Follow this link for Allie Brosh's ingenious (and very funny) take on the misuse of "a lot":
http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/alot-is-better-than-you-at-everything.html
1 June 2010
8 March 2010
Wait - for? on?
A BBC radio sports commentator announced today that Manchester United was "waiting on the result of a scan on Wes Brown's foot".
The use of "wait on" instead of "wait for" or "await" is now so common that the battle to preserve the original form is probably already lost, even though the BBC website did announce more elegantly - and accurately - "Manchester United await Wes Brown foot injury verdict".
Why not accept this change as another example of natural, continuous linguistic evolution? The reason for resisting is that we are losing the ability to express the difference between two separate actions and thereby colluding in the impoverishment of our means of expression.
To "wait on" meant, until recently, either to serve someone, usually at table*, or to pay a respectful visit to. "Wait for" had the meaning of deferring an action, or of expectation (the ferry waited for the train to arrive, Sarah was waiting for her sister). Now that "waits on" is used for both, we cannot be sure whether Sarah is expecting her sister to arrive, or whether she is working in a restaurant.
Resist, resist!
* Those with long memories may recall the time when a waiter, in the UK, "waited at" table and "waited on" table only in the USA. I have not forgotten either, but because this post already resembled the ranting of a pedant, I forbore to mention it!
The use of "wait on" instead of "wait for" or "await" is now so common that the battle to preserve the original form is probably already lost, even though the BBC website did announce more elegantly - and accurately - "Manchester United await Wes Brown foot injury verdict".
Why not accept this change as another example of natural, continuous linguistic evolution? The reason for resisting is that we are losing the ability to express the difference between two separate actions and thereby colluding in the impoverishment of our means of expression.
To "wait on" meant, until recently, either to serve someone, usually at table*, or to pay a respectful visit to. "Wait for" had the meaning of deferring an action, or of expectation (the ferry waited for the train to arrive, Sarah was waiting for her sister). Now that "waits on" is used for both, we cannot be sure whether Sarah is expecting her sister to arrive, or whether she is working in a restaurant.
Resist, resist!
* Those with long memories may recall the time when a waiter, in the UK, "waited at" table and "waited on" table only in the USA. I have not forgotten either, but because this post already resembled the ranting of a pedant, I forbore to mention it!
5 March 2010
Affect - or effect?
I wish I had made a note of some the dozens of examples of the incorrect use of 'affect' and 'effect'. Sadly, I did not. You do not have search very hard to find the two confused, however, and if books and newspapers use these words interchangeably it makes it doubly hard for the rest of us to remember.
The basic rule is simple:
The two words are frequently found in academic writing, which is generally rich in influences and results.
There are, of course, exceptions. This is English after all, so nothing is straightforward. 'To effect' means to make, or to accomplish; 'an affect' can be used in psychology to mean an emotion. If you use the basic rule, though, it will prove right 19 times out of 20 - probably a better rate of success than many newspapers!
The basic rule is simple:
- affect is nearly always a verb
(e.g. the movement of the boat affected her balance). It means to influence. - effect is nearly always a noun
(e.g. the effect of the weather was noticeable). It means result, or occasionally possessions (e.g. her personal effects).
The two words are frequently found in academic writing, which is generally rich in influences and results.
There are, of course, exceptions. This is English after all, so nothing is straightforward. 'To effect' means to make, or to accomplish; 'an affect' can be used in psychology to mean an emotion. If you use the basic rule, though, it will prove right 19 times out of 20 - probably a better rate of success than many newspapers!
23 November 2009
When to send a thesis for editing?
Every few weeks a doctoral student emails to ask at what stage their thesis should be sent for editing. The answer is simple: as late as possible, because if you introduce amendments and additions afterwards there is a risk of introducing mistakes as well.
Although the answer is simple, the logic behind it bears examination and comes down to the role of the thesis editor.
Where a doctoral thesis is concerned, the student is demonstrating the ability to prepare, carry out and report a piece of original research according to the conventions in force. The process is guided by a supervisor who gives expert advice. It has something in common with the mediaeval apprentice's masterpiece, produced to prove proficiency in the skills taught by the master craftsman. The thesis has been researched and written up, chapters have been discussed, reshaped, returned and honed. It is only at the very last stage that the editor should become involved.
Why so late? Because the thesis editor's role is, of course, neither to write nor to guide: it is to advise on presentation, not on content, which is why the content needs to be finalised before editing starts.
The editor makes sure that the examiners can read the thesis with their attention focused on the research, without being sidetracked and annoyed by errors of presentation. This final stage therefore addresses the detail: the typing errors, layout problems, grammatical slips, inconsistencies, confused sentences, referencing howlers and other minutiae. Making changes after editing is likely to introduce new errors, an odd fingerprint or two to mar the highly polished surface of the masterpiece.
Although editing the thesis is the last stage, this does not mean the last minute! Any editor worth their salt is likely to have a schedule of jobs booked in, and is unlikely to be waiting to take on your work at a moment's notice. If that sounds heartfelt it is: definitely a sore point and possibly the subject of another post!
Although the answer is simple, the logic behind it bears examination and comes down to the role of the thesis editor.
Where a doctoral thesis is concerned, the student is demonstrating the ability to prepare, carry out and report a piece of original research according to the conventions in force. The process is guided by a supervisor who gives expert advice. It has something in common with the mediaeval apprentice's masterpiece, produced to prove proficiency in the skills taught by the master craftsman. The thesis has been researched and written up, chapters have been discussed, reshaped, returned and honed. It is only at the very last stage that the editor should become involved.
Why so late? Because the thesis editor's role is, of course, neither to write nor to guide: it is to advise on presentation, not on content, which is why the content needs to be finalised before editing starts.
The editor makes sure that the examiners can read the thesis with their attention focused on the research, without being sidetracked and annoyed by errors of presentation. This final stage therefore addresses the detail: the typing errors, layout problems, grammatical slips, inconsistencies, confused sentences, referencing howlers and other minutiae. Making changes after editing is likely to introduce new errors, an odd fingerprint or two to mar the highly polished surface of the masterpiece.
Although editing the thesis is the last stage, this does not mean the last minute! Any editor worth their salt is likely to have a schedule of jobs booked in, and is unlikely to be waiting to take on your work at a moment's notice. If that sounds heartfelt it is: definitely a sore point and possibly the subject of another post!
24 October 2009
References - the last word.
While I am enjoying a brief respite from the reality of checking Lists of References, I shall outline the last stage of my method of presenting them as well as is practicable: ensuring that the entries are in the right order.
"Alphabetical" is, sadly, too obvious an answer! As always, there are subtleties and variations. The APA (American Psychological Association) system, for instance, has rules all of its own. Unless you have specific guidance, however, the following is a good guide:
Marvin, P.A. (1978) They Are All Out to Get Me. Ursa Beta Minor: Megadodo.
Marvin, P.A. (2002) The Dummy's Guide to Paranoia. Ursa Beta Minor: Megadodo.
Marvin, P.A. and Beeblebrox, Z. (2008) Shades: the ultimate frontier. Alpha Centauri: Vogon Unlimited.
Marvin, P.A. and Slartibartfast, G. (2003) Award-winning Coastal Design: the significance of glaciation. Magrathea: CamTim Publications.
Marvin, P.A., Prefect, F. and Dent, A. (2005) 999 Uses for a Towel. New York: Vogon Books.
If you think the examples are not only eccentric but inexplicable you have cannot have read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams, and you are missing out!
"Alphabetical" is, sadly, too obvious an answer! As always, there are subtleties and variations. The APA (American Psychological Association) system, for instance, has rules all of its own. Unless you have specific guidance, however, the following is a good guide:
- Alphabetical order. Treat all names beginning with Mc, Mac and M' as though they start with Mac.
- Publications by a single author are placed in date order, using a lower case suffix (2008a, 2008b and so on) to distinguish items published in the same year. 2008a should be the one that is referenced first in the text.
- After these come publications by the same author in conjunction with one co-author, arranged alphabetically by the co-author's name and then by date.
- Next are publications by the first authors with two or more colleagues, in alphabetical and then chronological order as above. These will of course appear in the text as Author et al., 2008.
Marvin, P.A. (1978) They Are All Out to Get Me. Ursa Beta Minor: Megadodo.
Marvin, P.A. (2002) The Dummy's Guide to Paranoia. Ursa Beta Minor: Megadodo.
Marvin, P.A. and Beeblebrox, Z. (2008) Shades: the ultimate frontier. Alpha Centauri: Vogon Unlimited.
Marvin, P.A. and Slartibartfast, G. (2003) Award-winning Coastal Design: the significance of glaciation. Magrathea: CamTim Publications.
Marvin, P.A., Prefect, F. and Dent, A. (2005) 999 Uses for a Towel. New York: Vogon Books.
If you think the examples are not only eccentric but inexplicable you have cannot have read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams, and you are missing out!
25 September 2009
Taming references - (almost) the final stage
If a list of references is to pass scrutiny, it has to be consistent. Most publishers, journals and universities in the UK use the Harvard system, but even within that there is a multitude of possible detailed variations.
The classic reference to a whole volume reads on the lines of:
Author, A.B. and Coauthor, C.D. (2008) Title of Book, plus its sub-title. Place of Publication: Publisher.
Apparently foolproof, but what about those variations? Do the authors' initials take full points? Is there a space between the initials? Is there a comma between the authors? Between the initials and the date? After the date? Does the subtitle have capital letters? ... and so on. Unless you are working to a publisher's style guide or a fairly prescriptive course handbook, this sort of fine detail is generally up to you to decide.
The key is to make all the various spaces, punctuation, italics and other details consistent, which sounds simple but is easier said than done. The decisions, of course, do not end with books. Journal articles, chapters in edited volumes, conference papers and Internet references are all expressed differently and all need to be consistent.
A useful method is to compile one perfect sample reference of each type of publication, print it out in large type and stick it to the wall, or keep it by the keyboard, as a reference template as you work your way through the rest of the list.
Reaching Zohar will come as a great relief (well, it always does to me!).
This was supposed to be the last of three stages in the Good Impressions guide to presenting the perfect List of References. But sorry, I was wrong! There still remains the question of the order in which the entries appear. Alphabetical of course but, as you may have guessed, there are some subtleties, which will have to wait until the next post.
The classic reference to a whole volume reads on the lines of:
Author, A.B. and Coauthor, C.D. (2008) Title of Book, plus its sub-title. Place of Publication: Publisher.
Apparently foolproof, but what about those variations? Do the authors' initials take full points? Is there a space between the initials? Is there a comma between the authors? Between the initials and the date? After the date? Does the subtitle have capital letters? ... and so on. Unless you are working to a publisher's style guide or a fairly prescriptive course handbook, this sort of fine detail is generally up to you to decide.
The key is to make all the various spaces, punctuation, italics and other details consistent, which sounds simple but is easier said than done. The decisions, of course, do not end with books. Journal articles, chapters in edited volumes, conference papers and Internet references are all expressed differently and all need to be consistent.
A useful method is to compile one perfect sample reference of each type of publication, print it out in large type and stick it to the wall, or keep it by the keyboard, as a reference template as you work your way through the rest of the list.
Reaching Zohar will come as a great relief (well, it always does to me!).
This was supposed to be the last of three stages in the Good Impressions guide to presenting the perfect List of References. But sorry, I was wrong! There still remains the question of the order in which the entries appear. Alphabetical of course but, as you may have guessed, there are some subtleties, which will have to wait until the next post.
17 August 2009
Taming references - part two
Once you have made sure that the all the works in your references also appear in the text (see part one), the second stage of the process of correcting the references is checking that the publications referred to in the text are included in the List of References.
This second stage is a slightly trickier process, and needs some concentration. This time you cannot leave all the work to the computer! Bring your text up on screen and work your way through it, stopping each time you come across a textual reference (such as "Bottery 2000") and checking that it is on the list you printed out for the first stage. If it is not, highlight it so you can find it again and track down the publication for inclusion in the list.
The concentration is needed in order to remember accurately what you have checked and what you have not, so that you avoid either checking the same reference 10 times, or assuming you have cross-checked it when you have not. Remembering different publications by the same author can be a challenge; you may have checked Bottery 2000 for example, but not Bottery 1999.
By the time you have gone through the whole text and chased up the missing bibliographical details you will need a cup of tea and a rest to stop your head spinning. You will be sure, though, that the text and List of References agree, and that there is only one more stage to complete before the references are perfect!
This second stage is a slightly trickier process, and needs some concentration. This time you cannot leave all the work to the computer! Bring your text up on screen and work your way through it, stopping each time you come across a textual reference (such as "Bottery 2000") and checking that it is on the list you printed out for the first stage. If it is not, highlight it so you can find it again and track down the publication for inclusion in the list.
The concentration is needed in order to remember accurately what you have checked and what you have not, so that you avoid either checking the same reference 10 times, or assuming you have cross-checked it when you have not. Remembering different publications by the same author can be a challenge; you may have checked Bottery 2000 for example, but not Bottery 1999.
By the time you have gone through the whole text and chased up the missing bibliographical details you will need a cup of tea and a rest to stop your head spinning. You will be sure, though, that the text and List of References agree, and that there is only one more stage to complete before the references are perfect!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
