S</span>TRICTLY speaking, the responsibility of a proof-reader, on any kind -of work, should be very narrowly defined. In an ideal state of affairs -it would never go beyond close following of copy in every detail. Even -that is by no means always easy, and for a reason that should cause -writers to be very lenient with proof-readers. This reason is that -writers make much manuscript that is almost positively illegible, and -are often careless in many details that should be closely attended -to in the writing. But, since there is little ground for hoping that -writers will ever generally produce copy that can be reproduced -exactly, the question remains open, How much responsibility must the -proof-reader assume?</p> - -<p>A good illustration of the legal aspect of this question is found in -Benjamin Drew’s book, “Pens and Types,” published in its second edition -in 1889, as follows: “In an action brought against the proprietor of -Lloyd’s paper, in London, for damages for not inserting a newspaper -advertisement correctly, the verdict was for the defendant, by reason -of the illegibility of the writing.”</p> - -<p>“Illegibility of the writing” is a more serious stumbling-block even -than most writers know it to be,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">18</a></span> although many writers do know that -they are great sinners in this matter. Notwithstanding the fact that -it has been a subject of wide discussion, much more might profitably -be said about it, and it would be a great boon to printers if somebody -could devise a way of instituting a practical reform in the handwriting -of authors, editors, and reporters; but the incessant necessity of -deciphering what is almost undecipherable is our immediately practical -concern just now. What should be the limit of the proof-reader’s -responsibility here?</p> - -<p>Some time ago a New York paper had frequent articles in a handwriting -so bad that the compositors were paid double price for setting type -from it. One of the compositors, in talking with a proof-reader, -expressed the opinion that the readers had very easy work, and part -of his reason for the assumption was the fact (as he put it) that all -the copy was read for them by the compositors before the readers got -it. That same evening this compositor had some of the bad manuscript -mentioned, and for what the writer had intended as “June freshets” -the proof-reader found in his proof “Sierra forests.” Well, the -compositor read the manuscript first, but how much good did that do the -proof-reader? If the latter had passed the “Sierra forests” into print, -he would have deserved to be discharged, for any intelligent man should -know that one of the quoted terms could not possibly be used in any -connection where the other would make sense. That compositor probably -knew as well as the proof-reader did that what he set did not make -sense, but he also knew that the proof-reader would have to do better -with it, and that, no matter how much correcting he<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">19</a></span> had to do, it -would pay him better to do it than to lose too much time in the effort -to get it right at first. Again, the compositor had practically no -responsibility in the matter, though the one who shows most ability in -setting his type clean from bad copy is a better workman than others, -and correspondingly better assured of good employment.</p> - -<p>We have said that one who passed into print an error like the one -mentioned should be liable to discharge. This is true, because no -person reasonably fitted to read proof could fail to recognize it as -an error. The best proof-reader who ever lived, however, might in some -similar cases fail to read what is written exactly as it was intended -in the writing. Unfortunately, it is only too often the case that -proper names or generally unfamiliar words are written more illegibly -than common words, and names so written may easily be misprinted -after the best proof-reader has done his best with them. Where it is -possible, it should be the most natural thing in the world for anything -hard to decipher to be submitted to its writer. Commonly this can not -be done on daily newspapers, because there are so many writers who are -not within reach, reporters especially being generally away in search -of news; but even in the offices of newspapers, in extreme cases, -and with caution in deciding when it is well to do so, the matter -should be referred to an editor, for it is to the editors that final -responsibility for the wording of what is printed belongs.</p> - -<p>What has been said seems well calculated to indicate clearly the limit -which the writer would place in such matters upon the proof-reader’s -real responsibility.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">20</a></span> Naturally and equitably that limit is the exact -reproduction of what is written, as to the wording, but including -proper spelling and punctuation. Even at the expense of repetition, -this seems to be a good place for impressing upon writers the urgent -necessity for plain manuscript, in their own interest; for that is the -only sure instrument to secure beyond reasonable doubt the accuracy -that is desired by all writers.</p> - -<p>No careful author will allow his book to be printed without reading -it himself in proof; but this must be mainly for the wording only, as -the printer’s bill includes pay for good proof-reading. Here matters -are more simple as to the responsibility for getting the right words, -as even hurried work from manuscript can generally be referred to the -author in cases of real doubt. Occasionally this can not be done, -but these occasions are comparatively rare exceptions. Submission of -reasonable doubt to the author for his decision should be an important -feature of the reader’s responsibility. It hardly seems necessary to -dwell upon the question with regard to book-work, such work is seldom -done without time for necessary consultation. It is in newspaper and -job work that the greatest practical difficulty is encountered.</p> - -<p>One of the greatest annoyances to the newspaper-publisher and the -job-printer is the fact of having to reprint gratis advertisements or -jobs when some error has occurred in the first printing. Shall the -proof-reader be held responsible to the extent of paying for the work? -Only one answer is possible—No! Yet the proof-reader should not expect -too much leniency in this respect. He must be as careful as possible.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">21</a></span> -There is just one possible remedy for the trouble mentioned, and that -is that employers do not expect too much of such work to be done by the -reader, and that the reader insist upon having reasonable time in which -to do it. Nay, the employer should insist upon having a proof-reader -take sufficient time, in reading advertisements or job-work, to read -closely, letter by letter; and this should be had, even at the expense -of hiring an additional reader whenever such work becomes more in -quantity than the force already employed can handle properly.</p> - - - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="divider" /> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">22</a></span> -</div> - -<h2><a name="iv" id="iv"></a>CHAPTER IV.<br /> -<small>STYLE AND STYLE-CARDS.</small></h2> - - -<p class="noi"><span class="dropcap">A</span> NEW YORK composing-room was run for many years without a regular -style-card, and the foreman would not allow any posting of decisions as -to style. When, however, an advertisement was printed with <em>bar rooms</em> -as two words, and the foreman happened to notice it, the proof-reader -was asked sharply, “What is our style for <em>barroom</em>?” It was an -unwritten but established law in the office that <em>barroom</em> should be -one word; and the foreman, in that instance, did not think of the -probability that the advertiser had insisted upon his own form for the -term—as, in fact, he had.</p> - -<p>In the office where this happened the workers were as little hampered -with style as any workers possibly could be, and the foreman always -said he would have no style; yet there certainly was a “style of the -office,” with many absurdities, such as making <em>base ball</em> two words -and <em>football</em> one word, capitalizing common words of occupation before -names, as Barber Smith, Coachman Brown, etc. Some of the old-time -absurdities have since been corrected, <em>baseball</em>, for instance, now -being printed as one word.</p> - -<p>In a neighboring office the opposite extreme is exemplified, the -style-card being so intricate that some good compositors have worked -there many years without<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">23</a></span> really learning in full the “style of the -office.” Some of the compositors seldom do much correcting, but -the average of time lost in making really needless corrections is -unquestionably greater than in the office first mentioned.</p> - -<p>Book-offices also have their own intricacies of style, with the -additional bother of having to suit the varying whims of authors -and publishers. “Many men of many minds” write for the papers, but -their various whims need not be humored as those of book-writers must -be. Authors of books frequently insist upon having things their own -way, and too often the printers have to make that way for them, in -opposition to what the authors write. This is certainly something for -which the authors should be made to pay. If an author is determined -to have certain matters of style conform to a certain set of whims, -or even of good, logical opinions, he should write accordingly or pay -extra for the necessary changes.</p> - -<p>Nothing can be more sure than the fact that every printing-office -must have some working rules of the kind classed as the “style of -the office,” to which the work in general must conform, even when -authors’ whims sometimes interfere. At present almost every office -has some style peculiar to itself, that compositors and proof-readers -must learn in the beginning of their experience there, and which they -must unlearn on changing their place of employment. The greatest evil -in this lies in the fact that many of the peculiarities are purely -whimsical. Reformation is needed, and it is within the power of a -body of proof-readers to devise and inaugurate a practical reform, by -choosing from<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">24</a></span> among the various items of style those which seem best -to a majority of the readers, and requesting their general adoption by -employing printers.</p> - -<p>Benjamin Drew’s book, “Pens and Types,” has a chapter on “style” that -gives valuable hints for such work of reform. We are there told that -the proof-reader “at the very threshold of his duties is met by a -little ‘dwarfish demon’ called ‘Style,’ who addresses him somewhat -after this fashion: ‘As you see me now, so I have appeared ever since -the first type was set in this office. Everything here must be done as -I say. You may mark as you please, but don’t violate the commands of -Style. I may seem to disappear for a time, when there is a great rush -of work, and you may perhaps bring yourself to believe that Style is -dead. But do not deceive yourself—Style never dies.... I am Style, and -my laws are like those of the Medes and Persians.’ And Style states his -true character.”</p> - -<p>Among the numerous differences of style mentioned by Mr. Drew are -some that should not be classed as style, because one of the two -possible methods is logical and right, and the other is illogical and -wrong. For instance, Mr. Drew says: “Here, the style requires a comma -before <em>and</em> in ‘pounds, shillings, and pence’; there, the style is -‘pounds, shillings and pence.’” Such a point in punctuation should not -be a question of style, since one way must be better than the other -as a matter of principle. In this particular case there is not only -disagreement, but most people seem to have fixed upon the exclusion -of the comma before the conjunction in a series of three or more -items, notwithstanding the fact that its exclusion is illogical and -as erroneous as any<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">25</a></span> wrong punctuation can be. The text-books, with -very few exceptions, teach that the comma should be used; and, as said -above, this seems to be the only possible reasonable teaching. Each -item in such an enumeration should be separated from the next by a -comma, unless the last two, or any two united by a conjunction, are so -coupled in sense that they jointly make only one item in the series. -This curious fact of common practice directly opposed to prevalent -teaching is instanced as showing how erratic style is, and how -necessary it is that the “style of the office” should be fully recorded.</p> - -<p>Nothing could be more helpful than a style-card, especially if it -be made the duty of some person to add thereto each new decision -affecting style, so that the type may be set with certainty that -arbitrary changes will not have to be made. Conflicting corrections are -continually made by different proof-readers in the same office, and -even by the same reader at different times. Such things should be made -as nearly as may be impossible, and nothing else will accomplish this -so well as a style-card that must be followed.</p> - - - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="divider" /> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">26</a></span> -</div> - -<h2><a name="v" id="v"></a>CHAPTER V.<br /> -<small>WHIM VERSUS PRINCIPLE</small>.</h2> - - -<p class="noi"><span class="dropcap">C</span>ONSCIENTIOUS proof-readers are often confronted with the perplexing -problem of dealing with the whims of authors and editors. One of -the most difficult phases of the problem arises in the fact that -proof-readers themselves are, equally with the authors and editors, -possessed of whimsical notions, and the two sets of whims clash.</p> - -<p>What shall the conscientious proof-reader do? He can not let everything -go unchallenged just as it is written; if he does, he is not -conscientious in the true sense of the word, though of course writers -should know what they want, and should write their matter just as it is -to be printed.</p> - -<p>The only way successfully to combat unreasonable whim is by opposing -it with true principle; yet even this will not always succeed. When -a clear statement of principle fails to convince a writer that he is -at fault, of course the proof-reader must yield, often to his great -disadvantage. All intelligent people know that printed matter passes -through the hands of a proof-reader, and they naturally attribute to -his carelessness or incompetency all errors in printing. Examples are -not lacking.</p> - -<p>A paragraph in a magazine says that “the poet Will Carleton has -established a monthly magazine, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">27</a></span> calls it <em>Everywhere</em>.” This is -not a true announcement of the name, as Carleton splits it into two -words—<em>Every Where</em>—and the word is so barbarously split each time it -is used in his periodical. Any one noticing this form <em>every where</em> in -print would naturally wonder why the proof-reader did not know better. -It is a matter of personal knowledge that in this case the reader did -know better, but Carleton stuck to his whim, saying that he had a right -to make <em>where</em> a noun, whether others considered it so or not.</p> - -<p>A New York newspaper says, with reference to political action, but in -words equally applicable otherwise: “There is nothing that we know of -in the Constitution of the United States, nor in the Constitution of -any State, nor in the United States Statutes at Large, nor in any State -law, nor any municipal regulation, that hinders any American citizen, -whatever his calling or his walk in life, from making an ass of himself -if he feels an irresistible impulse in that direction.”</p> - -<p>Every man has a right to refuse to conform to general practice and -principle, of course; but the arbitrary whimsicality shown in writing -<em>every where</em>, and not <em>everywhere</em>, must fail to find its mate in any -other mind, and can be applied to suit its writer only by himself. The -only way to work for such a writer is to follow copy literally always. -He has not a right to expect from the proof-reader anything more than -the correcting of wrong letters.</p> - -<p><em>Everywhere</em> is an adverb of peculiar origin that may itself be -classed as whim; but this whim is in accord with principle, and the -one that splits the word is not. Probably the word was suggested by a -question, as<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">28</a></span> “Where are certain things done?” Answers are often made -by repeating a word prominent in the question, and so it must have been -in this case, “Every where.” This simulated a noun qualified by an -adjective, and the two-word form was used until people realized that -it was not right grammatically. Many years ago the correct single-word -form was universally adopted, and it should not be dropped.</p> - -<p>Real principle forbids the unifying in form of some words that may -seem to be like <em>everywhere</em> but are actually of a different nature. -<em>Anyone</em>, <em>everyone</em>, and <em>oneself</em> (the last being erroneously -considered as similar to <em>itself</em>, etc.) are as bad as single words as -<em>every where</em> is as two words, notwithstanding the fact that they are -often so printed. Tendency to adopt such whimsicalities of form is, for -some unaccountable reason, very common. It is something against which -every competent proof-reader should fight, tooth and nail, because -it is subversive of true principle. The utmost possible intelligent -effort will not prevent common acceptance of some forms and idioms -that are, in their origin at least, unreasonable; but these particular -abominations are not fully established, and there is ground for belief -that their use may be overcome.</p> - -<p>Some Latin particles are used as prefixes in English, and have not the -remotest potentiality of being separate English words, if the matter -of making words is to be controlled by real principle. One of these is -<em>inter</em>, meaning “between.” A paper published in Chicago is entitled -the <em>Inter Ocean</em>, making the only possible real sense of the title -something like a command to “inter<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">29</a></span> (bury) ocean,” as <em>inter</em> is not, -and never can be, properly an English adjective.</p> - -<p>Many people are now printing as separated words such mere fragments as -<em>non</em>, <em>quasi</em>, <em>counter</em> as in <em>counter-suit</em> and <em>counter-movement</em>, -<em>vice</em> as in <em>vice-chairman</em>, and a few others, though the writer has -not seen <em>ante</em> or <em>anti</em> so treated. These prefixes are all of the -same nature, and if one of them is treated as a separate word, every -one of the others should be so.</p> - -<p>These are things that should be combated by proof-readers who know the -main principles of language form, even though they know also that human -perversity is sufficiently willful at times to persist in the face of -all reason.</p> - -<p>Another sort of whim has full swing on the New York <em>Mail and Express</em>. -That paper prints the name of its own political party capitalized, -and that of the opposite party with a small initial—Republican and -democrat. How the editors can suppose that this belittles the Democrats -is past finding out, since it should be a matter of pride to a true -United States Republican that he is a democrat. Such ignoring of -language principle is silly, and belittling to those who indulge it -rather than to those at whom it is aimed. It is, however, beyond the -proof-reader’s province, unless the reader is sufficiently familiar -with the editor to influence him by moral suasion.</p> - -<p>Notwithstanding the certainty that authors will be more or less -whimsical, it is the proof-reader’s duty to do all he can to make -the matter he reads perfect in every respect. He should be able to -challenge anything that does not conform to generally accepted rules -of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">30</a></span> grammar, and to state clearly his reasons for desiring to make -changes.</p> - -<p>A thorough practical knowledge of English grammar is indispensable -to a good proof-reader, though it counts for nothing without a quick -eye to detect errors. If Bullions’s English Grammar had been read by -a proof-reader as well equipped in grammatical knowledge as every -reader should be, that book would have been cleared of one of the most -ludicrous blunders possible. After stating that abridging is cutting -short, examples are given, including the following: “When the boys -have finished their lessons we will play. <em>Abridged</em>—The boys having -finished their lessons we will play.” The second sentence is one word -shorter than the first, but the tense is changed, and so, of course, -the sense is changed. Real abridgment, of course, would not change the -time from future to present; yet this is what a noted teacher does in -each of his examples of abridgment, and it is something that a thorough -proof-reader would have helped him not to do.</p> - -<p>A proof-reader can not afford to neglect study, if he desires the best -kind of success. The more he studies, the better able he will be to -distinguish between whim and principle, and to combat one with the -other when the first is not such that he knows it can not be combated -successfully. Proper study, also, of men and events, as well as of -language, etc., will enable him to distinguish helpfulness from what -may be considered impertinence in making queries. By its aid he will be -able to give a reason with each query, in a helpful way. Many queries -on authors’ proofs pass unanswered, or are merely crossed off, because -their point is not apparent,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">31</a></span> or because they have been made in such a -manner as to give offense.</p> - -<p>In proof-reading, as in every other pursuit, the closest student of -principles and of men will ever be the most successful. Generally, -as we have said elsewhere, our best proof-readers eventually pass up -to an editorial chair, or into literary or other employment which -is more remunerative than reading proof. No employment should be -more remunerative, unless it may be some which involves the control -or disposition of large sums of money. A more difficult or rarer -accomplishment than that of humoring authors’ whims, while still -preserving much essentially good matter from the chaotic form it would -assume at the hands of unpractical writers, would be hard to name.</p> - - - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="divider" /> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">32</a></span> -</div> - -<h2><a name="vi" id="vi"></a>CHAPTER VI.<br /> -<small>AUTHORITIES AND OPINIONS</small>.</h2> - - -<p class="noi"><span class="dropcap">I</span>T has been said that in certain points of style no two persons would -agree in their decision. The expression is too strong, but what is -really meant is certainly true. Almost every question of style finds -different answers.</p> - -<p>This has been noted as an objection to the forming of proof-readers’ -associations, the objectors assuming that none of the differences -of opinion can be overcome. A contrary assumption must be the basis -of accomplishment, and must be proved to be true, if anything is -accomplished. Discussion must be had, full and free; every opinion -that finds expression must be carefully considered, and all opinions -carefully compared, in order to select the best. With this object -clearly agreed upon, and always kept in view, and with each member of -the association pledged to support the decision of the majority, would -not much good result, at least in the way of agreement in matters that -are commonly left to the proof-reader’s decision?</p> - -<p>Except for the fact that nothing can be too foolish to find a parallel -in history, the assertion might be made that our proof-readers could -not be foolish enough to persist in holding individual opinions -obstinately in the face of real proof that they are erroneous, or -even that some other opinion is really more common and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">33</a></span> therefore -better. An instance that happens to present itself for comparison -is the tulipomania, or “craze for tulips,” in Holland early in the -seventeenth century. People were so crazy then as to sell and resell -tulipbulbs at ridiculously high prices, even to the extent of creating -a financial panic. Human nature is the same now as then; and although -the matter of choosing between variant spellings, or other variations -of style, never will create a financial panic, lack of agreement in -choice does cause much annoyance, and even in some cases loss of money, -by stealing compositors’ time through unnecessary changing of type. -The “stylomaniac” is as foolish, relatively, as were the old Dutch -tulipomaniacs.</p> - -<p>Nothing could be more advantageous to a proof-reader than a full record -of forms that could be followed without change. Such a record does not -exist, and probably could not be made really exhaustive. It is doubtful -whether any book or periodical ever fully reproduced the spelling -of any dictionary, for the simple reason that lexicographers do not -recognize the practical needs of printers. Spellings, word-divisions, -and capitalization have never had, in the making of a dictionary, such -analogical treatment as they must have to furnish thoroughly reliable -guidance for printers; yet the dictionary is and must be the principal -authority.</p> - -<p>One remarkable instance of false leading has arisen through the -old-time omission of technical words in dictionaries. <em>Indention</em> has -always been the printers’ word for the sinking in of the first line of -a paragraph, yet many printers now say <em>indentation</em>, because it was<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">34</a></span> -discovered that <em>indention</em> was not in the dictionary. The right word -is given by our recent lexicographers. Drew’s “Pens and Types” protests -strongly against <em>indentation</em>, and MacKellar’s “American Printer” uses -<em>indention</em>, which is probably an older word than the other. Old-time -printers knew too much of Latin to put any reference to saw-teeth -in their name for paragraph-sinkage, and <em>indentation</em> is properly -applicable only to something resembling saw-teeth.</p> - -<p>Printers and proof-readers must often reason from analogy in deciding -how to spell. They have not the time to look up every word, and so -they often differ from their authority in spelling. Every one knows -how to spell <em>referee</em>, and, because of the similarity of the words, -many have rightly printed <em>conferee</em>. A letter to the editor asked why -a certain paper did this, and the editor answered that he would see -that it did not happen again—because Webster and Worcester had the -abominable spelling <em>conferree!</em> Why Webster ever spelled it so is a -mystery, especially as it violates his common practice. Why Worcester -copied Webster in this instance is a deeper mystery, since he had been -employed on the Webster dictionary and made his own as much different -in spelling as he could with any show of authority. The revisers of -the Webster work have corrected the misspelling, and the other new -dictionaries spell the word correctly.</p> - -<p>Word-divisions are a source of much annoyance. Here again we have the -lexicographers to thank, for no one of them has given us a practical -guide. There are many classes of words that should be treated alike -in this respect, and not one of these classes is so treated<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">35</a></span> in any -dictionary. Here is a short list from the “Webster’s International”:</p> - -<div class="columns"> -<ul class="nobullet"> -<li class="column1">ac-tive</li> -<li class="column1">contract-ive</li> -<li class="column1">produc-tive</li> -<li class="column1">conduct-ive</li> -<li class="column2 reset">baptiz-ing</li> -<li class="column2">exerci-sing</li> -<li class="column2">promot-er</li> -<li class="column2">aëra-ted</li> -<li class="column3 reset">pi-geon</li> -<li class="column3">liq-uid</li> -<li class="column3">depend-ent</li> -<li class="column3">resplen-dent</li> -</ul> -</div> - -<p>The one thing needed here is simplification. We should be at liberty -to decide, without contradiction by our highest authorities, that -if <em>conductive</em> is divided after the <em>t</em>, <em>productive</em> should have -the same division. The difference arises from a false etymological -assumption. One of the words is held to be made of two English -elements—a word and a suffix—and the other is treated like its -Latin etymon. True science would take the Latin etymon as the source -of every word ending in <em>ive</em>, and divide every one of them between -the consonants, regardless of the fact that some such words did not -exist in Latin. It is sufficient that they all follow the Latin model, -as <em>conductivus</em>. Many other terminations are properly on the same -footing, as <em>ant</em>, <em>ent</em>, <em>or</em>; they are not real English formative -suffixes. In every word like those mentioned ending in <em>tive</em> after -another consonant, the division should be between the consonants. This -would be truly scientific, as no real scholarly objection can be made, -and it leaves the right division in each instance unmistakable, no -matter how little may be known of Latin or etymology.</p> - -<p>Simplification is the great need in all matters of form or style—the -easy and scientific conclusion that in all exactly similar instances -the one reasoning applies, with the one result. The men who rank as our -highest authorities as to spelling, and who should<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">36</a></span> be best qualified -to lead us, lack one necessary accomplishment—a practical knowledge -of the art preservative. Their efforts now are largely devoted to what -they call spelling-reform, but their kind of reform is <em>spoiling</em> -reform. English spelling is said by them to be absurdly difficult -to learn, and they say they desire to make it easy by spelling -phonetically. The matter is one of large detail, the phonetic spelling -has many learned advocates, and there is a true scientific basis for -many radical changes; but what is proposed as our ultimate spelling -will be <em>harder</em> to learn, as it is now indicated, than is our present -spelling.</p> - -<p>Reform is needed, but not of the kind advocated by those who now pose -as reformers. Universal agreement on a choice between <em>traveler</em> -and <em>traveller</em>, <em>theatre</em> and <em>theater</em>, etc., would be highly -advantageous; changing <em>have</em> to <em>hav</em>, etc., is merely whimsical, -especially as some of the “et cæteras” are not so simple as they claim -to be—notably the arbitrary use of both <em>c</em> and <em>k</em> for the <em>k</em> sound.</p> - -<p>Our philologists are not likely to do for us what we very much need to -have done.</p> - -<p>Why should not the proof-readers do it for themselves—and also for the -whole English-speaking world?</p> - - - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="divider" /> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">37</a></span> -</div> - -<h2><a name="vii" id="vii"></a>CHAPTER VII.<br /> -<small>AUTHORITATIVE STUMBLING-BLOCKS IN THE STUDY -OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.</small></h2> - - -<p class="noi"><span class="dropcap">W</span>RITERS for publication ought to write just as their matter should -appear in print, but often they do not. Though every educated -English-speaking person is expected to know how to use his own language -correctly, no one needs such knowledge more than the proof-reader -does. Very commonly matters of form, as punctuation, capitalization, -compounding, and almost entirely the division of words at the ends of -lines, are left to the proof-reader’s decision. How shall he decide -reasonably if he have not the requisite knowledge? And how shall he -have knowledge without study? And how shall he succeed in his study if -he use not close thought and wise discretion?</p> - -<p>The proof-reader, like every one else, must get at least the foundation -of his knowledge through the medium of books. His practical use of -knowledge, his faculty for instant perception of error, and his equally -useful faculty for merely challenging what an author may wish to keep -unchanged—all these must be acquired or confirmed by experience; but -books must furnish the groundwork. One who desires thorough equipment -as a proof-reader may never cease studying.</p> - -<p>Good books on the English language are plentiful, but even the best -of them contain statements that are<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">38</a></span> not beyond question. It is our -purpose here to note a few questionable teachings, by way of warning -against acceptance of anything simply because it is found in any book, -and our most prominent example is from a work really good and really -authoritative.</p> - -<p>An incident will illustrate the aim of the warning. A customer in a New -York store, taking up a book treating of word-forms, asked, “Does it -follow Webster?” Information that its author had not closely followed -any one dictionary, but had made the work for the special purpose of -selecting the best forms from all sources, caused instant and almost -contemptuous dropping of the book. Evidently that person had no idea -that anything in language could be right if not according to Webster. -Undoubtedly there are to-day thousands who would instantly decide such -a matter in just this way. Each of them has always been accustomed to -refer to some one authority, and to think that what is found there must -be right. Indeed, so far is this species of hero-worship carried that a -critic, reviewing the book on word-forms mentioned above, could hardly -find words strong enough to express his condemnation of its author, -theretofore unknown to the literary world, for daring to criticise -statements made by noted scholars. It is amusing to recall the fact -that one of the heroes of this champion’s worship began his career -in exactly the way objected to, having devoted a large part of his -first book to severe condemnation of some famous grammarians for doing -something that he did himself, namely, copying and preserving errors.</p> - -<p>Even yet we have not gone back to the earliest recorded condemnation of -such hero-worship. One of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">39</a></span> the most famous of the grammarians scored -by our preceding hero was Lindley Murray, and his stated reason for -writing on grammar was identical with that of his critic—the work of -his predecessors was not sufficiently accurate. Long before Murray’s -time, also, “peremptory adhesion unto authority,” as Sir Thomas Brown -wrote in the seventeenth century, had been “the mortallest enemy unto -knowledge, and that which hath done the greatest execution upon truth.”</p> - -<p>Where can “peremptory adhesion unto authority” be found better -exemplified than in children’s persistence in believing what they are -first taught? Impressions made in childhood days certainly retain a -strong hold long afterward, and this should be a powerful incentive -toward giving them true impressions. One of the most popular language -books now in use in primary schools, if not <em>the</em> most popular, has -conversations between teacher and pupil. Here is one: “<em>T.</em>—When I -say, <em>falling leaves rustle</em>, does <em>falling</em> tell what is thought of -leaves? <em>P.</em>—No. <em>T.</em>—What does <em>falling</em> do? <em>P.</em>—It tells the -<em>kind</em> of leaves you are thinking and speaking of.” Is it not simply -astounding that our children must learn in school that <em>falling leaves</em> -means a <em>kind</em> of leaves?</p> - -<p>There is plenty of the same quality in books at the other extreme of -schooling—the very popular university grammar, for instance, William -Chauncey Fowler’s “English in its Elements and Forms,” which says: -“While language has power to express the fine emotions and the subtle -thoughts of the human mind with wonderful exactness, still it must be -admitted that it is imperfect as a sign of thought. It is imperfect -because<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">40</a></span> the thing signified by a term in a proposition either does -not exist at all in the mind of the hearer, or because it exists under -different relations from what it does in the mind of the speaker. In -other words, language is imperfect because the term in a proposition, -if it has any meaning in the mind of the speaker, has a different one -from what it has in the mind of the hearer. Hardly any abstract term -has precisely the same meaning in any two minds; when mentioned, the -term calls up different associations in one mind from what it does -in another.... The phrase ‘beast of burden’ might, to one mind, mean -a <em>horse</em>; to another, a <em>mule</em>; to another, a <em>camel</em>.... It should -be added that there is great vagueness in the common use of language, -which, in practice, increases its imperfection as a medium of thought.”</p> - -<p>Yes, there is “great vagueness,” and here, in passing, is an amusing -instance of it by a well-known writer on meteorology: “All cloud which -lies as a thin flat sheet must either be pure stratus or contain the -word <em>strato</em> in combination.” Did any one ever see a cloud containing -the word <em>strato</em> in combination? “Great vagueness” is exemplified also -in the grammarian’s own writing, and in a connection that demands a -full exposition of it.</p> - -<p>We need not quarrel with the expression “thoughts of the human mind” -because we do not suppose that animals have mind; but certainly <em>mind</em> -would be sufficient, without <em>human</em>, in discussing language. It is -another matter, though, that the next sentence shows a constructive -method at variance with the rules of grammar, and of a kind which the -author himself brands as<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">41</a></span> false syntax in his exercises. <em>Either</em> in -the sentence is not in correct construction with the complementary -<em>or</em>; it would be if <em>because it</em> were omitted—“because the thing ... -either does not exist at all, ... or exists under different relations.” -In the last clause, “it exists under different relations from what it -does in the mind of the speaker,” <em>what</em> is improperly used, since -the antecedent is plural—<em>those which</em> should have been used instead -of <em>what</em>; the construction makes <em>does</em> a principal verb, wrongly, -because it is used for <em>does exist</em> or <em>exists</em>, and even with the -right verb another preposition should be inserted, thus—“from those -under which it exists in the mind of the speaker.” The whole sentence -would have been much better expressed in this way: “It is imperfect -because sometimes a thing mentioned is either not known at all to the -hearer, or presents associations to his mind different from those -conceived by the speaker.”</p> - -<p>The third sentence ludicrously transposes <em>speaker</em> and -<em>hearer</em>—“because the term, ... if it has any meaning in the mind -of the speaker, has a different one from what it has in the mind of -the hearer.” Possibly the writer accidentally placed these words in -the wrong order, and the error is one of carelessness; but error it -certainly is, for of course the <em>speaker</em> in every instance must -suppose that his words mean something, whether his hearers think so or -not.</p> - -<p>In the fourth sentence “great vagueness” is again shown. What is the -meaning of “when mentioned”? As here used, it can mean only “when a -term is spoken of as a term,” and that is nonsense. The sentence<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">42</a></span> would -be complete and accurately constructed without “when mentioned.”</p> - -<p>The fourth sentence also contains the only so-called imperfection which -the grammarian mentions, “beast of burden.” Undoubtedly there are many -possibilities of ambiguity, but this phrase, chosen to illustrate -imperfection, is really one of the beauties of the language. It is -absurd to suppose that any one would attribute to such an abstract -term a concrete meaning; but even if “beast of burden” does suggest to -one person a horse, to another a mule, and to another a camel, there -is nothing in that circumstance to prove that language is imperfect. -All that is <em>expressed</em> in the phrase is “some kind of beast used for -carrying,” and it is not said imperfectly. The imperfection is in the -mind of the writer, not in the language—unless he can give a better -example. If this author had omitted this section of his work, he would -have shortened his book to the extent of half a page, and he would -not have afforded a text for preaching against imperfection of mental -training. If a thoroughly qualified proof-reader had suggested proper -corrections, in the proper way, it must be that the matter would have -been bettered; and every proof-reader should know how to make such -suggestions.</p> - - - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="divider" /> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">43</a></span> -</div> - -<h2><a name="viii" id="viii"></a>CHAPTER VIII.<br /> -<small>PREPARATION OF COPY</small>.</h2> - - -<p class="noi"><span class="dropcap">W</span>HILE it is very natural, in these days of great mechanical progress, -that methods and machinery should be preëminent in printers’ -literature, it should not be forgotten that the “art preservative” is -not entirely mechanical. Our presses are not fed <em>with</em> paper until -after the forms are fed <em>from</em> paper.</p> - -<p>How much of the brain-work should be done by the printers, and how much -by writers? Mr. Theodore L. De Vinne spoke as follows concerning this -important question, at the bicentennial celebration of the setting up -of the first printing-press in New York by William Bradford:</p> - -<p>“I want to ask the question, What is the writer doing for us? Is he -making his copy any better? Do you get any clearer manuscript than you -used to? So far as handwriting is concerned, I should say no. What -we get through the typewriter is better. The copy which the author -furnishes has not kept pace with the improvement in machinery. Yet at -the same time the printer is asked to do his work better and quicker -than before. We are asked to make bricks without the proper straw. Too -much is expected of printers in regard to this matter. I have been in -the printing-office for nearly fifty years, and during that time I have -had occasion to handle the copy from a great many authors, and from all -ranks and conditions of men, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">44</a></span> I find that the compositor and the -proof-reader are expected to do more work.</p> - -<p>“There was a time when the printer was merely expected to follow copy. -Now, I have no hesitation in saying that if every compositor was to -follow his copy strictly, and if every proof-reader was to imitate his -example, and neglect to correct errors; if books were printed as they -are written, there would go up a howl of indignation on the part of -authors as when the first-born of Egypt were slaughtered. I say that -too much is expected of the proof-reader. He is expected to take the -babe of the author and put it in a suitable dress for the public. The -author should do it. Now and then you get an idea of how badly copy is -prepared when out of revenge some newspaper editor prints it as the -author sends it in. The reader, when he reads that copy, printed as -it is written, with a misuse of italics, a violation of the rules of -composition, lack of punctuation, etc., is astonished that a man of -education can be so careless.”</p> - -<p>Among other things following this, Mr. De Vinne said: “I wish to -ask, on behalf of the proof-reader, a little more attention to the -preparation of manuscript. The people who furnish the manuscript -are not doing their share. I think it is an imposition that the -proof-reader should do more than correct the errors of the compositor.”</p> - -<p>We may well add to this plea on behalf of the proof-reader another on -behalf of the compositor. Although so much type-setting is now done on -time, many compositors are still at piece-work, and there is not one of -them who does not suffer through the gross injustice of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">45</a></span> losing time in -deciphering bad manuscript. It is properly a matter of mere justice to -the compositor that every letter in his copy should be unmistakable, -and that every point in punctuation, every capital letter, and every -peculiarity of any kind should appear on the copy just as the author -wishes it to be in the printed work. Copy should be really something -that can be copied exactly.</p> - -<p>Certainly such copy is seldom produced, and there are excellent reasons -for supposing that some authors—and many among the best—will never -furnish plain copy in their own handwriting. One of the best reasons is -indicated by this passage from a book entitled “Our English,” by Prof. -A. S. Hill, of Harvard: “Every year Harvard sends out men—some of them -high scholars—whose manuscripts would disgrace a boy of twelve; and -yet the college can hardly be blamed, for she can not be expected to -conduct an infant school for adults.”</p> - -<p>Probably “manuscripts” refers mainly to handwriting, though it may -include literary composition. The students have to take notes of -lectures, and, in order to secure the largest amount of information, -they write so rapidly that their manuscript can hardly be legible. -Through this practice, rapid and almost formless writing becomes -habitual.</p> - -<p>Another justification for much of the bad handwriting of authors may be -found in the fact that the matter is more important than the form, at -least in the first making, and writers are comparatively few who can do -the necessary thinking and at the same time put the thoughts on paper -in perfect form. If an author can<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">46</a></span> write plainly and punctuate properly -without losing any of his thoughts or sacrificing literary quality in -any way, it is far better for his own interest, as well as for that of -the printers, that he should do so; but where this is not the case it -is necessary for some one to “put the babe of the author in a suitable -dress for the public.”</p> - -<p>Here is the point of the whole matter: If the work of finishing is to -be done by the printers, they should be paid for doing it. There should -be an extra charge for composition from poorly prepared copy, according -to the extra amount of time required beyond that necessary in working -from copy that can be read easily and followed literally. Nearly the -full extra charge should be added to the type-setter’s pay, unless the -proof-reader prepares the copy before the type is set, in which case, -of course, the extra charge should be simply for his time.</p> - -<p>Oliver Wendell Holmes, in “The Autocrat of the Breakfast-table,” says: -“I am a very particular person about having all I write printed as I -write it. I require to see a proof, a revise, a re-revise, and a double -re-revise, or fourth-proof rectified impression of all my productions, -especially verse.” A laudable desire to make his productions peculiarly -his in all details must have been the incentive to all this work on -proofs; but probably a close comparison of the finished work and the -original manuscript would disclose many differences.</p> - -<p>When good printers work from manuscript that can not be misread, with -all details of spelling, punctuation, etc., properly attended to, and -with explicit understanding that copy is to be followed literally, -one proof<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">47</a></span> is sufficient for an author who does not have to make many -changes in the wording of what has been written.</p> - -<p>It will pay any author to make copy showing exactly what should appear -in print, and to make every stroke of the writing unmistakable. If -the writer can not himself produce such copy, his manuscript should -be carefully revised by some one else. Any person doing such work of -revision should be very cautious in order to preserve the writer’s -intended expression, for often even an extra comma is disastrous. This -applies also to proof-reading. The writer should be consulted, when -consultation is possible, about changes from copy.</p> - -<p>When authors have cultivated the habit of writing as they should write, -or of having their copy made good for them, there will be no reasonable -excuse for bad errors in printing. If Mr. De Vinne’s speech from which -I have quoted, for instance, had been carefully revised by its author -in the manuscript, a nonsensical misreading would probably have been -avoided. One of his sentences as printed is, “We always understand how -much the world is indebted to printing.” I have no doubt that he said, -“We all of us,” etc.</p> - -<p>No matter what plan is followed in its preparation, copy should -certainly go to the compositor in such shape that he can read it easily -and follow it absolutely. This is the only just way; and it is the -surest way to secure good work.</p> - - - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="divider" /> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">48</a></span> -</div> - -<h2><a name="ix" id="ix"></a>CHAPTER IX.<br /> -<small>COPY AND PROOF-READING</small>.</h2> - - -<p class="noi"><span class="dropcap">I</span>N a novel published some time ago, the copy contained a great deal of -conversation that had to be printed in short paragraphs, each chapter -being written in one long paragraph, with no quotation-marks, and -almost no punctuation. The compositors had the injustice imposed upon -them of breaking the matter into paragraphs, and supplying punctuation, -with no recompense for doing this essential part of the author’s work. -How such manuscript could secure acceptance by a publisher has never -ceased to be a source of wonder, as it was not written by one whose -mere name would carry it through; but a greater source of amazement is -the fact that so many writers can make such abominable copy as they do -make.</p> - -<p>Certainly the writer should be the one most interested in having -printed matter say what it is intended to say, and this can not be -positively assured unless the written copy is accurate in form. Even -the presence or absence of a comma may affect the sense in such a way -that no person other than the writer can know positively whether the -comma should be in or not.</p> - -<p>Very few writers send to the printing-office such manuscript as every -writer should furnish, yet they all demand accuracy in the printed -matter. Let us make a bold proposition. Why should not employing -printers of books combine in the determination to make an extra<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">49</a></span> charge -for every alteration from copy, even to the insertion or removal of -a comma? Why should not authors have to pay extra for the work that -should be and is not done by them in the first instance? Even this, -however, would not change the fact that much manuscript will not bear -close reproduction in print. An author who was making many expensive -alterations in proof was requested to revise his matter in manuscript, -and returned it unchanged, saying that he could find nothing wrong in -it.</p> - -<p>Compositors have always labored under the injustice of being expected -to punctuate the matter they set, regardless of bad punctuation in -their copy. How can they know better than the author should know? This -is an injustice to them mainly because they must often change the -punctuation in type, thus losing time for which they are not paid. -The decision is left to the proof-reader, and even the best and most -intelligent compositor simply can <em>not</em> always be sure that he is doing -what the reader will decide to be right. Other matters of style present -the same difficulty.</p> - -<p>If any particular style is to be followed, as in capitalization, -punctuation, paragraphing, or any other formal matter, it is not just -to demand that piece-workers shall set their type accordingly unless -the copy is first carefully prepared. In other words, it is a matter -of the merest justice to compositors that ordinarily they should be -allowed to follow copy strictly in every detail. On some kinds of work -this is not so essential, as on newspapers, for instance, where there -are many writers, and matter of a certain kind is always to be set in -the one way.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">50</a></span> -Publishers and editors of newspapers would be more just to all their -workers, and probably more sure of getting what they want in style, if -they could insist upon formal compliance at the hands of their writers -rather than to throw the burden upon compositors and proof-readers. -Responsibility for style does not rightly belong to the composing-room -and proof-room; but if it must be assumed there, as commonly it must, -every worker in those rooms should have an individual copy of a full -and clear record of style. Those who receive work in book-offices, and -who send it to the compositors, would certainly do well to question -customers closely on all matters of style, especially in the case of -anything other than plain reading-matter. It is well to have a distinct -understanding with regard to complicated matter, and to record it when -made, so that instructions may be clearly given to those who do the -work.</p> - -<p>An understanding having been had with the author or publisher, the -manuscript should go first to the proof-reader and be prepared by him, -so that the compositors need do nothing but follow copy closely. Of -course this will not be necessary when the author furnishes good plain -manuscript; but in other cases, of which there is no lack, it will -surely pay.</p> - -<p>The correction of authors’ errors is an important part of the reader’s -duty, yet he should be very careful not to make “corrections” where -there is a possibility that the writer wants just what he has written, -even though it seems wrong to the reader. The proof-reader should not -be held responsible for the grammar or diction of what he reads, except -in the plainest instances, as there are many points of disagreement -even among<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">51</a></span> professed grammarians. Plain errors in grammar or diction, -as those following, the good proof-reader will correct.</p> - -<p>A New York newspaper mentioned Frenchmen who “content themselves with -sipping <em>thimbles full</em> of absinthe.” The reader should have known -that the men do not use thimbles for the purpose of drinking, and that -<em>thimblefuls</em> are what they sip.</p> - -<p>When the proof-reader had a paragraph saying that “the arrivals at the -hotels show a falling off of over 100 per cent.,” he should have known -that this is an impossibility, since it leaves the arrivals less than -none.</p> - -<p>When another reader saw something about “the buildings <em>comprising</em> the -old brick row,” he should have corrected it to <em>composing</em>. Buildings -compose the row, and the row comprises buildings.</p> - -<p>It would not be fair to expect every proof-reader to be thoroughly -up in zoölogical nomenclature. No reader, though, should pass a word -like <em>depuvans</em> unchallenged, because that is the best he can make -of what is written. He should ascertain in some way that the word is -<em>dipnoans</em>, or query it for some one else to correct. On the “Century -Dictionary” the editor struck out a quotation, “The miracles which they -saw, grew by their frequency familiar unto them.” His pencil happened -to cross only one word in the first line, and the next proof sent to -the editorial room contained the passage, “The miracles which they grew -by their frequency familiar unto them.”</p> - -<p>These are a few instances of remissness on the part of readers, the -last one showing absurdity that should be impossible.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">52</a></span> -Some things are commonly expected of proof-readers that they can not -with any reason be asked to do. When a person whose initials are J. J., -for instance, writes them I. I., it is not reasonable to expect them -to be printed J. J. A script I is one thing and a J is another; and no -one can possibly know that the one which is written is not the right -one when there is no clue, as there would be in Iohn. One lesson that -writers seem bound not to learn is that proper names should be written -plainly. When not written plainly they are very likely to be printed -wrong.</p> - -<p>Some kinds of changes proof-readers should not make, even if they -think the writing is wrong. When a plainly written manuscript, showing -care at all points, contains something about the “setting up of the -first printing-press,” this should not be printed “setting-up of -the first printing press”; neither should <em>some one</em> be changed to -<em>someone</em>, though the barbarous <em>someone</em> happens to be the “style of -the office.” There is no good reason for making a compound of <em>setting -up</em>, and there is no reason for making anything but a compound of -<em>printing-press</em>; and <em>someone</em> should certainly be removed from the -“style of the office” and the correct <em>some one</em> substituted. These -two examples are selected because they were convenient, not for -criticism merely, but to enforce the fact that, at least in a book or -any work not containing matter from various writers, carefully written -manuscript should be followed in every respect. Some authors have in -this matter a just cause of complaint against printers; but it is -really the result of carelessness on the part of authors in not writing -as their matter should be printed and insisting upon having what they -want.</p> - - - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="divider" /> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">53</a></span> -</div> - -<h2><a name="x" id="x"></a>CHAPTER X.<br /> -<small>THE DICTIONARY IN THE PROOF-ROOM</small>.</h2> - - -<p class="noi"><span class="dropcap">I</span>T is said that Horace Greeley’s estimate of qualification for -proof-reading called for more general knowledge than one would need in -order to be a good President of the United States. By this he meant, -of course, ability to read anything, from the smallest job, in the -commonest language, to the most learned and most scientific writing, -and to know that every thing is made right. How many proof-readers can -do this? Not many. Horace Greeley knew very well that the world could -not furnish such men for the proof-reader’s desk—and yet his remark -was justifiable even from a practical point of view.</p> - -<p>A recent paragraph in a trade publication said truly that “even -the daily newspapers use so many foreign and technical terms as to -demand a high grade of excellence among the readers.” This was said -in connection with an assertion that pay for the reader’s work, and -especially for the best work, is higher now than ever before. We might -easily show that this is not absolutely true, for very high pay has -been given for high-class work in the years that are gone, and the -writer of this essay can state from personal knowledge an instance of -higher pay than the highest mentioned in that paragraph; and it may be -well to tell of it, because it will serve as a good introduction to our -present theme. The paragraph says that its writer personally knew of -two<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">54</a></span> men who were paid $50 a week for reading. If these men were mere -proof-readers, their pay was very high; but it is not unreasonable to -suppose that their work nearly approached the responsible editorial -status. On a certain large work published many years ago a man was -employed as proof-reader at what was then excellent pay. When that work -was revised he was still known as the principal proof-reader, but his -work included final editing of the copy, as well as reading the proofs, -which latter he did in a critical way, making such changes in the -matter as he knew were necessary. For this work he received $75 a week, -and the only men known to the present writer who were paid as much as -the sum first mentioned did the same kind of work.</p> - -<p>In each of these cases the money was paid because of one qualification -that stood in place of general knowledge, rather than for the actual -possession of such knowledge that seems to be demanded by Horace -Greeley’s estimate. Each of these readers had at hand a good reference -library, and knew where to look for information on any question that -arose. The special qualification was the ability to perceive or suspect -error of statement, and to correct it through positive knowledge, in -many cases with no need of reference, but more frequently through -consulting authorities. An important complement of this qualification -is the perception of correctness as well as of error, and ability to -leave unchanged what is right as well as to change what is wrong.</p> - -<p>Of course one who is really fitted to read proof must know how to spell -all the common words of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">55</a></span> language, and this is not so general an -accomplishment as it is naturally supposed to be. Many writers are -somewhat weak in spelling, and the proof-reader must correct their -errors as well as those made by compositors, for often the editors can -not take time for such work, and copy is sent to the composing-room -just as it is written. But few proof-readers, if any, know all the -words that may rightly be classed as common. It is a matter of recent -experience that one who ranks among the best of newspaper readers, in -reading market reports, changed the lower-case initial of <em>muscovado</em> -to a capital, and thought the name was a proper noun until another -reader, happening to have the same matter in hand, changed the -capital letter to lower-case and was called upon to give a reason for -it. Recently, also, a good proof-reader allowed the term “Romance -languages” to pass as “romance languages.” <em>Romance</em> in this use should -not be unfamiliar, yet it was mistaken by compositor and reader as the -common noun <em>romance</em>, which mistake should be impossible, as every one -should know that romance is not confined to any special languages.</p> - -<p>What such people need is a good dictionary at hand and constant use -of it. Of course no busy proof-reader, especially during the rush -of newspaper work, can stop every few minutes to find a word in the -dictionary—much work must be dashed off at lightning speed, or as near -that as possible, and no sort of interruption can be tolerated, even -at the expense of printing a few typographical errors. But how much -more creditable it is to the proof-reader if, even in the utmost rush, -he can detect and mark all the errors, whether time can be taken to -correct them in the type or not.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">56</a></span> -Few readers, comparatively, seem to realize the wonderful helpfulness -of intimacy with some good dictionary, for very few of them use one -as much as they would if they realized it. Probably most of them will -continue to do just as they have always done—taking it for granted -that they have no need of frequent consultation of the dictionary; but -if something can be written that will impress even a few with a desire -for the improvement to be attained through study of the dictionary, it -is worth while to try to write it.</p> - -<p>Every proof-room should possess a good dictionary. Some people -think that every proof-room of any consequence does possess a good -dictionary, but a little inquiry would soon convince them that this is -not so. Many readers are left to do their work without even such aid in -the way of reference, notwithstanding it is a fact that no certainty of -good work can be had without it, and that many more works of reference -are indispensable as aids to the best work. There are an amazing number -of proof-rooms that are not supplied even with an old Webster’s or -Worcester’s Dictionary, and a great many more than there should be -that have only one or the other of those antiquated works. Once upon a -time they were both good works, because they were the best yet made. -But lexicography has progressed, and we now have dictionaries that -surpass the old ones, in every respect, as much as our new books on any -scientific subject outrank those of our forefathers.</p> - -<p>The Century and the Funk & Wagnalls Standard dictionaries contain -practically full records of our language in all details, almost -sufficient to take the place of a large reference library, so far as -the proof-room is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">57</a></span> concerned. One or the other—or better, both—should -be in every proof-room, and the proof-reader who makes the most -constant studious use of one or both will soon find himself on firmer -ground than he could otherwise occupy.</p> - - - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="divider" /> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">58</a></span> -</div> - -<h2><a name="xi" id="xi"></a>CHAPTER XI.<br /> -<small>THE PROOF-ROOM LIBRARY</small>.</h2> - - -<p class="noi"><span class="dropcap">H</span>OW many proof-rooms are as well equipped with books of reference as -they should be? The proprietors of some large establishments have -always recognized their need and endeavored to supply it, but it is not -far from the truth to say that very few employers, if any, have done -all that would be profitable in this matter. A good selection of the -latest reference books is seldom found in a proof-room, notwithstanding -the fact that their intelligent use is one of the most important -adjuncts of good proof-reading.</p> - -<p>Reasons could easily be found for the common lack of books other -than a general dictionary, or that and one or two special technical -glossaries; but it will be more advantageous to give reasons why -proof-readers should have and use more books than most of them do use.</p> - -<p>Professional men have to read continually to keep up with progress in -scientific knowledge. It is absolutely necessary to their success. -Each of them, however, has a special demand for some particular branch -of knowledge. The books these men consult are written by specialists, -who choose their own subjects, and of course know the special words -that must be used. A proof-reader, on the contrary, can not choose -his subjects. He must undertake what is ready for him, whether it be -some ordinary work, using common words only, or a scientific book -filled with unfamiliar words.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">59</a></span> Authors of scientific works often make -abominable copy. They do not realize that the terminology so well known -by them is not equally well known to the workers in printing-offices, -and the most particular words are frequently written more carelessly -than the common words in their manuscript. Of course these authors read -their own proofs, and most of them think they are very careful in doing -it; but they are not trained proof-readers, and they see the words in -full rather than the individual letters, so that a wrong letter easily -evades their notice. When the trained proof-reader does not know the -particular words, and has no means at hand for their verification, the -result is bad.</p> - -<p>A pamphlet on ichthyological terminology will afford a good -illustration. Its author wrote what was intended for “the shorter -termination <em>-pidæ</em> is adopted rather than <em>-podidæ</em>.” This was -printed with dashes instead of the hyphens, “termination—<em>pidæ</em> -rather than—<em>podidæ</em>.” The pamphlet has <em>Opisthrarthri</em> and -<em>Tenthidoidea</em> instead of <em>Opistharthri</em> and <em>Teuthidoidea</em>, and many -other typographical errors in such words. Probably the proof-readers -did their best to follow copy, and thought the author would be sure -to correct such errors as they failed to find. If in each doubtful -instance they had consulted a reasonably full list of ichthyological -names, as they should have done, most of the errors might have -been corrected. Proof-readers should certainly have some means of -handling work intelligently, and the only way this can be done is by -verification through the use of reference books.</p> - -<p>Our general dictionaries have never attempted to give full scientific -vocabularies. In fact, the two most<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">60</a></span> used—the old Webster and -Worcester—are nearly useless in this respect, giving only the few -purely scientific terms that had become familiar when they were made. -Even technological terms were not freely inserted in their making. -Later dictionaries, however, have increased their vocabularies very -largely by adding the special terms of science. The Imperial, which -is very much like a larger Webster Unabridged, contains many names of -families and genera in natural history, also many special words of -other science; Webster’s International has more of all kinds than the -Imperial; the Century Dictionary has more than the International; but -they all come far short of the full vocabulary of any science.</p> - -<p>Forty years ago Mr. G. P. Marsh, in his “Lectures on the English -language,” quoted from a scientific journal a sentence containing -thirteen botanical words that have not even yet found their way -into the dictionaries above mentioned, one of these words being the -adjective <em>cissoid</em>, meaning “like ivy.” He also said, in the same -lecture: “Indeed, it is surprising how slowly the commonest mechanical -terms find their way into dictionaries professedly complete.” -Mechanical terms, however, as well as botanical and others, have found -their way into dictionaries since Mr. Marsh’s time freely, but by no -means exhaustively.</p> - -<p>Chemists and medical men string together words and word-elements -almost <em>ad nauseam</em>, so that common dictionaries simply can not -attempt to record all their combinations. Unless the proof-reader -is thoroughly versed in the Greek words used by the doctors, and -in the names of elements, etc., as used by the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">61</a></span> chemists, his only -hope rests upon special medical and chemical works. As an amusing -instance of what he may have to decipher—doctors and chemists are -commonly able to write illegibly, and often do so—a few words not -in the general dictionaries may be cited. Chemists use words like -<em>aldehydodimethylprotocatechuic</em>—a combination of <em>aldehyde</em>, -<em>dimethyl</em>, and <em>protocatechuic</em>. A little thought will suffice to -perceive these elements in the ugly-looking word, and in others -like it; but that is not equally true in the case of such a term as -<em>androgynoarion</em> or <em>engastrimythismus</em>.</p> - -<p>Examination of any special scientific work would disclose easily the -fact that the proof-reader may be called upon at any moment to read -proofs of language he does not know, and can not verify without special -reference books. He should not be expected to do good work without such -aids.</p> - - - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="divider" /> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">62</a></span> -</div> - -<h2><a name="xii" id="xii"></a>CHAPTER XII.<br /> -<small>THE COPY-READER</small>.</h2> - - -<p class="noi"><span class="dropcap">M</span>UCH has been written about the proof-reader and his duties and -responsibilities, but comparatively little about his assistant, -commonly known as the copy-holder. This name “copy-holder” is in its -most frequent application a misnomer, and that is why we prefer to -consider the majority of the assistants as “copy-readers,” a name, -by the way, that is not new here, but has much local currency. Real -copy-holders are found mainly where proof-readers work in pairs, -one reading from the proof and the other following on the copy and -telling when that is different from what is read. Occasionally it may -be that proofs are read in this way by one regular reader and a mere -holder of copy, but as a rule such work is done by a team of readers -equal in standing, who alternate in the reading. Such is the common -method on morning papers. On evening papers it is not unusual for the -proof-reader to relieve his assistant occasionally by reading aloud -from the proof, but as a rule the assistant reads from the copy, and so -is a copy-reader. The distinction between “holder” and “reader” is not -generally important, but is useful for the purpose of this chapter.</p> - -<p>Until comparatively a few years ago nearly all the reading of copy -was done by boys, mainly for very low<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">63</a></span> pay, as the real importance of -the work was not yet apprehended. Now, however, we have accomplished -almost a complete revolution, and copy-reading is understood to demand -intelligence and quick thought of an unusual order, among young persons -at least. The nearer a reader of copy comes to being truly qualified -for being a proof-reader, the better for that one’s welfare, and the -more fortunate the proof-reader who has that person as an assistant. -That last word is just right, for a good copy-reader is truly an -assistant to the proof-reader.</p> - -<p>Some very foolish things have been said about copy-readers, and none -more foolish than this one from a paper read before a society of -proof-readers: “Proof-readers complain of the bad copy <em>they</em> have -to study over. Who has to read that copy—the proof-reader or the -copy-holder?” Another saying in the same paper may well be connected -with this for consideration. It is: “I have known of proof-readers -dozing—and even going to sleep—over proofs.” Unfortunately, the truth -of the accusation can not be doubted; but it is really only one phase -of something that is true of a majority of workers at anything—they do -not always faithfully perform their duty. The copy-reader who takes the -trouble to try to be sure that nothing is read when the proof-reader -does not hear it is sure to be a dutiful and conscientious worker; -yet is not even that a real duty, as well to one’s self as to one’s -employer?</p> - -<p>Again, it is the proof-reader’s duty to know that copy is read -correctly—not merely to make his proof conform to what he hears, but -to know that he is making it like the copy, when it should be so, which -is nearly<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">64</a></span> always. The responsibility for getting the matter right on -the proof properly belongs to the proof-reader always—never in the -slightest degree to the copy-reader, with any propriety. A proof-reader -has no real right, under any circumstances, to shield himself from -blame by saying that “the copy-holder must have read it wrong.” Nothing -could be meaner than that. But he must have some protection against -such accidents, and there is a manly remedy in insisting that he shall -be the judge of the copy-reader’s efficiency, or else that there shall -be a distinct understanding that he must take the necessary time to -verify what is read whenever he suspects it, by seeing the copy. In -fact, the verification and the suspicion when necessary are very -important to the proper performance of a proof-reader’s duty. This does -not mean that a copy-reader has no responsibility, but only that that -responsibility does not properly extend to the finished work. It is in -this sense that proof-readers rightly speak of <em>their</em> having to study -over bad copy.</p> - -<p>Another foolish direction about copy-reading is the following, from -Benjamin Drew’s book, “Pens and Types,” referring to the reading -of Greek: “The method of reading will, we think, be sufficiently -exemplified if we give but one line, which should be read by the -copy-holder thus: Cap. K, a, grave i; t, acute u, m, b, long o -subscript; k, r, long e, p, circumflex i, d, a; p, short e, r, acute -i, g, r, a, ph, short e; cap. P, short e, r, s, i, k, grave short o, -n; cap. smooth acute A, r, long e.” One of the best proof-readers -the writer knows would not understand such mummery, because he -does not know the Greek alphabet. Moreover, the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">65</a></span> reader who wastes -his employer’s time in having such spelling done is defrauding the -employer. Such work should always be compared. The main purpose in -referring to this, however, is to note the fact that both proof-reader -and copy-reader are much better equipped for their work if they know -the Greek alphabet than if they do not know it. And they are still -better off for each additional acquirement of unusual knowledge.</p> - -<p>A copy-reader will always find knowledge of any kind useful, and -one who is ambitious and eager for advancement will be a close and -ceaseless student, always acquiring new information, not only in books -and periodicals, but in and from the persons and things with which -one is surrounded. Particularly desirable is acquaintance with proper -names of all sorts, and with important public events. So long as the -world lasts, probably, reporters and editors, yea, and even authors -of books, will write proper names and unusual words less legibly than -they write common words. Even when reporters try to make names plain -by writing each letter separately, they often form the letters, or -write them without real form, so that little hope is left of absolute -certainty in deciphering them. The writer has seen names in roman -printing characters that would have been easier to read if written in -the ordinary way with any care. Familiarity with the names likely to -be written will enable a reader to master the writing with much more -certainty and greater ease. In cases where no means of familiarity -exist, as with initials of unknown persons, it frequently happens that -the best effort of either proof-reader or copy-reader must be mere -guesswork. If, as often occurs, a person’s initials are J. J.,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">66</a></span> and -they are written I. I., and the name is not positively known, no one -can tell whether they will be printed right or wrong.</p> - -<p>The information that is most useful generally is that which gives -ability to distinguish words by their meaning, and to recognize a word -unmistakably through the sense of the other words of the sentence, or -sometimes through a clue given in the whole context. Very few persons -really know as much in this way as every one should know. A study of -etymology is very useful, and the ambitious copy-reader can not afford -to neglect it. Knowledge of the elements of words is one of the most -helpful kinds of knowledge. So is knowledge of diction, or the right -choice of words, and of syntax, or the right association of words. The -writer once wrote an article in which he used “protocatechuic” as a -test word, and wrote it as plain as any print, but the corrected proof -sent to him had the word printed “protocatechnic,” showing plainly that -the test had been too much for the reader. This probably resulted from -the reader’s ignorance of the word “catechuic”; but not only every good -proof-reader, but also every good copy-reader, should know that word.</p> - -<p>Unfortunately, there are many “cranky” proof-readers who are not -patient with a copy-reader who hesitates while deciphering bad -manuscript. Nine times out of ten the proof-reader himself could do -no better, notwithstanding that the responsibility is really his, -and that special ability in such work is one of his most important -qualifications. Well, such a proof-reader is simply not a gentleman, -and no remedy suggests itself. As nearly as the writer can decide, the -copy-reader<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">67</a></span> under such circumstances must either “grin and bear it” -or find another situation. As in all relations in life, patience and -forbearance on both sides are necessary for comfort, if not rather more -so here than in most relations.</p> - - - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="divider" /> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">68</a></span> -</div> - -<h2><a name="xiii" id="xiii"></a>CHAPTER XIII.<br /> -<small>PROPER ORDER OF PARTS IN A BOOK</small>.</h2> - - -<p class="noi"><span class="dropcap">T</span>HE subject of this chapter is suggested by a letter mentioning -differences of opinion of various authors and publishers. Without that -suggestion the chapter would never have been written, because one -arrangement is so common that the writer has never thought it came -short of universality. Indeed, many books have been examined since -receiving the letter, and all show the same arrangement. But this, -while constituting evidence of agreement among the makers of these -books, is really stronger evidence of the fact that even in dealing -with commonplaces it pays to be cautious in making assertions about the -prevalence of any practice, and especially in asserting that anything -is universal practice.</p> - -<p>Personal experience and research fail to disclose any arrangement -other than this: Frontispiece, title-page, copyright, dedication, -preface, contents, list of illustrations, errata, introduction, text, -index. Of course not all books have all of these features, and some -books have others not here given. For instance, sometimes there is a -publisher’s note, giving some explanation or announcement. Often that -may appropriately occupy the copyright-page, with the copyright beneath -it. Again, “Errata” are comparatively seldom given, but not<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">69</a></span> seldom -enough. Genuinely good proof-reading would reduce the necessity to -almost nothing; but genuinely good proof-reading is itself a rarity.</p> - -<p>Now, using some of the caution that has been indicated as necessary, it -must be admitted that some difference of opinion exists, and that the -arrangement given here is not universal. What is the printer to do if -the customer wishes some other arrangement? What is the proof-reader to -do if he finds the parts arranged in an unusual manner?</p> - -<p>Every printer who wishes to secure and keep a reputation for doing -good work must attend to preservation of the proprieties as far as he -can secure that. He can not, as a rule, take the matter of arrangement -into his own hands, any more than he can rewrite or edit his customer’s -work. Occasionally, but very exceptionally, he may be authorized to -change the order or even the substance of what is to be printed, but -probably no one would attempt it without distinct authorization, unless -it might be one of those few who can afford to insist upon having work -done in a certain way. A printer who can dictate methods or styles, -with the alternative that otherwise he will not do the work, must be -one who has secured sufficient permanent custom to make it unimportant -whether anything more is done or not. This amounts practically to an -assertion that, within reason, the customer must be allowed to have his -way. But most customers are amenable to reason, and it may be suggested -that it would be well to propose a change to one whose book-manuscript -is wrongly arranged. Consulting a few books will show a general -practice, and this, with the statement of that practice<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">70</a></span> already made -before looking at the books, should be convincing.</p> - -<p>What has the proof-reader to do with this? Well, the careful -proof-reader will look after all details and endeavor to get everything -right. If authors wrote exactly as they should write—so that every -letter and every point in their manuscript could be reproduced in -print without a change—proof-readers need be nothing more than -they are commonly paid for being. They would then have little to do -beyond comparison of proof and copy, for the purpose of correcting -compositors’ errors. Authors do not and will not prepare manuscripts -as carefully as they should; indeed, they simply can not always do -so, often through lack of time, and too often through inability. Many -of them actually do not know how to punctuate, and they are not few -who do not even know how to spell as all should know. Therefore the -proof-reader must be qualified at all points for correcting not only -the compositor’s work, but also that of the author.</p> - -<p>The particular matter that we are considering is not likely to come -into question before it is taken up in the composing-room, where the -foreman may notice the arrangement if it is wrong, and consult some one -for authority to change it. Many foremen would be likely to make it -right without consultation, and then the question would arise only if -the customer directed a change on the proofs. Should the foreman not -notice the order—most good foremen would, though—the matter would -probably come to the proof-reader unchanged, and it is as much his -duty to look after this as to do anything else. Unless specifically -instructed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">71</a></span> beforehand, he should call attention to the error, and have -it corrected if he can.</p> - -<p>Proof-readers should be able to give a reason for everything they do or -desire to do, and in this, as in all matters, there are good reasons -for one method and against others. Let us take the features of the book -in order as given. First, the frontispiece. Why, of course. The very -name places that first, as the piece for the front or beginning. It is -the picture or piece that fronts or faces the title-page. This seems -hardly open to question, yet the letter mentioned above did not so -place the frontispiece, and it may be just possible that the position -had been disputed.</p> - -<p>Equally unquestionable seems the position of the title-page. All -writings begin with a title, so that must be the first page of reading -in the book.</p> - -<p>As the title-page necessarily is backed by a page on which no real -division of the book can begin, since all beginnings are made on -odd-numbered pages, it is backed by the copyright, and the dedication, -as being also something not connected logically with any other part, -follows next.</p> - -<p>If there is no dedication, the preface, as merely something about the -matter of the book, follows the copyright. Good reason is found for -this in the fact that the preface is that which is thought necessary to -say just before beginning the book proper.</p> - -<p>Before we begin the text, however, it is thought well to state in -detail what is to be found in the text, so here we place the table -of contents, always properly beginning on an odd page and followed -logically by the list<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">72</a></span> of illustrations if there is one, as that is -itself really contents.</p> - -<p>All of these features naturally lead up to the main body of the book, -therefore they should all come before that. This is said before -mentioning the introduction because of the logic of circumstances. An -introduction, as its name implies, is that which introduces the subject -of the book. It is sometimes made the first chapter of a book, which is -a sufficient indication of its natural position.</p> - -<p>Last of all should be the index, because it is a résumé, and that can -not reasonably be given until we have given that upon which it is -founded. It can be made only after the text is finished, therefore its -natural position is after the text.</p> - - - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="divider" /> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">73</a></span> -</div> - -<h2><a name="xiv" id="xiv"></a>CHAPTER XIV.<br /> -<small>THE BOOK MAKE-UP</small>.</h2> - - -<p class="noi"><span class="dropcap">P</span>RACTICAL knowledge and ability in making up book-work are acquirable -only through experience. The process might be clearly described in all -its details, covering the entire range from the simplest page, of a -certain number of lines all of the same type, to the most complicated -congeries of different-sized type and small cuts, tables, or anything -else, and yet the closest student of the description would never know -how to do the work properly until he had done some of it. What is meant -by this may be elucidated by means of a story of personal happening, -though not dealing with any attempt at written instructions, but rather -with assumption from observation, and possibly some little previous -experience, on the part of a compositor.</p> - -<p>Some time ago I was foreman and proof-reader of the book-room of a -large jobbing establishment in New York. Having a large pamphlet in -hand, with three sizes of type, including a number of tables, and to -be printed from the type, the make-up was left till the last, as a -separate and special piece of work. Among the compositors were two -with whom I had been associated more or less for years, so that I knew -their capabilities. One of these two was first out of copy at the end -of the job, so that, all things being equal, the make-up should have -gone to him. All things not being considered equal, the make-up was -reserved for the other<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">74</a></span> of the two mentioned, who was not ready for it -until most of the men had been told there was no more work for them -just then. My old acquaintance who had been passed by said nothing -at the time, but went out and fortified himself with fire-water and -came back, accompanied by one of the prominent union politicians, to -“make a kick.” His argument was that, as he was out of copy first, -he was entitled to the making-up work, which was admitted, with the -qualification that the office was entitled to my best effort to have -the work done right, and so the man thought best able to do it was the -only one to whom it could be given conscientiously, notwithstanding our -recognition of the union, with all that that implied. This was met with -a contemptuous sneer at the idea that anything so simple as the make-up -should be kept for a certain man at the expense of another. “What one -man can do another can,” said the slighted one; and thereby he exposed -the weakness of his position, for many men can do even the simplest -work much better than many other men. “Making up!” he exclaimed; -“putting in a lead, and taking out a lead, and tying a string around -the page! Making up!”</p> - -<p>Well, is making up anything more than this man said it was? Possibly -not, except that there is a right way to do these things, and there -are many wrong ways. Besides, the greatest objection in the case given -was the man’s known inexperience of imposition. That objection would -apply comparatively seldom now, as letterpress printing is done much -less than it was. Still, practical knowledge of imposition is really as -necessary now to the fully competent compositor as it ever<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">75</a></span> was, for -with it he is enabled to undertake work that otherwise he can not do.</p> - -<p>Before the making up is begun the size of the page must be determined. -There is not and can not be any general rule for proportions, since -commonly many circumstances must be considered of which the maker-up -knows nothing, and frequently he must simply follow the directions of -the foreman. One thing, however, the wise maker-up can always regulate. -He should see that his page is exactly gauged to a certain number of -lines of the type most used in the text, since that is the only sure -guide to uniformity of length in the pages. It is not likely that any -foreman will ever object to a slight change in the gauge for this -purpose, if it happens that he has made or ordered one that does not -conform to it.</p> - -<p>Positive directions for determining the size of a page have been -published, but I know of none that will properly apply in all -cases, notwithstanding their positiveness of expression. Following -is what Marshall T. Bigelow says in his “Handbook of Punctuation”: -“In determining the form of a page of an oblong shape, whatever its -size, a certain proportion should always be maintained. The diagonal -measure of a page from the folio in the upper corner to the opposite -lower corner should be just twice the width of the page. This is no -arbitrary technical rule, but is in conformity to the law of proportion -establishing the line of beauty; it applies equally to all objects of -similar shape, and satisfies the eye completely. A long brick-shaped -page or book will not look well, however nicely it may be printed. -When we come to a quarto or square page, the true proportion<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">76</a></span> of the -diagonal to the width will be found to be as 10½ : 6¼—the size of a -good-shaped quarto—instead of 2 : 1, as in the oblong, or octavo. -And this shape also proves as satisfactory to the eye as the former -one. However large or small the page may be, these proportions should -be maintained for a handsome book.” These proportions are maintained -in the book from which we quote, but its pages would have been much -better in shape a little narrower and a little shorter. Many handsomer -books have pages that do not conform to Mr. Bigelow’s rule, though the -proportions given by him are good as a general guide. A “Printers’ -Grammar” published in 1808 has “a long brick-shaped page,” and is a -good-looking book. It says: “Should the length of the page be left to -the discretion of the compositor, he sets so many lines as he conceives -a fair proportion, which is generally considered as double its width.” -The page in which this is printed is not quite twice as long as its -width, yet it is exceptionally long for its width, judged either by -other books of its own time or by later books.</p> - -<p>If the size of the page is not dictated by the customer—very often -he will indicate it by means of some book whose size suits him—the -foreman or employer will be guided by the size of the sheet and the -amount of matter. Of course everybody knows this, but it is a part -of the proceeding that it may be well to mention, and that may be -dismissed after remarking that the length of the page should usually be -such as to leave the margins nearly equal.</p> - -<p>Practice varies somewhat as to the length of title-pages, some being -sunk a little from the top, some a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">77</a></span> little shorter and some a little -longer than the other pages. Ordinarily they should be exactly the same -as other pages in length. The usual title-page gains nothing by either -shortening or lengthening. There being differences of opinion in this -respect, however, compositor and proof-reader should learn what is -wanted in the office where they are employed and act accordingly.</p> - -<p>When very little matter is to occupy a page by itself, as bastard -titles, copyrights, dedications, etc., the matter should stand a little -above the middle of the page. Practice differs here also, some books -having such pages exactly centered, and some having them placed almost -two-thirds of the way up. One of the best of the old-time New York -offices had a rule that a copyright, bastard title, or anything of that -kind should have just twice as much blank below as there was above. All -such pages in their books looked inartistic, because of such misplacing -of the matter, though otherwise the taste shown was excellent. The -effect generally desired is that such matter should appear at a glance -to be in the center of the page, and this effect is better produced by -placing the matter actually a little higher up, but only a little.</p> - -<p>The sinkage of chapter-heading and similar pages is a matter not -often treated in books, and for which there is no fixed rule. Here, -again, Mr. Bigelow comes near to stating the best practice, though -circumstances often necessitate differences, and tastes differ, so -that it may easily happen that a customer will order a sinkage not in -keeping with Mr. Bigelow’s rule, which is: “The first page of the text -of a book should have about<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">78</a></span> two-thirds of the matter of a full page. -Where chapters or other divisions occur, a uniform sinkage of the same -division should be kept up through the book. In poetry this should be -done as nearly as possible; but allowance may be made for the different -stanzas which occur, so that they may be divided properly. A useless -repetition of a half-title over the first page following should be -avoided.” There are things in this that I can not understand. What does -the last sentence mean? What is the exact intention of the sentence -about poetry? But the prescription of uniform sinkage is good, and for -the commonest sizes of pages the proportion given for the first page -is about right. For a chapter-heading elsewhere in the book the same -sinkage as the actual blank at the top of the first page should be used.</p> - -<p>There are other points about the make-up of books that every compositor -and proof-reader should know, but they hardly come into question, being -always treated alike by all people concerned, and will be learned in -the right way only through actual experience.</p> - - - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="divider" /> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">79</a></span> -</div> - -<h2><a name="xv" id="xv"></a>CHAPTER XV.<br /> -<small>SOME QUESTIONS ANSWERED</small>.</h2> - - -<p class="noi"><span class="dropcap">F</span>OLLOWING are a few actual questions of general interest, with their -answers, as they were given in the “Proofroom Notes and Queries” in -<em>The Inland Printer</em>. In each instance the letter precedes its answer, -the two being distinguished by the use of different type.</p> - - -<h2><small>GRAMMAR AND DICTION.</small></h2> - -<blockquote> -<p>Do you write “1½ inches,” or “1½ inch”?</p> -</blockquote> - -<p>The difficulty in deciding this question is purely logical. Two or -more things must be named to justify the plural verb, says Logic, and -“one and a half” is less than two. But “one and a half” is more than -one, and the singular verb is grammatically restricted to one only; -therefore the grammatical rule should apply, and the plural verb be -used with any subject that must be read as “one <em>and</em> something more,” -even if the something is only a fraction.</p> - -<hr class="short" /> - -<blockquote> -<p>Which sentence is grammatically correct—“Ten dollars was paid,” -or “Ten dollars were paid”?</p> -</blockquote> - -<p>Simply as a matter of grammar, with no deference to sense, the second -sentence is right; but as a matter of fact, unless ten separate dollar -coins or bills are paid, which seldom happens, “was paid” is much more -accurate, as the real meaning is, “The amount of $10 was paid”—one -thing that is named by the words that express its equivalent in smaller -amounts. “Ten<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">80</a></span> dollars” is logically singular when it means one amount -of money, and so is “ten million dollars,” although grammatically -plural; therefore it is better to use the singular verb for the common -intention in sense.</p> - -<hr class="short" /> - -<blockquote> -<p>Is it proper to say, “Nine and six is fifteen”?</p> -</blockquote> - -<p>Those who insist that the rules of grammar should govern all such -expressions use the plural verb in such cases, and say “Nine and six -are fifteen,” because the words used express more than one thing, and -that is plurality. But the logic of it is that “the sum of” the two is -so much, and many scholars consequently favor the singular verb.</p> - -<hr class="short" /> - -<blockquote> -<p>A correspondent incloses an advertisement containing the -sentence, “Failures is the current talk now days,” and requests -an opinion as to its correctness.</p> -</blockquote> - -<p>The sentence is clearly ungrammatical, but it is not uncommon to -violate grammar rules in this way under certain circumstances, and -it is to be presumed that the writer thought of such circumstances, -though he may not have done so. If he thought of a number of individual -failures in the plural sense, and wrote “is” to go with the clearly -plural sense of the noun, he did not express his thought correctly. But -he may have thought of “failures” simply as one subject of talk, and -this would at least so far justify the singular verb as to leave its -correctness open to discussion. We may say, “‘Failures’ is the subject -of his lecture,” and reasonably expect that no one will criticise the -expression. Here are three such sentences, noted within a half-hour’s -reading while having our correspondent’s question in mind: “The revived -Olympic games is the subject of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">81</a></span> two articles.” “A thousand shares of -short interest is one result of the raid.” “A few doses is sufficient.” -The late Prof. William Dwight Whitney, author of “Essentials of English -Grammar,” decided, while editing the Century Dictionary, that “two and -two is four” is better than “two and two are four,” because the full -sense is “the sum of two and two,” or something similarly unifying the -idea of “two and two.” The sentence above questioned would be better -if written, “Failure is the current talk,” but “now days” instead of -<em>nowadays</em> is much more criticisable than the verb.</p> - -<hr class="short" /> - -<blockquote> -<p>Which of the following sentences are correct, and by what rule? -“Please state whether one or six bottles is desired.” “Please -state whether one or six bottles are desired.”</p> -</blockquote> - -<p>In this question as written there is an erroneous use of the -plural that is not at all questionable. “Which ... <em>is</em> correct” -should have been written. Only one is contemplated, as a choice, -by “which,” therefore the verb should be singular. In the sentence -inquired about <em>are</em> is the proper verb, because the plural subject -immediately precedes it, and the singular verb agreeing with “one” -is understood, not expressed. Logical fullness of expression would -demand something like “whether one bottle is or six bottles are”; but -that is plainly undesirable. The rule is that in such cases the verb -should agree with its immediate subject. Objection to the plural verb -in the other sentence does not conflict with this rule, because, the -pronoun “which,” meaning “which sentence,” is the direct subject, -notwithstanding the intervention of other words between it and the -verb.</p> - -<hr class="short" /> - -<blockquote> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">82</a></span> -I inclose two clippings from papers, which I have numbered (1) -and (2). Will you kindly inform me if these two sentences are -grammatically correct as printed? If not, please explain why. (1) -“He made many friends, but all were in moderate circumstances, -and none wanted to know any other language than their own.” (2) -“This thing is so simple and so clear in my own mind that I can -not see how any one can think differently; but if anybody does, I -would like to hear from them.”</p> -</blockquote> - -<p>The first sentence can not rightly be utterly condemned, although -“none” is simply “no one,” and so is primarily singular. It is not -uncommon to use the word with a plural pronoun or verb, as including -more than one, and it is not wrong to do so. It would undoubtedly be -right, however, to say “none wanted other than his own.” The second -sentence is positively and unqualifiedly bad, notwithstanding the -fact that the error is a very common one. “I would like to hear from -him” would be right. In cases like both of these (supposing that one -prefers the singular pronoun in the first) it is preferable to use the -masculine singular, despite the inclusion of women among those meant by -the other words, because it agrees in number, and while it means a man -and not a woman, “man” is inclusive of women, though it is essentially -a masculine word.</p> - -<hr class="short" /> - -<blockquote> -<p>Will you kindly inform me whether the subjoined sentence is -wrong? “The events in Field’s life—his birth at St. Louis in -1850; his education at Williams, Knox, Amherst, and Missouri -State Universities; his connection with the St. Louis <cite>Journal</cite>, -Kansas City <cite>Times</cite>, Denver <cite>Tribune</cite>, and Chicago <cite>News</cite>; and -his rise in journalism—were sufficiently commented upon at the -time of his unfortunate death a little over a year ago to require -special mention now.” It is claimed by a literary friend that the -word “not” should be inserted after “ago,” making the phrase read -“not to require special mention now.”<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">83</a></span> I maintain that the clause -beginning with “to” is a clause of result. For substitute the -word “enough” for “sufficiently”—which means the same—and see -how it reads: “The events in F’s life ... were enough commented -upon at the time of his ... death ... to require special mention -now.”</p> -</blockquote> - -<p>The sentence is incomplete without “not” after “ago,” or a -corresponding change, as “to require no special mention.” Its intention -is that no mention is now required, and why not say so? Substitution -of “enough” for “sufficiently” makes no difference, and I must confess -that I do not know what “a clause of result” is, as I never heard -of one before, at least with any meaning that is at all fitting for -anything that can be intended here.</p> - -<hr class="short" /> - -<blockquote> -<p>Many authors, especially those who dabble with statistics, -use the words “native language.” On consulting the Century -Dictionary, under the head “Native,” I find the following -definitions: “3. Of or pertaining to one by birth, or the place -or circumstance of one’s birth; as, native land, native language. -4. Of indigenous origin or growth; not exotic or of foreign -origin or production.” Now, will you kindly explain the native -language of a person born in Switzerland, where it is stated -that in one canton the language used is Italian, in another -German, and in still another French? Likewise of Alsace-Lorraine, -which at one time is a part of France and at another time is -an integral portion of Germany? Then, let us take Brazil. A -person born in that country is called a Brazilian, yet speaks -the Portuguese tongue. Colonization, also, leads to a strange -condition of affairs. When this country was settled there were -several languages, yet English became the predominant one. Still, -if I am not mistaken, English is not of indigenous origin or -growth here. While I am well aware that the words have been used -by some of the best writers, I am still of the opinion that it -is not strictly correct, and that some other expression might be -used. As an example, I will state<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">84</a></span> that I saw recently a case -where it was printed that a child was born in Canada of Italian -parents and that he could read and write his native language. -What is his native language?</p> -</blockquote> - -<p>One’s native language is that to which he is born—that is, it is -the one he acquires most naturally, being, of course, his parents’ -native speech, wherever he may be born. Dictionaries can not multiply -definitions for every possible mutation of human affairs. The -definitions quoted are absolutely right, even if various languages are -spoken in one country. An Italian Swiss’s native language is Italian; -in Alsace-Lorraine the native language of some of the people is German, -and that of others is French; in Brazil the native language of natives -is Portuguese. The second definition quoted has no connection with -languages, except that of the kind shown in saying that “the native -languages of America are the Indian languages”; it is not intended for -the case in question. Our native language is English, not primarily -through the place of our birth, but because of the circumstance that -we are born to that language, born of parents who use it and from whom -we instinctively acquire it. In the last case noted—the child born in -Canada—the native language is Italian. No reasonable objection to the -expression seems possible.</p> - -<hr class="short" /> - -<blockquote> -<p>Would you say, “About one person in ten doesn’t know that their -neighbors are saving money,” or do you think “his neighbors” -better?</p> -</blockquote> - -<p>“His” is decidedly better. It is never right to use a singular noun -and a plural pronoun, or any other disagreement in number. It seems -advisable in a case like that of the question here to say “About one -man in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">85</a></span> ten,” etc., because it is a business matter, and presumably -men are principally concerned. However, if generalizing by the noun -“person” is preferred, that need not lead to the real grammatical error -of using a plural pronoun. Of course a person may not be masculine, and -that is why so many people make the error in number—to avoid supposed -conflict in gender. But “man” is sufficiently generic to include all -mankind, and the fact of its being masculine in gender, and demanding a -masculine pronoun, need not be considered an insuperable objection to -its use in the inclusive sense. All readers would know that the mere -matter of general expression did not exclude women and children from -business dealings. Changing “man” to “person,” though, still leaves the -masculine pronoun good, for grammar demands agreement in number, and it -has been custom from time immemorial to use in such cases the word that -denotes the supposedly stronger sex. Thus we should say, “The animal -draws his load better under certain conditions,” in a general sense by -no means precluding the female animal from consideration; and why not -“the person” also? We are the more willing to discuss this matter now -because of a recent revival of the silliness that would have us use the -ridiculous word “thon,” meaning “that one,” in such cases. Here is the -latest outcropping of this nonsense: “We are prone to prefer the new -words to the old, and many men and women find a pleasure in introducing -a word not familiar to the average individual. Such a word is ‘thon,’ a -contraction of ‘that one,’ proposed in 1858 by Charles Crozat Converse, -of Erie, Pennsylvania, as a substitute for the clumsy combinations ‘he<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">86</a></span> -or she,’ ‘him or her,’ etc., as in the sentence, ‘The child must be -taught to study thon’s lesson.’ The word is so convenient that it is a -wonder that it remains new to most people. The want of it caused the -United States Supreme Court once upon a time to render a decision that -‘his’ in a law should be construed ‘his or her,’ so that women might be -as amenable to the law as the male lawmakers themselves. This ruling -allows writers of laws to avoid the use of ‘his or her,’ etc., every -time a personal pronoun has to be used. But in every-day use the ruling -of the courts does not count, and we need to use ‘thon’ every day of -our lives.” It was not the want of any such abominable formation as -“thon” that led to the court decision, but that decision merely fixed -in law what had always been a real principle in language. With correct -understanding of language facts, no one ever need say “his or her,” for -“his” alone is really sufficient. The abomination “thon” remains new to -most people because there is absolutely no need of it.</p> - -<hr class="short" /> - -<h2><a name="xvi" id="xvi"></a><small>FORM OF WORDS.</small></h2> - -<blockquote> -<p>Is it possible to construct the following sentence so as to -give three distinct and separate meanings without changing the -wording? The sentence is, “Twenty two dollar bills weigh as much -as a silver dollar.”</p> -</blockquote> - -<p>Yes. Twenty-two dollar bills, twenty two-dollar bills, and -twenty-two-dollar bills (though there is no bill issued for $22).</p> - -<hr class="short" /> - -<blockquote> -<p>Please explain the correct manner of compounding the following -adjectives: “Life-insurance company,” “fire insurance company,” -“tornado insurance company.” I am under the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">87</a></span> impression that they -should be used as written above, for this simple reason, namely: -In the first instance it is possible to place an insurance upon -your life, and therefore the two adjectives adhere and become -compound. In the latter two cases it is different—you do not -place insurance upon fire or tornado, but you insure <em>against</em> -them, and you do not insure against life; therefore, in the last -two instances, the two adjectives do not adhere directly and -should not be used as compound adjectives. I would also like to -inquire further, if either of the above is incorporated in the -full name of an organization, should they in any such case be -compounded?</p> -</blockquote> - -<p>If compounding occurs in any of the terms, it should in all, as -they are exactly alike grammatically. Difference of meaning in the -understood prepositions should not affect the forms. No compounding is -really necessary, although the terms are compounds etymologically. If -we tried to compound every term that could be reasonably joined in form -no dividing line would ever be reached. Usage, especially in the names -of corporations, is against compounding in these cases.</p> - -<hr class="short" /> - -<blockquote> -<p>A large book is now in press (about 150 pages having been -electrotyped). Throughout these pages the apostrophe and -additional <em>s</em> were used in names ending with <em>s</em>, viz., Lewis’s, -Parsons’s, Adams’s, etc. Proofs are now returned with final <em>s</em> -deled, which fact leads the Autocrat of the Composing-room (the -Chairman) to arise and assert that “while the practice may be -correct, it is behind the times,” “all good enough fifty years -ago,” “won’t go in <em>good</em> offices nowadays,” “never used in -first-class work,” closing with the remark that he doesn’t see -why it is not used in griffins’ [griffins’s] heads (!), Orphans’ -[Orphans’s] Home (!), calmly ignoring the fact that in the first -instance a common noun, plural, is used, and in the latter a -proper noun, same number. The reader contends that the apostrophe -and additional <em>s</em> as marked are correct, and refers to the -Harper publications, <em>Scribner’s</em>, the <em>Century</em>, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">88</a></span> the work -of any <em>good</em> printing house. Who <em>is</em> right, or which is right -(all questions of “style” aside)?</p> -</blockquote> - -<p>That Chairman evidently does not know the difference between singular -and plural, or at least does not know the grammatical distinction of -the forms, that has been just what it now is for more than fifty years. -“Adams’s,” etc., are the right forms, beyond any possible reasonable -objection; the only difficulty is that some people will not use the -right forms, and have been so thoroughly drilled in the use of wrong -forms that they insist that the wrong ones are right.</p> - -<hr class="short" /> - -<blockquote> -<p>Please tell me what kind of mark (if any) should be placed after -4th, 21st, and like words used in a sentence where if the word -were spelled out there would be no mark; as, “On the 21st of -September.” My opinion is that the form is not an abbreviation. -It certainly is a contraction, but nothing seems left out.</p> -</blockquote> - -<p>No mark should be used. The opinion that the form is not an -abbreviation is a good opinion, because there is no abbreviating. -Abbreviating is done by leaving off a part of the word, and it is -commonly shown by using a period at the end of the short form; but some -short forms, while they really are abbreviations, are not technically -known as such, because they are quite properly included in another -category, that of nicknames or merely short names. In this latter class -are “Ed,” “Fred,” “Will,” etc. In the ordinal words of our question -there is no cutting off from the end, but only substitution of a figure -for the numeral part of the word, with the same ordinal termination -that is used in the word when spelled out. How can anything “certainly” -be a contraction when nothing seems left out? A contraction<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">89</a></span> is a form -made by leaving out a part from between the ends and drawing the ends -together, commonly with an apostrophe in place of the omitted part, -as in “dep’t” for “department”; but some real contractions are known -as abbreviations by printers, because they are printed in the form of -abbreviations, as “dept.,” which is often used instead of the other -form. The dates with figures certainly are <em>not</em> contractions, as there -is no omission, but mere substitution of a figure for the corresponding -letters. Possibly the doubt arose from the fact that the Germans do -make abbreviations of ordinal words by using a figure and a period, -omitting the termination, as “21. September,” which shows plainly why -the point is used.</p> - -<hr class="short" /> - -<blockquote> -<p>In reading the proofs of a bicycle catalogue recently the writer -compounded the words handle-bar, tool-bag, seat-post, etc., on -the ground that they were all technical terms in this connection -and were therefore properly compounded. For this action he was -criticised, his critic claiming that handle-bar is the only -proper compound of the three words mentioned, inasmuch as neither -the bar nor the handle is complete alone, while in the other -cases named the parts are complete by themselves. Will you kindly -give your opinion on this matter?</p> -</blockquote> - -<p>The words mentioned are compounds, though they are more frequently -printed in the wrongly separated form than in their proper form. Mere -technicality, however, is not a good reason for compounding any words. -It is the fact that “handle” and “bar” are two nouns joined to make a -new noun that makes them become one word instead of two. “Handle-bar” -is no more technical than “spinal column,” for instance, is anatomical -(another kind of technicality), yet the first term<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">90</a></span> is one word and -the other is two. In the latter term the first word is an adjective, -fulfilling the regular adjective office of qualifying. The other name -has no qualifying element, being a mere name, representing the phrase -“bar used as a handle.” How any one can imagine such a difference -as that neither the bar nor the handle is complete alone, while in -the other cases named the parts are complete by themselves, passes -understanding. The circumstances are identical—two nouns in each case -joined to make a new noun representing such phrases as “bag used to -hold tools,” “post to support a seat,” etc. Even the accent as heard in -the first part of each name truly indicates compounding. The principle -is exactly the same as that which made the Greeks and Latins join two -nouns in one, through which we have “geography,” which is no more truly -one word than is its literal English translation, “earth-writing.”</p> - -<hr class="short" /> - -<blockquote> -<p>One of our printers, in setting up a job, came across the words -“large tobacco firm.” He felt sure a hyphen should be used -after the word “tobacco,” so it would not be understood as a -large-tobacco firm. To please him, I told him to put it in, but -told him its absence showed that the tobacco firm was large, and -not the tobacco. What do you do with such words as “honey crop”? -I compound it when it means the first stomach of the bee, but not -when the word “crop” means harvest.</p> -</blockquote> - -<p>Certainly, if any hyphening is done in the first words instanced, it -must be that which is mentioned; but none is necessary, and probably -few persons would ever think of it. Our correspondent seems to have -given a hasty answer to the question, as in fact it is not strictly -true<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">91</a></span> that the separated words show that the firm is large, and not -the tobacco. It would seem more accurate to say that no one (speaking -generally) would misunderstand the separated words, because the natural -conclusion is that the firm does a large business. On the contrary, if -the actual intention should be that the firm dealt in large tobacco, -that fact would be fixed beyond question by making a compound adjective -“large-tobacco.” The distinction between “honey crop” and “honey-crop” -is excellent. A principle is illustrated by it that would be worth a -great deal to everybody, if only it could be established and widely -understood and applied. It is difficult to state it clearly, although -the two kinds of meaning seem to show a very plain difference, that -might easily be less apparent in a sentence containing only one of -them. We can not say that “honey” is a true adjective in the separate -use, but it comes much nearer to the true adjective force in one use -than it does in the other. “Honey-crop” for the stomach, as “the -crop (stomach) in which honey is stored,” is simply one noun made by -joining two nouns. “Honey-bag” is the word given in dictionaries for -this. All the grammarians who ever wrote about this subject say that -in our language two nouns so used together simply to name one thing -become one word (meaning merely that they cease to be two words in -such use). Of course there is much disagreement, and it does not seem -probable that everybody will ever write all such terms alike; but it -is absolutely certain that some compound words of such make are as -fully established as if their elements were not usable separately, -and it seems impossible to distinguish in any reasonable way between -one such name and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">92</a></span> any other. In other words, if “honey-bag” is a -compound—and it is, no matter how many or what persons write it as -two words—“mail-bag,” “meal-bag,” and every similar name of a bag is -a compound; and if names of bags, then likewise every similar name of -anything else is a compound.</p> - -<hr class="short" /> - -<blockquote> -<p>The appended clipping is from a proof of a college publication, -and is part of a class history. It appears as it came from -the compositor’s hands. The editor of the annual in which it -will appear submitted the first of my questions (indicated -below) to the president of his college, and though the latter -enjoys considerable local prominence as an educator and a Greek -scholar, yet was he unable to enlighten us upon this point. -“In oratory we have shown our powers, and look forward to the -time when the Demosthenes of ’Ninety-eight will sway senates -and our Ciceros the political world.” What is the plural form -of “Demosthenes”? The plural is clearly the form the author had -in mind while writing it, but I am ignorant of either rule or -authority governing such cases. Would you prefer reconstructing -the sentence? To cover our ignorance somewhat, I suggested the -following: “In oratory we have shown our powers, and now look -forward to the time when ’Ninety-eight’s disciples of Demosthenes -will sway senates, and its Ciceros the political world.” In the -word “Reinoehl” (a proper noun), should the diphthong be used? I -stated that it should not be used, and was contradicted by the -editor of this same publication, who said that the president of -the college maintained that the diphthong was correct. Though -I could quote no authority, yet I believe I am right. The word -is a German one, as you will have noticed. The words Schaeffer, -Saeger, and Steinhaeuser appear without the diphthong on the same -page with the word Reinoehl, yet they passed unchallenged by -the editor. Would they not come under the same head as the one -mentioned first?</p> -</blockquote> - -<p>The quotation does not seem to show positively that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">93</a></span> a plural was -intended. As there was only one Demosthenes sufficiently famous for -the comparison, so the writer might mean only the one best oratorical -student. It is not an unnatural inference, though, that the plural was -intended. The plural form of “Demosthenes” is “Demostheneses.” Why -hesitate over that any more than over “Ciceros”? A regular English -plural is as good for one as for the other. Greek common nouns with -the termination <em>es</em> form the plural by substituting <em>æ</em> for that -ending, as “hoplites, hoplitæ; hermes, hermæ.” Our second example is -originally a proper name, but was and is used as a common noun, meaning -a bust that may or may not represent the god Hermes; but this is not a -good argument in favor of a Greek plural of “Demosthenes.” The change -suggested is not good, because “disciples” is not meant, the intention -being merely to note a similarity, and not a studied imitation: In the -German name separate letters should be used, as they represent umlaut -interchangeably with a double-dotted vowel without the <em>e</em>; thus, -either “Reinoehl” or “Reinöhl” is right, but “Reinœhl” is wrong. The -college president must have had the umlaut character (ö) in mind, not -the ligature (æ), in answering the question. All the names mentioned -are amenable to the same decision; what is right in one is right in all.</p> - -<hr class="short" /> - -<blockquote> -<p>An advertisement writer brought to the office, a few days since, -copy for an advertisement for a certain complexion soap in -which the word which is underlined occurred: “Combined with the -<em>emollience</em> of cucumber juice.” The proof-reader queried the -word to the author, informing him that it could not be found in -the dictionary (International, 1891); his response<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">94</a></span> was that the -word expressed the idea intended to be conveyed better than any -other that he knew of, and therefore he should use it, regardless -of the dictionary. I have since examined the Century Dictionary -and fail to find the word. The question arising in my mind is, -Should the proof-reader endeavor, when the author is present, -as he was in this case, to induce him to use a word for which -authority can be produced, or should the author be allowed, -without a word of protest, to coin words at his own sweet will? -It seems to me that the proof-reader should not be required to -blindly follow an author in a case of this kind after he has -satisfied himself that there is no warrant, except the whim of -the author, for the use of such words.</p> - -<p>Not long since, in reading a catalogue of road machinery I -noticed “barrow-pit.” Being somewhat in doubt whether it should -be compounded, as already written, or two words, I consulted the -International, and also the Century Dictionary, but failed to -find the word in either, finally concluding to use the hyphen. -Which is correct—barrow-pit, or barrow pit, or barrowpit? My -preference is for the use of the hyphen.</p> -</blockquote> - -<p>The writer was perfectly justifiable. If no word not in a dictionary -could be used, the language could not grow, and there would be many -ideas left inexpressible, for want of words. Johnson’s dictionary -contained many more words than any preceding work, and each new -dictionary since issued has increased the record. This could not have -been done if people had not used new words. Although “emollience” is -not in any dictionary, there is sufficient authorization in the fact -that -ence is used in forming nouns from adjectives in -ent, something -that any one may do at any time, just as one may add -less to any -noun, as “cigarless,” having no cigar. Emollience is the only possible -single word for “character of being emollient (softening).” This is not -properly a case of “whim.” The only proper restriction against such -neologism is that it should not be indulged<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">95</a></span> unnecessarily, as when -there is already existent a good word for the sense to be expressed.</p> - -<p>“Barrow-pit” is the only form that principle and commonest usage -will justify for this word—but the same principle gives also -“advertisement-writer,” “complexion-soap,” “cucumber-juice,” and -“road-machinery,” each of which you write as two words. Your decision -to use the hyphen in “barrow-pit” is in accordance with all text-book -teaching on the subject, and unless such teaching is applicable in all -strictly similar cases it is <em>all bad</em>. It can hardly be necessary to -reach any such pessimistic conclusion as that expressed in a letter -from a country superintendent of schools—“I do not know anything about -it, and I do not believe any one else does.” Our grammarians are not -all idiots. What possible principle could justify such a difference -as “advertisement writer” and “proof-reader” (for “one who writes -advertisements” and “one who reads proof”)? If one of them is one -word, the other also is one, the only difference being that some such -familiar short words are written without a hyphen.</p> - -<hr class="short" /> - -<blockquote> -<p>You in a recent edition, speaking of Roman type, used lower-case -<em>r</em>. We write to ask what, if any, warrant you have among -grammarians or lexicographers for the lower-case initial letter -in an adjective of this class. Would it by the same authority be -proper to use a lower-case in the word “Parisian,” “Chicago” used -as an adjective, etc.?</p> -</blockquote> - -<p>No rule as to capitalizing has wider acceptance or better basis in -principle than that an adjective derived from a proper noun should -be capitalized, and “Roman” is such an adjective. However, in the -connection this<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">96</a></span> word has in the matter with which we are dealing, -the lower-case letter is not wrong, though “parisian,” “chicago” in -any use, or any other such use of a lower-case initial letter would -be wrong. Reasons will be given after some authorities are cited. -The “Century Dictionary” says: “Roman, <em>a.</em> ... [<em>l. c.</em> or <em>cap.</em>] -Noting a form of letter or type of which the text of this book is an -example”; also, “Roman, <em>n.</em> ... [<em>l. c.</em>] A roman letter or type, in -distinction from an <em>italic</em>.” The “Standard,” under the noun, “[R- or -r-] A style of ceriphed type. ... also, a black gothic letter, etc.” -The “Imperial,” the standard Scotch dictionary, says of the adjective, -“applied to the common, upright letter in printing, as distinguished -from <em>italic</em>,” and of the noun, “A roman letter or type.” Benjamin -Drew, in “Pens and Types,” page 199, in speaking of specimens of -old-style type given in his book, says: “The next is a Fac-simile of -four roman and three italic Lines.” He says on page 57, in introducing -two lists of foreign words: “The roman list is destined to be -continually lengthening, while the italic, save as it receives new -accretions from foreign sources, must be correspondingly diminishing.” -Webster and Worcester missed the point of distinction in usage that was -discerned by the other lexicographers, and they capitalize “Roman” and -“Italic.” The questioner does not say anything about “italics,” used -in the same paragraph with “roman,” yet evidently the two words should -be treated alike. In fact, neither word in this use has its literal -sense, nor conveys a thought of Italy or Rome. When this literal sense -is expressed the words should be capitalized, just as “Parisian” and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">97</a></span> -“Chicago” should be. Webster actually says that “Roman” means “upright, -erect,” which is plainly not a meaning showing connection with a proper -noun, and, in fact, is not a true definition for the word with which it -is given. The word has no real sense other than its literal one, but -the literal allusion is so far removed from conscious apprehension in -the printing use that it is proper and prevalent usage to write it as -a common noun or adjective, just as such form has become prevalent in -many other cases, as—</p> - - -<div class="columns"> -<ul class="nobullet"> -<li class="column1">boycott</li> -<li class="column1">bowie-knife</li> -<li class="column1">badminton</li> -<li class="column2 reset3">gothic</li> -<li class="column2">herculean</li> -<li class="column2">protean</li> -<li class="column3 reset3">china</li> -<li class="column3">india-rubber</li> -<li class="column3">ampere</li> -</ul> -</div> - -<p>Have our correspondents ever noticed these words in books? The writer -of this answer has no hesitation in asserting that “italics” and -“italicize,” which have far more literary use than “roman,” will be -found with a lower-case initial much more frequently than otherwise; -and the same is true of “roman” in printers’ use, which must be looked -for mainly in printers’ books. What is here said, however, should not -be applied too strictly; the word in question should be capitalized in -special work such as that of our correspondents, where probably all -similar words have capitals, as Gothic, Doric, Ionic, etc.</p> - -<hr class="short" /> - -<h2><a name="xvii" id="xvii"></a><small>SPELLING AND DICTIONARIES.</small></h2> - -<blockquote> -<p>Kindly permit me to make a few comments. As to “honour, fervour, -ardour,” etc., you say that “undoubtedly the American way (<em>i. -e.</em>, honor, etc.) is better than the other, historically as well -as economically.” I suppose that “economically” means the saving -of one letter; that I do not consider as worthy of note at all. -As to the historical point, the words in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">98</a></span> Latin are all “honor, -ardor, fervor, labor, color,” etc.; but then in French, through -which they came into English, they are “honneur, couleur,” etc., -so that it seems to me that the <em>u</em> is historically defensible.</p> - -<p>“Sceptical” or “skeptical”—a matter of indifference; the hard -<em>c</em> represents the Greek kappa in any case. I suppose you spell -“speculator,” yet the Greek is σπεκουλάτωρ; so “sceptre” is the -Greek σκήπτρον. So we might write “spektakle” if we cared to do -so; indeed, many Greek scholars do use <em>k</em> where ordinary people -would use <em>c</em>, as “Asklepiad, Korkyra,” etc.</p> - -<p>“Ascendant, ascendancy”—the usual plan is to take the letter -found in the supine of the Latin verb; thus, “dependent,” from -Latin “dependens,” “intermittent,” from Latin “intermittens,” -“dominant,” from Latin “dominans,” and so on. On this plan -“ascendent” and “ascendency” would be right, as “scando” and -“ascendo” make “scandens” and “ascendens.”</p> - -<p>You say, “Each of the large dictionaries is worthy of acceptance -as final authority in every instance.” Not by everybody, by -any manner of means. There are many better scholars than the -dictionary-makers. Would you expect Mr. Gladstone, John Ruskin, -Andrew Lang, Archbishop Temple, Bishops Lightfoot and Westcott, -Dean Farrar, and many others to accept the dictum of a dictionary -man in every instance? Why, I do not do it myself. Indeed, -though I possess Greek, Latin, and French dictionaries, I have -never possessed an English one, and do not much regard them -or the people who think them infallible. Educated people in -England have no such opinion about dictionaries; in fact, they -consider <em>themselves</em> the source of authority in matters of -usage and pronunciation. Oxford and Cambridge men and members of -the educated classes in England are the sole arbiters in such -matters; there is no appeal against them. Richard Grant White -thoroughly grasped this and expressed it very well. Just as all -classical scholars try to write Attic Greek, <em>i. e.</em>, the Greek -of the inhabitants of one Greek city, and entirely disregard the -millions of other Greeks (even though so eminent as Homer and -Herodotus), so all English-speaking people should model their -language on that of the educated classes of Great Britain.</p> -</blockquote> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">99</a></span> -“Economically,” as used in the article criticised above, meant the -saving of one letter, and as many scholars, both English and American, -are noting such economy, and making it very important, it may be -concluded that it is worthy of note. Certainly the spellings “honour,” -etc., are defensible historically—but no assertion has been made that -they were not; the saying was merely that the other way is better -historically. The words came into English through French, but the Latin -spelling is preferable for more reasons than one. If we are to preserve -the <em>u</em> because it is in the French words, is not the reasoning -equally applicable to the whole syllable in which the letter is used? -Would it not be equally reasonable to preserve the other <em>u</em> in the -first syllable of “couleur”? The French themselves once spelled these -words—or most of them—<em>or</em>. They changed them probably to represent -better the natural French sound of such syllables. Because Englishmen -first learned such words from Frenchmen does not seem a valid reason -why the former may not revert to the historical original, which is more -in keeping with English analogy, and better represents the English -sound.</p> - -<p>As to “sceptical” and “skeptical,” one who knows the need of a vast -majority of English-speaking people of an authoritative choice -between the two forms can never admit that the spelling is “a matter -of indifference,” even if it could be reasonably admitted on any -ground. Our correspondent is unfortunate in his selection of an -example here, for σπεκουλάτωρ seems to be not a true Greek word, but -only a transliteration of Latin “speculator,” the true etymon of the -English word,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">100</a></span> which does not come from Greek. We might have written -“spektakle” if we had cared to do so, as it is spelled with <em>k</em>s in -some Teutonic languages; but in the close connection here there is a -strong suggestion that this word might also be Greek, which it is not. -The reason for preferring “skeptical” is that there is not another -English word in which <em>c</em> in the combination <em>sce</em> is hard, and so -“sceptical” is a very bad spelling, even if it is prevalent in Great -Britain.</p> - -<p>On the plan mentioned in the letter “ascendent” and “ascendency” are -right; but the other spellings are copied from the French, so potent -with our correspondent in the other case, and are prevalent in present -usage. “Ascendant” and “ascendancy” are preferable for this reason, -and because the use of these spellings removes one of the puzzling -differences which most people can not understand or explain. The plan -mentioned would also give “descendent,” which has no currency as a -noun, though it has been used as an adjective, and “descendant” and -“ascendant” are so much alike in their nature that it is better not to -make them different in form.</p> - -<p>“Each of the large dictionaries is worthy of acceptance as final -authority in every instance” was intended only as an assurance that -those who desired such an authority—and there are many such—might -reasonably accept the one chosen, without trying to make exceptions. -There could be no intention of dictating that scholars should “accept -the dictum of a dictionary man” in every instance, for that would be -“putting the cart before the horse” with a vengeance. One need feel no -hesitation in saying, however, that the English-speaking<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">101</a></span> educated man -does not live, and never will live, who can afford to ignore utterly -dictionaries of English. No dictionary is made as our correspondent -seems to assume that all are made, though probably every one of them -has provided employment for some men not so thoroughly educated as men -can be. Educated people, in America as well as in England, make the -scholarly part of the language, though it contains much that is made by -the common people and that finds just as thorough establishment as that -made by the scholars. Dictionary-makers never pose as language-makers. -They are recorders of what is already made, which is so great in -quantity that no scholar can hope to master the fiftieth part of it -so thoroughly as to need no record of it. Even supposing that Oxford -and Cambridge men and members of the educated classes in England are -the sole arbiters in such matters—it is not supposable, though—how -is the rest of the world to know their decisions if they are not -recorded? Any record of them will constitute a dictionary, for that is -exactly what a dictionary is—namely, a record of the accepted details -of diction. As a matter of fact, also, our actual dictionary-makers, -those who are vested with authoritative decision, are selected from -among the very men for whom independence of dictionary men’s dicta is -claimed. Noah Webster, Dr. Worcester, Professor Goodrich, Professor -Whitney, Dr. March, President Porter, Dr. C. P. G. Scott, and Dr. J. -A. H. Murray—not to mention the many other English scholars who have -been dictionary-makers—rank with the men named in the letter, if some -of these do not outrank some of those in scholarship, and they are -the ones who<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">102</a></span> choose where there is a choice in making the record. -Dictionaries contain errors, and scholars are independently above -acceptance of the errors; but we may repeat the saying that when once a -large dictionary is chosen as authority it is better, as to matters of -spelling, to accept it in full.</p> - - - - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="divider" /> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">103</a></span> -</div> -<div class="books-container"> -<p class="p120 center"><a name="books" id="books"></a><em>HINTS ON IMPOSITION.</em></p> - -<p class="center">A handbook for printers by <span class="smcap">T. B. Williams</span>.</p> - -<p class="noi"><span class="dropcap2">T</span>HIS book is a thoroughly reliable guide to the imposition of book -forms, and shows, in addition to the usual diagrams, the folds of the -sheet for each form, with concise instructions which may be readily -understood by the advanced printer or the apprentice. Several chapters, -fully illustrated, are devoted to “making” the margins, and this -feature alone is well worth the price of the book. 96 pages, 4 by 6 -inches, bound in full leather with gold side stamp; $1.00.</p> - - -<p class="p120 center"><em>EVERYBODY’S POCKET DICTIONARY.</em></p> - -<p class="noi"><span class="dropcap2">C</span>ONTAINS 33,000 words; the pronunciation, syllable divisions, part of -speech, capitalization, participles, and definitions being given. It is -an invaluable companion to everybody who has occasion to talk, read or -write. This book is not a “speller,” made hastily only to sell; but is -an accurate and complete dictionary, compiled from the latest edition -of Webster’s great International. Especially valuable to every editor, -printer, pressman, student and stenographer, and worth ten times its -cost to anybody. Size, 2½ by 5½ inches; leather, indexed, 50 cents; -cloth, not indexed, 25 cents.</p> - - -<p class="p120 center"><em>STEREOTYPING.</em></p> - -<p class="center">By <span class="smcap">C. S. Partridge</span>, Superintendent of Stereotyping for A. N. -Kellogg Newspaper Company.</p> - -<p class="noi"><span class="dropcap2">T</span>HIS is the only book devoted exclusively to papier-maché stereotyping -which has ever been published, and is an exhaustive treatise of the -subject, containing detailed descriptions of all the best methods -of work in present use, including Cold Process, instructions for -operating the Rolling Machine, Paste Recipes, Metal Formulas, Hints -for the Protection of Type, Suggestions for the Operating and Care of -Machinery, Instructions for Grinding Tools, and a complete list of -unexpired patents pertaining to Stereotyping Methods and Machinery, -including number of patent, date of issue and name of inventor. 140 -pages, 6 by 8½ inches; 50 illustrations; $1.50.</p> - - -<p class="p120 center"><em>MAGNA CHARTA BOND ADS.</em></p> - -<p class="noi"><span class="dropcap2">T</span>HE complete set of 148 designs submitted in the recent advertisement -competition of the Riverside Paper Company can now be obtained in book -form. This is a valuable work for the compositor, the apprentice, -the advertiser or the writer of advertisements, as it gives many -suggestions as to proper display. A 160-page book, 9 by 12 inches in -size. Sent to any address on receipt of 50 cents.</p> - -<p class="p120 center">◉ ◉ ◉</p> - -<p class="noi sans center-left"><em>The above for sale by</em></p> -<p class="p120 center sans"><em>The Inland Printer Company,</em></p> - -<p class="center sans"><em>150 Nassau Street, NEW -<span class="wordspacing">YORK. 214</span> Monroe Street, CHICAGO.</em></p> -</div> - - - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="divider" /> -</div> -<div class="books-container"> -<p class="center p150 fancy">The Inland Printer.</p> - -<p class="center p130 fancy">What it is.</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">The Inland Printer</span> is a monthly magazine of from 100 to -120 pages, 9 by 12 inches in size, devoted to printing, publishing, -engraving, electrotyping, stereotyping, bookbinding, papermaking and -all the kindred trades. It is a work of art, and should be in the hands -of every lover of the typographic art or anyone interested in newspaper -work or advertising. Issued promptly on the first of every month. -Subscriptions can begin with any number.</p> - - -<p class="center p130 fancy">What it Contains.</p> - -<p>Its pages are filled with the most instructive and interesting original -articles relating to the matters that properly come within its domain, -besides an amount of valuable data, trade topics, correspondence, -craft items, recent patents, recipes, hints and suggestions that will -surprise you. In addition to this, it is copiously illustrated, and the -whole make-up and general character of the work is such as to challenge -admiration.</p> - -<div class="inline-head"> -<p class="center p120 fancy inline">The Illustrations.</p> - -<p class="inline">The full page illustrations and those worked in with the text are -all of a high order, and include half-tone, zinc etching and other -methods of engraving, alike valuable to the engraver, process-worker, -compositor and pressman. Colored plates, by various processes, are also -shown.</p> -</div> - -<div class="inline-head"> -<p class="center p120 fancy inline">The Text.</p> - -<p class="inline">Taking up a copy at random one finds articles on proofreading, the -point system in type founding, notes on bookbinding, natural colors -in the printing press, newspapers and newspaper men, the country -newspaper, typographical make-ready, advertising, convention notes, -review of type designs, pressroom queries and answers, process -engraving, new patents, trade notes and much general information.</p> -</div> - -<div class="inline-head"> -<p class="center p120 fancy inline">The Advertisements.</p> - -<p class="inline">These are as important in a way as any other part of <span class="smcap">The Inland -Printer</span>, for the reason that they are set in attractive and catchy -style, alike beneficial to the compositor, and “ad.” writer, and -printed in the same excellent way that the other part of the journal -is. This part will interest you as well as the text.</p> -</div> - -<p class="center sans">SUBSCRIPTION PRICE:</p> - -<p class="center sans">$2.00 per Year; $1.00 for Six Months; 20c. per Copy.</p> - -<p>No free copies and no exchanges. Subscribe through your type founder, -material dealer or news agent, or send direct to</p> - -<p class="center p130 fancy">The Inland Printer Company,</p> - -<p class="floatleft"> -150 NASSAU ST., -NEW YORK. -</p> -<p class="floatright"> - 212-214 MONROE ST., - CHICAGO. -</p> -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> -<hr class="divider" /> -</div> -<div class="tn"> -<p class="p120 center">Transcriber’s Note:</p> - -<p class="center">The text has been preserved as closely as possible to the original -publication.</p> -</div> - - - - - - - -<pre> - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Proof-Reading, by F. Horace Teall - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PROOF-READING *** - -***** This file should be named 50366-h.htm or 50366-h.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/5/0/3/6/50366/ - -Produced by David Edwards and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net, in celebration -of Distributed Proofreaders' 15th Anniversary, using images -generously made available by The Internet Archive - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - - - -</pre> - -</body> -</html> diff --git a/old/50366-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/50366-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index a2496c1..0000000 --- a/old/50366-h/images/cover.jpg +++ /dev/null |
