[Vwoolf] "principle" in place of "principal"
Sarah M. Hall
smhall123 at yahoo.co.uk
Wed Oct 30 04:50:45 EDT 2013
A trivial but annoying usage -- a notice about road closure in November, headed 'Advanced Warning'. I think this can be classified under 'Trying Too Hard', along with 'Why don't you come with X and I?' or 'I'd like to arrange a meeting with X and yourself'.
After I'd written this, I looked on the web and found http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/102443/is-there-a-term-for-grammatical-mistakes-as-a-result-of-trying-too-hard
>________________________________
> From: Stuart N. Clarke <stuart.n.clarke at btinternet.com>
>To: "'list', 'woolf'" <VWOOLF at lists.acs.ohio-state.edu>
>Sent: Tuesday, 29 October 2013, 19:29
>Subject: Re: [Vwoolf] "principle" in place of "principal"
>
>
>
>If someone says “I went and laid on the bed”, I won’t think they’re a
chicken – I won’t get confused by their using a transitive verb instead of an
intransitive one. Similarly, “May I have a borrow of your book?” instead
of “a loan”.
>
>But if someone says “I was stood over there” (a Northern English expression
becoming universal), then we’re losing just a little bit of subtlety in the
language. “I was stood over there” now almost always means “I was standing
there”. We have to be more informative if we want to communicate that we
were placed somewhere by someone else (“The director stood me over
there.”). Similarly, the loss of the subjunctive simplifies the language,
sometimes regrettably.
>
>Stuart
>From: Mark Hussey
>Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 11:39 AM
>To: 'Martin, James' ; 'Neverow,
Vara S.' ; 'Stuart N. Clarke' ; 'list', 'woolf'
>Subject: RE: [Vwoolf] "principle" in place of
"principal"
>
>Weren’t we talking about the meaning of words? (or, if that
is too nit-picky, the montage of weirds)?
>
>From:vwoolf-bounces+mhussey=verizon.net at lists.service.ohio-state.edu
[mailto:vwoolf-bounces+mhussey=verizon.net at lists.service.ohio-state.edu] On
Behalf Of Martin, James
>Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 4:28
AM
>To: Neverow, Vara S.; Stuart N. Clarke; list',
'woolf
>Subject: Re: [Vwoolf] "principle" in place of
"principal"
>
>Vara,
if it all comes down to a matter of taste, oh, how I wish everyone shared
uniform aesthetics!
>I
agree that uniformity in language usage would squelch variety, but I’ll bet it
would also nurture some healthy reactions in the form of experimentation.
>There
are simply too few people in the world who care about style in language. Is it
on any school curriculum anywhere? Is it important? Have I been fooling myself
all these years? I certainly hope not.
>
>Jim
>
>
>Von:vwoolf-bounces+j.martin=klett.de at lists.service.ohio-state.edu [mailto:vwoolf-bounces+j.martin=klett.de at lists.service.ohio-state.edu] Im Auftrag von Neverow, Vara S.
>Gesendet: Freitag, 25. Oktober
2013 17:19
>An: Stuart N. Clarke; list', 'woolf
>Betreff: Re:
[Vwoolf] "principle" in place of "principal"
>
>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>
>Date: Friday, October 25, 2013 4:30 AM
>To: "list', 'woolf" <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
>Sent:Friday, October 25, 2013 9:20 AM
>To:Diana Swanson ; list', 'woolf
>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] 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> 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] 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>
>>To: woolf list <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
>>Sent:Thursday, October 24, 2013 11:17 AM
>>To:Stuart N. Clarke ; woolf list
>>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 [vwoolf-bounces at lists.service.ohio-state.edu] on behalf of Stuart N. Clarke [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
>>Sent:Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:38 AM
>>To:woolf list
>>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
>https://lists.service.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwoolf
>
>_______________________________________________
>Vwoolf mailing list
>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/20131030/e64da19a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 34 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/vwoolf/attachments/20131030/e64da19a/attachment.gif>
More information about the Vwoolf
mailing list