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

Neverow, Vara S. neverowv1 at southernct.edu
Fri Oct 25 11:19:02 EDT 2013


Just another aspect of the discussion. At one level, I would agree that a uniform style across the board and across the pond could be the best possible solution to the various aggravations cause trauma for writers, editors, and readers. However, the word "uniform" itself indicates that variety would be frowned upon—neither language itself nor formatting conventions are stable. Further, with regard to formatting, there isn't really a best style. Once one moves into the placement of punctuation marks in relation to quotation marks (UK vs. US), or the em-dash and en-dash (totally house style), or the depth of the indentation of long quotations, or whether to hyphenate, or whether to use one or two spaces, aesthetics take precedence over strict rules.

Vara

From: "Stuart N. Clarke" <stuart.n.clarke at btinternet.com<mailto:stuart.n.clarke at btinternet.com>>
Date: Friday, October 25, 2013 4:30 AM
To: "list', 'woolf" <VWOOLF at lists.acs.ohio-state.edu<mailto:VWOOLF at lists.acs.ohio-state.edu>>
Subject: Re: [Vwoolf] "principle" in place of "principal"

It’s understandable that it’s hard to be consistent, but why not just use “New Hart’s Rules” (OUP)?  As authors (as Anne Fernald implies/infers), we may not know them, but professional editors should know and apply their own house styles.  After all, writers for US academic publications are always being told to use the MLA style – something that is beyond me coz I don’t have the book(let?).

Stuart

From: Martin, James<mailto:j.martin at klett.de>
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 9:20 AM
To: Diana Swanson<mailto:dswanson at niu.edu> ; list', 'woolf<mailto:VWOOLF at lists.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Cc: mailto:paul at skandera.com
Subject: Re: [Vwoolf] "principle" in place of "principal"

Diana, I’ll give you the inside scoop on publishing companies and their editors. When I arrived at my current position, I cared about every comma, apostrophe and dash, be it an n-dash, an m-dash or a hyphen. There were differences in the usage and I wanted to adhere to the rules - not that I was a prescriptivist, mind you - but I simply wanted to do things correctly and in a unified manner. It turns out that when I asked the experienced, highly respected author of the company’s style sheet which dash should be used where, he said, “Relax, it’s just a horizontal line. Nobody cares.”
The readers, it turns out, “didn’t care” because they never complained to us formally about any abuses of punctuation. So if no one complains, you can’t be doing anything wrong, right?
However, when I was in school, I paid attention to these things from an early age and thought other pupils using our textbooks might notice the difference between random punctuation marks and those that seem to be used systematically. I am fully aware that standards change over the years (the interest in placing a comma before the final “and” in a series seems to wax and wane along with skirt length, for example) and am able to accept such changes. When you are working in a multilingual setting, and editors with backgrounds in British and American English who have been living in Germany for 20 years sit down at a table and try to set these rules in stone, it is difficult. The difficulty lies partly in the fact that we have read so many different publications during our studies and professional lives - encyclopedias and dictionaries from various centuries, magazines, newspapers, books, websites and textbooks (all with their own country of origin and printing, their own style sheets and editors or obvious lack of them) - that we begin to question what is indeed correct. We all had English teachers throughout our schooling who categorized gross errors according to their own educational backgrounds. And so they - and we - perpetuate stylistic myths and there is no one authority to answer all our questions. William Safire did it for years (and I loved his columns!), but I know of no one in the digital age who has offered his or her services as he did. Any takers?
Jim

Von: vwoolf-bounces at lists.service.ohio-state.edu<mailto:vwoolf-bounces at lists.service.ohio-state.edu> [mailto:vwoolf-bounces at lists.service.ohio-state.edu] Im Auftrag von Diana Swanson
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 24. Oktober 2013 15:38
An: list', 'woolf
Betreff: Re: [Vwoolf] "principle" in place of "principal"

I have noticed more and more such mistakes in scholarly books and text books over the last few years; I think that publishers have laid off too many editors and copy-editors. The causes? Probably in large part the consolidation of publishing companies, the pressure for quarterly profits, and the cutting of university budgets (especially state universities) so that university presses are being starved of funds.

>>> Mark Hussey <mhussey at verizon.net<mailto:mhussey at verizon.net>> 10/24/2013 8:25 AM >>>
"Too fussy" might be a euphemism for "able to use words correctly."

From:vwoolf-bounces at lists.service.ohio-state.edu<mailto:vwoolf-bounces at lists.service.ohio-state.edu> [mailto:vwoolf-bounces at lists.service.ohio-state.edu] On Behalf Of Sarah M. Hall
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 6:40 AM
To: Stuart N. Clarke; woolf list
Subject: Re: [Vwoolf] "principle" in place of "principal"

There was an interview on Radio 4 yesterday with a Scotsman who thinks that we are all too fussy about English grammar, and that phrases such as 'most beautifullest' are quite acceptable because Shakespeare used these constructions. The opposing view was that Shakespeare was writing poetry. Downward spiral?


________________________________
From: Stuart N. Clarke <stuart.n.clarke at btinternet.com<mailto:stuart.n.clarke at btinternet.com>>
To: woolf list <VWOOLF at lists.acs.ohio-state.edu<mailto:VWOOLF at lists.acs.ohio-state.edu>>
Sent: Thursday, 24 October 2013, 11:33
Subject: Re: [Vwoolf] "principle" in place of "principal"

Of course, we all make mistakes, but there's just no end to failures in copy-editing.

There's something just not quite right about:

"This great church ... is crowned by the second largest Roman dome after St Peter's."

In his TV show, Dave Gorman pointed out the faux spectrum, as in something like "She has taken all the great tragic roles, from Ophelia to the Duchess of Malfi".

Stuart

From: Jeremy Hawthorn<mailto:jeremy.hawthorn at ntnu.no>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 11:17 AM
To: Stuart N. Clarke<mailto:stuart.n.clarke at btinternet.com> ; woolf list<mailto:VWOOLF at lists.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vwoolf] "principle" in place of "principal"

And another one. In the last week I have seen "interred" used where "interned" was correct, and vice-versa. Thus people of Japanese descent were interred during WW2, and the body was interned after the funeral.

Jeremy H
________________________________
From:vwoolf-bounces at lists.service.ohio-state.edu<mailto:vwoolf-bounces at lists.service.ohio-state.edu> [vwoolf-bounces at lists.service.ohio-state.edu<mailto:vwoolf-bounces at lists.service.ohio-state.edu>] on behalf of Stuart N. Clarke [stuart.n.clarke at btinternet.com<mailto:stuart.n.clarke at btinternet.com>]
Sent: 24 October 2013 11:51
To: woolf list
Subject: Re: [Vwoolf] "principle" in place of "principal"
The 2 words are quite different, but I admit that I have to concentrate when typing them to make sure I've chosen the right one!  I don't think they have (yet?) become interchangeable.

Unlike "imply" and "infer": in the Antipodes, even in scientific papers, the words are used interchangeably, although I was surprised to find the use as early as 1931, e.g.:

M. H. C., 'The Scheme of Things', NZ Evening Post, Vol. CXII, No. 112 (7 November 1931), 9: '"Oxbridge" . plainly infers [sic] Oxford'; http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&cl=search&d=EP19311107.2.40.1

Stuart

From:Sunjoo Lee<mailto:abgrund at naver.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:38 AM
To: woolf list<mailto:VWOOLF at lists.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: [Vwoolf] "principle" in place of "principal"

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/20131025/05a0806a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 34 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/vwoolf/attachments/20131025/05a0806a/attachment.gif>


More information about the Vwoolf mailing list