[Vwoolf] "principle" in place of "principal"

[Jeremy Hawthorn]

Quote: "Freelance editors -- many of whom used to work for publishing companies but were let go because it was cheaper to hire them back as freelancers rather than to keep them as employees -- are out here, ready and willing"

You're not wrong there. One of the best copy editors I ever had worked from home and freelanced for major publishers. When I talked to her on the phone I could hear a baby crying in the background. Not hard to put together the narrative behind that situation.

Jeremy H
________________________________
From: vwoolf-bounces+jeremy.hawthorn=ntnu.no at lists.service.ohio-state.edu [vwoolf-bounces+jeremy.hawthorn=ntnu.no at lists.service.ohio-state.edu] on behalf of Mary Ellen Foley [mefoleyuk at gmail.com]
Sent: 25 October 2013 11:00
To: woolf list
Subject: Re: [Vwoolf] "principle" in place of "principal"

The grammar problem that really gets me is the misuse of 'lie' and 'lay'.  It's not even difficult to keep them straight, but it seems that these two are now interchangeable, used haphazardly by all sorts of highly educated people.  Sigh.

BUT help is at hand, if you aren't happy with the editing you're getting these days: hire me, or another freelance editor.  (Stuart can vouch for me!)

Freelance editors -- many of whom used to work for publishing companies but were let go because it was cheaper to hire them back as freelancers rather than to keep them as employees -- are out here, ready and willing.

Publishing companies, from what I hear, are just now waking up to the problem they've created by letting the editors go, because new editors used to be trained within the publishing industry by the old editors, and there are too few new editors being trained up under the old system now.  I fear, though, that rather than a scarcity of editors driving the rates higher (it would be nice to make something like a living wage), people will just decide they don't need editors at all.  And *everybody* needs editors, including other editors.  (I've probably got some errors in these few paragraphs, especially as I'm writing at almost 2 a.m.  These will be embarrassing tomorrow morning, no doubt.)

Mary Ellen Foley


On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 2:38 AM, Sunjoo Lee <abgrund at naver.com<mailto:abgrund at naver.com>> wrote:

Hi, everyone,



I have been a bit bugged by seeing "principle" when the word has to be "principal."

I saw that happening in doctoral dissertations and (in a few cases) articles from well-known journals, or even books from good publishers.



And this afternoon, from Heidegger's Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics (Indiana UP, 1997), I found:



"Thus the knowledge of beings in general (Metaphysica Generalis) and the knowledge of its principle divisions (Metaphysica Specialis) become a "science established on the basis of mere reason."" (6).



And now I wonder, has "principle" been accepted as an alternate spelling of "principal"? Only I haven't been aware of it?

Dictionaries I use don't have such information. Has anyone else wondered about this?





Sunjoo


_______________________________________________
Vwoolf mailing list
Vwoolf at lists.service.ohio-state.edu<mailto:Vwoolf at lists.service.ohio-state.edu>
https://lists.service.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwoolf


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/vwoolf/attachments/20131025/8bfc4760/attachment.html>