Copy editors
Skitt
Here is an answer to what I sent to a writer at a local newspaper. I should
note that previous errors I have pointed out to other news writers have also
been blamed on their copy editors, after the writers had left.
============
Thanks for writing in. Unfortunately, I believe, a copy editor got to it
after I left, inserting that phrase. I'll pass the message along,
though.
Lisa Fernandez
Mercury News staff writer
408-920-5002
============
[I had written:]
Dear Ms. Fernandez,
I see that you were trying to write to impress. Unfortunately, in the
following sentence, in MercuryNews.com today, the "whom" is quite wrong.
The simple "who" is the one needed.
The two men, whom police say were previously strangers,
were arrested last month, but because they posted bail,
had no legal requirement to be charged within a certain
period of time.
<rest snipped>
--
Skitt (AmE)
Cece
What copy editors? How many writers actually know grammar? If there
are copy editors, do their proposed changes get passed along to the
end of the chain? And how many of the copy editors actually know
grammar? Or spelling? Books published by big houses in New York City
have the most astonishing errors, like "He or she are at home" and
"Glenfiditch."
Leslie Danks
[...]
> Books published by big houses in New York City
> have the most astonishing errors, like "He or she are at home" and
> "Glenfiditch."
Perhaps these two errors are in some way connected.
--
Les (BrE)
annily
So she's saying that the copy editors inserted the phrase "whom police
say were previously strangers"? Yeah, right.
--
Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which may or may not influence my opinions.
Cece
>
> - Show quoted text -
They may have done! Heck, I think it was Bernstein who mentioned a
copy editor having edited his work so that it said the opposite of
what it was supposed to. I've seen characters in novels set in
Georgia using "y'all" for every occurrence of second person, singular
or plural; I've seen characters in novels set in the Midwest metion
having to stand "on line." From the bio in the back of the book, the
authors live near their characters -- those usages have to have been
edited in by a NYC copy editor.
Using the plural verb for a compound subject when each part is
singular and the conjunction is "or" has become common, it seems.
I've seen it in the works of several novelists, from several
publihers. In one mystery novel, one character stopped in the
couintry club to enjoy a bit of Scotch several tiimes, always
specifying "Glenfidditch." Now, I don't know Scotch, but that
spelling just did not look right to me. So I looked it up.
How many times have you been reading a recent novel and found your
eyes crossing as you try to figure out which character is being
mentioned? It says "he" but logically, it should be "she." It's
somewhat easier when it should be "her" and it's "he." Although that
is more jarring. And what about all the homophone confusion that
survives through the whole process of publishing? Simon & Schuster,
Hatchetts, all of them.
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> Using the plural verb for a compound subject when each part is
> singular and the conjunction is "or" has become common, it seems.
> I've seen it in the works of several novelists, from several
> publihers.
And you'll see it plenty of other places. "Neither ... nor ..." with
a plural verb is pandemic, and "or" is gradually catching up. I've
spotted several examples of "nor" with plural just in my recent
sporadic reading of this here group. I think it'll reach Standard
status well the sort of "whom" to which Skitt rightly objected.
Bob Lieblich
Neither Skitt nor I favor "whom" where "who" is needed
Mike Lyle
"Neither...or" is much favoured in BBC circles...and, as I sort of
remembered and OED confirms, in orbits as stellar as those of Chaucer,
Tyndale, Milton, and _The Independent_. I nonetheless deprecate it,
because the usage must sometimes deprive us of a layer of precision.
--
Mike.
Chuck Riggs
To whom it may concern, if either of you favored any word where
another is needed, I'd be both surprised and disappointed.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> [ ... ]
> The simple "who" is the one needed.
>
> The two men, whom police say were previously strangers,
> were arrested last month, but because they posted bail,
> had no legal requirement to be charged within a certain
> period of time.
It's very similar to the Bible's "whom say men that I am?", so the
error, if error it be, has been around a long time.
Although we were all taught that "whom" was accusative for nominative
"who", I think a case could be made for thinking that that is wrong,
and that "whom" is just more emphatic or rhetorical than "who" (though
in your example that wouldn't apply).
--
athel
Bohgosity BumaskiL
news:4B0ECD18...@yahoo.com...
For whom tolls the bell?