What's the plural of "copy" (a copywriter's output)?

[Dingbat]

Would an editor say 'let me see the copies' meaning 'output from multiple copywriters'?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_(written)

Copy refers to written material, in contrast to photographs or other elements of layout, in a large number of contexts, including magazines, advertising, and books.

In advertising, web marketing and similar fields, copy refers to the output of copywriters, who are employed to write material which encourages consumers to buy goods or services.

In publishing more generally, the term copy refers to the text in books, magazines, and newspapers. In books, it means the text as written by the author, which the copy editor then prepares for typesetting and printing.

In newspapers and magazines, "body copy", the main article or text that writers are responsible for, is contrasted with "display copy", accompanying material such as headlines and captions, which are usually written by copy editors or sub-editors.

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:38:24 -0700 (PDT), Dingbat
<ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Would an editor say 'let me see the copies' meaning 'output from multiple copywriters'?
>

I would not think so. I would expect him/her to say "Let me see the
copy". "Copy", in this case, is all of the material compiled and
written by all of the people who compile and write copy.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Horace LaBadie]

In article <99bdd52f-a40f-4341...@googlegroups.com>,

Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Would an editor say 'let me see the copies' meaning 'output from multiple
> copywriters'?

SNIP

No.

Mass noun, innit?

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

How to say in four words what it took Tony three lines to say, and
would probably have taken as much if I'd composed my reply before
seeing yours.

--
athel

[Peter T. Daniels]

Some people can't assimilate technical terminolgy.

[Tony Cooper]

One is a short, technical explanation that requires the reader to know
the meaning of the technical term. The other is an extended answer
that explains why the technical term applies.

A person asking a question like this is not presumed to know the
technical term.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

I wasn't getting at you, Tony! I was getting at the wordy explanation I
would have no doubt given if I hadn't read Horace's and yours first.
Anyway, the distinction you make is perfectly valid, though I'm not
sure Ranjit counts as a beginner.


--
athel

[Tony Cooper]

I think providing the technical answers are often a form of showing
off intimacy with the technical terms. Like the person who repeatedly
writes "SCOPE AMBIGUITY" in response to a learner's postings rather
than providing a reply that actually explains why the sentence is
lacking.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Must be the total absence of attention span that prevents you from recalling
Dingbat's level of competence (despite the insulting monicker he chose).

Neither monicker nor moniker looks right.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 2:53:19 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:

> I think providing the technical answers are often a form of showing
> off intimacy with the technical terms. Like the person who repeatedly
> writes "SCOPE AMBIGUITY" in response to a learner's postings rather
> than providing a reply that actually explains why the sentence is
> lacking.

Someone who calls arthur-Navi a "learner" must be utterly oblivious. There is
no evidence in his writing that he is not a fluent writer of English, and his
method of inquiry is essentially exactly the same as that of the early Chomskyans.

[bill van]

In article <99bdd52f-a40f-4341...@googlegroups.com>,
Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I worked for Canadian newspapers and wire services from approximately
1967 until 2012 as a writer and editor. I never heard copy, in the sense
of one or more persons' output of organized words, used in the plural. I
probably wouldn't understand what was meant if I did hear it.

I do know of one journalist, now working in radio, who plays with the
form. At the end of each hour, he announces that there will be a pause
for "all the news and weathers".
--
bill

[Tony Cooper]

If he is as adept at English as you maintain, then why are must you
write "SCOPE AMBIGUITY" so many times? Surely, by now he should be
remindable by at least the term in lower case.

[Peter T. Daniels]

I just told you. He is reinventing early-Chomskyan syntax.

It looks like you don't bother reading the explanations he appends, because
they're usually quite accurate.

[Janet]

In article <72472ef4-2e37-4d96...@googlegroups.com>,
gram...@verizon.net says...

just to tease you, why "knicker" but not nicker or moknicker.

Janet.

[Peter T. Daniels]

That's easy: it's Dutch.

[Harrison Hill]

I hope navi reads this thread. I have no idea what "SCOPE
AMBIGUITY" means - although I've stared at the explanation a
few times.

"...like a hawk encumber'd with his hood,
Explaining Metaphysics to the nation —
I wish he would explain his Explanation".

[Dingbat]

Word Origin and History for Knickerbocker
"descendant of Dutch settlers of New York," 1831, from Diedrich Knickerbocker, the name under which Washington Irving published his popular "History of New York" (1809). The pen-name was borrowed from Irving's friend Herman Knickerbocker, and literally means "toy marble-baker."
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/knickerbocker

knickerbockers (1859), said to be so called for their resemblance to the trousers of old-time Dutchmen in Cruikshank's illustrations for Washington Irving's "History of New York"
Example: His stockings were short, and did not come up to his knickerbockers.

knickers, 1866, shortening of knickerbockers
undergarment now but not originally so.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/knickerbockers

FROM KNICKERBOCKERS TO KNICKERS

When men wore loose trousers for sport they were sometimes called knickerbockers. However women's underwear were soon called knickerbockers too. In the late 19th century the word was shortened to knickers. In the USA women's underwear are called panties, which is obviously a diminutive of pants.

At the beginning of the 1800s women still wore a long nightie-like garment under their dress but it was now called a chemise not a shift. However after about 1800 they also wore drawers. Sometimes they came to below the knee or sometimes they were longer garments with frills at the bottom called pantalettes. However by the 1830s only girls not women wore pantalettes.

Today we still say a pair of knickers or panties. That is because in the early 19th century women's underwear consisted to two separate legs joined at the waist. They really were a 'pair'.

At first women's drawers were usually very plain but in the late 19th century they were decorated with lace and bands. In the Winter women often wore woolen knickers and woolen vests.

Victorian women's underwear were sometimes called bloomers. Elizabeth Miller invented loose trousers to be worn by women. The idea was promoted by Amelia Bloomer from 1849 and they became known as bloomers. In time long underwear became known as bloomers.

By the late 19th century in Britain men's underwear were called pants. Men also wore vests. Some men wore combinations, pants and vest in one garment.

Life in the 19th Century

20th Century Underwear

In the 19th century women's underwear was usually open between the legs but in the 20th century closed knickers replaced them.

In the 19th century knickers came down to well below the knee. In the 1920s they became shorter. They ended above the knee. By the 1940s and 1950s many women wore briefs. Men's underwear also became shorter. The word drawers went out of use and they became known as underpants or pants.

http://www.localhistories.org/underwear.html

[Tony Cooper]

The meaning is easily found on the Internet, but the more helpful
answer would be to point out the scope ambiguity (I assume it can be
written in lower case) and identify what is ambiguous and what can be
done to improve the sentence.

Maybe if it can be declared to be a "clinical" term it would not be
used by the frequent user of the term.

[Peter T. Daniels]

It is, of course, a technical term (linguists don't operate in clinics, or
operating rooms -- those are the province of speech pathologists), and it
was explained to arthur-Navi long ago when he posed a raft of questions
about examples of it.

As I recently pointed out, the standard example is "old men and women." Who
are old? Just the men, or both the men and the women? You _cannot know_,
because the phrase is _ambiguous_, and it ambiguous because the scope of
the modifier may be over one element of the compound, or over both. Here
are the simple diagrams:

[[old men] and [women][ [old [men and women]]

I realize that might be trying for Tony Cooper, but it should be clear to HH.

[snide...@gmail.com]

Once you've given the same explanation several hundred times,
you get tempted to shorten the explanation.
Like the story of the prison where all the prisoners know all the jokes,
so they just shout out "71!" when they want their fellow inmates to laugh.
Except that some people get tired of the same joke after 8 years.

>
> Maybe if it can be declared to be a "clinical" term it would not be
> used by the frequent user of the term.

Tony, I would be happy for you to take over answering Navi. We will all agree
to wait until you've posted before chiming in to those threads.

/dps

[Tony Cooper]

This was one of the exchanges:

Navi:
"2) I am not a psychologist like Pete.
Does this mean:
a) I am a psychologist but not of the type Pete is.
or
b) Unlike Pete, I am not a psychologist.

PTD:
Yes.

Do I really need to say it again? SCOPE AMBIGUITY."

Is that helpful to Navi? Or would it be to anyone?

>> Maybe if it can be declared to be a "clinical" term it would not be
>> used by the frequent user of the term.
>
>Tony, I would be happy for you to take over answering Navi. We will all agree
>to wait until you've posted before chiming in to those threads.

I only reply to Navi when I think I can provide a helpful answer.

[arthu...@gmail.com]

I sort of get what 'scope ambiguity' means. 'SCOPE AMBIGUITY' has the added connotation that Peter does not like early Chomskyans!

The problem is that I don't know when and where there is scope ambiguity.

I am not a psychologist like Pete.

Old men and women were allowed to leave before the fighting began.

I do not see any similarity between the two structures other than that both of them have 'scope ambiguity'. That is why I cannot tell that the first one has scope ambiguity although I know the second one does.

But Peter's replies, even if they consist only of the two words 'SCOPE AMBIGUITY' are helpful.

I ask if a certain sentence is ambiguous and Peter says 'SCOPE AMBIGUITY'. To me that means 'yes' (a resounding one at that!).

I happened upon this thread by chance actually. I don't read all the threads in this forum.

How good is my English? That question seems ambiguous to me!!

Respectfully,
Navi.

PS. I know very little about linguistics. I think when I first learnt about Chomskyan linguistics, I thought it was pretty neat, but wondered if it was really as original as it was made out to be. I think the method seemed very logical, and at the same time sort of obvious to me. I think that is what I thought. It is a pity I can't be sure.

[Peter T. Daniels]

> I sort of get what 'scope ambiguity' means. 'SCOPE AMBIGUITY' has the added connotation that Peter does not like early Chomskyans!
>
> The problem is that I don't know when and where there is scope ambiguity.
>
> I am not a psychologist like Pete.
> Old men and women were allowed to leave before the fighting began.
>
> I do not see any similarity between the two structures other than that both of them have 'scope ambiguity'. That is why I cannot tell that the first one has scope ambiguity although I know the second one does.

That's the similarity they have! The Pete sentence is ambiguous because "not"
has (at least) the two different scopes that you identified.

> But Peter's replies, even if they consist only of the two words 'SCOPE AMBIGUITY' are helpful.
>
> I ask if a certain sentence is ambiguous and Peter says 'SCOPE AMBIGUITY'. To me that means 'yes' (a resounding one at that!).
>
> I happened upon this thread by chance actually. I don't read all the threads in this forum.
>
> How good is my English? That question seems ambiguous to me!!
>

[Janet]

In article <u2v7pblo5kdk1di16...@4ax.com>, tonycooper214
@gmail.com says...

"Yes" can answer both Navi's questions.

From which a reader might guess that the original sentence has scope
for ambiguity. Can it also mean "Pete and I are not psychologists"? Yes.

> I only reply to Navi when I think I can provide a helpful answer.

However, there is considerable scope for ambiguity in what posters
consider helpful. What kind of help does one think Navi needs? Is one
trying to help Navi, or aue?

Janet.

[arthu...@gmail.com]

Thank you very much, Peter and Janet,

It seems that the scope of 'scope ambiguity' is a bit larger than I had thought. I am not sure that I can come to grips with that extension of that concept.

I appreciate all replies. Most contributors here are native speakers and will probably not profit from replies given to my questions. They already know the answers. I don't know if there are non-native speakers who are interested in my questions or not. I hope there are.

I don't think there is a linguist writing a thesis about 'scope ambiguity' who is following my activities here!!

Respectfully,
Navi.

PS. I have to say that quite often there are discrepancies in the replies I get. Maybe those discrepancies would be of interest to some native speakers... I doubt it though...