One that's been bugging me the last few years is people saying "I disagree with that issue".
If, for example, you don't like capital punishment, you can disagree with the practice of capital punishment, or you can disagree with the opinion that capital punishment is okay, but you can't disagree with the issue of capital punishment, since "issue" does not refer to an expression of approval or disapproval, but rather to the overall debate of which the two opinions form opposing sides.
(Though you can, of course, say something like "I disagree with my father on that issue".)
I’ve found the Jane Austen “could of” and, in the context, it is correct:
“I will not say all that I could of the family you are with”
(Northanger Abbey)
Yes, that's not a mistake for "could have".
I wonder if an overly finicky editor would have changed it to "I will not say all that I could have said of the family you are with" or even "I will not say all that I could have done of the family you are with".
I’ve found the Jane Austen “could of” and, in the context, it is correct:
“I will not say all that I could of the family you are with”
(Northanger Abbey)
Yes, that's not a mistake for "could have".
I wonder if an overly finicky editor would have changed it to "I will not say all that I could have said of the family you are with" or even "I will not say all that I could have done of the family you are with".
Surely that overly finicky editor wouldn’t try to correct what is an appropriate use of “could of” and yet leave the sentence ending with a preposition.
Northanger Abbey was the first Austen I read (assigned reading). It was not a felicitous introduction.
Really? It's great fun!
It's fun, if one knows that there's fun to be had. There was very little in the way of leadership in the course, so its satire escaped me. And, I was too young. It was a bad combination. It didn't help that I was reading Jane Eyre for a different course. All in all, a bleak period.
Something I've wondered about for a long time - but about which I know nothing - is the role of the editor in nineteenth century publishing. I suspect that they were a good deal less intrusive than today. Aside from demanding certain subjects, tropes, cajoling timeliness, etc., I would guess that they largely absented themselves from the process. Anyone know anything?
Something I've wondered about for a long time - but about which I know nothing - is the role of the editor in nineteenth century publishing. I suspect that they were a good deal less intrusive than today.
That would be hard, since editors today scarcely exist, and are dying off and not being replaced.
But you have to be able to appreciate its satirisation of the gothic, otherwise some of the writing is very mysterious indeed.
You may not have read the Mysteries of Udolpho, and so miss the exact references, but if you've seen any classic horror films I would have thought the satire still works.
I went to a study day on Austen, with reference to the gothic, and it was not just Northanger Abbey. It was argued that Persuasion was also using gothic structure in that Anne Elliot has no autonomy, and is moved around as a result of others' decisions. There was probably more, but if I took notes I have lost them.
I can see that is true in plotting terms, but I don’t think it plays the same games as Northanger Abbey in leading you to expect ‘something awful’ to happen which then does not eventuate.
Something I've wondered about for a long time - but about which I know nothing - is the role of the editor in nineteenth century publishing. I suspect that they were a good deal less intrusive than today.
That would be hard, since editors today scarcely exist, and are dying off and not being replaced.
I think in a lot of smaller publishing houses, in-house editors are not being replaced, but rather the work is being farmed out to freelance editors who work on a book-by-book basis rather than being full-time employees with benefits. Not sure what is happening at the big publishing houses, but traditionally-published books are still not going out into the world without both substantive and copy-editing -- just that publishing houses are cutting back on how they hire and pay editors. (This is obviously based on my experience of being published and edited by a small press, not on working on the business end of it).
I have just finished reading a recently-published "popular academic" work from a highly-regarded and very longstanding international publishing house, and was surprised at the number of minor typos.
It's a common perception among readers that books are less well-edited than in the past, but in my experience I have never known a book to go to press without two or three rounds of editing, usually by a couple of different people. Maybe to save money they are paying less-skilled copy editors, or paying them for fewer hours of work so they're rushing.
I worked on the business end of it for seven years, when they got rid of all the proofreaders and told the copyeditors to do both jobs. (With what effects on quality, you may surely guess.) We lost a number of senior editors at the same time--that is, the folks responsible for anything higher level than sentence/paragraph structure. I know they were having a hard time replacing them--or perhaps they just didn't feel the need, I dunno. But the offices remained empty, and some of the chores of the job were, um, out-sourced to a lower level employee with less education and doubtless a smaller salary. This was in 2014, more or less. And for at least five years before that, we were all being pushed to produce more work in less time--proofreading, for instance, was reduced from 3 rounds to 1, and there was an argument about the best place to put their step, as certain foolish people failed to realize that layout introduces its own set of errors.
It's a common perception among readers that books are less well-edited than in the past, but in my experience I have never known a book to go to press without two or three rounds of editing, usually by a couple of different people. Maybe to save money they are paying less-skilled copy editors, or paying them for fewer hours of work so they're rushing.
I'm thinking maybe your experience is not generalizable.
Something I've wondered about for a long time - but about which I know nothing - is the role of the editor in nineteenth century publishing. I suspect that they were a good deal less intrusive than today.
That would be hard, since editors today scarcely exist, and are dying off and not being replaced.
Not true, since I have applied for a posted editorial position.
I've certainly noted with dismay the apparent lack of editing of books I've read lately.
As have I. The most anger-inducing of late was a relatively recent book on the failure of diplomacy in 1914. The name of a Serbian town appeared on a map (not a reproduction) using a transliteration into German, and in the text using two different English transliterations. If you were a novice to the subject or didn't know what it would look like in Serbian Cyrillic, it's conceivable that you'd think that three different locations were being discussed.
I think, as per lamb chopped, editors exist, but as with the "lean" doctrine in biz school, they are required to do more with less.
Have two of my (un) favourites been mentioned? 'fulsome' and 'enormity'? If they have been, they should be mentioned again, such is the enormity of their misuse!
Something I've wondered about for a long time - but about which I know nothing - is the role of the editor in nineteenth century publishing. I suspect that they were a good deal less intrusive than today.
That would be hard, since editors today scarcely exist, and are dying off and not being replaced.
Not true, since I have applied for a posted editorial position.
"X scarcely exists"
"Not true, I know of an X"
Do you know what "scarcely" means? It doesn't mean "not at all."
Being on the job hunt, I can tell you that there are more editorial positions than the few for which I've applied. Not what it used to be, given the overall consolidation of the publishing industry, but more than your "scarcely" - unless your "scarcely" has some sort of objective statistical metric that you can point to.
I should have mentioned this earlier. I am irritated when people misuse the words:
-- greed (I want all I can get)
-- covetousness (I want some thing specific that belongs to my neighbor)
-- envy (I deserve to have something at least as good as what my neighbor has)
-- jealousy (this is mine and my neighbor can't even look at it).
In particular, people often say "I'm jealous" when they mean "I'm envious".
The difference is subtle but the line between them is thin, though. If I hate someone (perish the thought!), I certainly scorn, look down upon or consider them worthless. I can't imagine loving a person like that.
The difference is subtle but the line between them is thin, though. If I hate someone (perish the thought!), I certainly scorn, look down upon or consider them worthless. I can't imagine loving a person like that.
Yes I agree there, but I have also heard despise use for an inanimate object or condition. I remember hearing the other usage first in an episode of Deep Space Nine (I think) where a character said "Cardassians despise the cold" which I thought was strange.
Scorn, look down upon or consider worthless, which according to my dictionary is still the meaning.
That's what it means here (UK).
This explains my confusion when I re-read 1984 a while back. Orwell writes of Syme's attitude toward Smith that he "despised him and slightly disliked him".
This explains my confusion when I re-read 1984 a while back. Orwell writes of Syme's attitude toward Smith that he "despised him and slightly disliked him".
Interesting @stetson. It would never have occurred to me that there was anything actually incongruous about that statement, or that there might be English speakers for whom there was.
'Hatred' is something quite different to me. It's something intense and deep seated, much more than even a very strong dislike. However, I suppose part of the question is whether it is 'hate' or 'despise' that have different meanings here from with you. 'Hate' is quite often used inappropriately here e.g. 'I hate custard' but 'I hate you' is something really serious.
Going further on this @stetson, you can 'hate' an equal, but you can't 'despise' one because inherent in 'despise' is looking down on them. They may technically or sociologically be an equal, but inherently, if you despise them, you think they are inferior in some way - probably morally.
However, I suppose part of the question is whether it is 'hate' or 'despise' that have different meanings here from with you. 'Hate' is quite often used inappropriately here e.g. 'I hate custard' but 'I hate you' is something really serious.
Interesting that you use a food example. When I think of instances where I’ve heard “despise” used to mean “hate,” it’s either people or food examples that come to mind, such as “I despise him” or “I despise beets.”
Generally speaking, if despising--despital? despisal? is in the wind, hatred goes with it. Though more probably a cold, distant hatred than a hot, murderous one, at least for me.
Comments
I took the point to be that those people would have been "flaunting," rather than "flouting," the regulations.
If, for example, you don't like capital punishment, you can disagree with the practice of capital punishment, or you can disagree with the opinion that capital punishment is okay, but you can't disagree with the issue of capital punishment, since "issue" does not refer to an expression of approval or disapproval, but rather to the overall debate of which the two opinions form opposing sides.
(Though you can, of course, say something like "I disagree with my father on that issue".)
“I will not say all that I could of the family you are with”
(Northanger Abbey)
Yes, that's not a mistake for "could have".
Really? It's great fun!
I wonder if an overly finicky editor would have changed it to "I will not say all that I could have said of the family you are with" or even "I will not say all that I could have done of the family you are with".
It's fun, if one knows that there's fun to be had. There was very little in the way of leadership in the course, so its satire escaped me. And, I was too young. It was a bad combination. It didn't help that I was reading Jane Eyre for a different course. All in all, a bleak period.
That would be hard, since editors today scarcely exist, and are dying off and not being replaced.
You may not have read the Mysteries of Udolpho, and so miss the exact references, but if you've seen any classic horror films I would have thought the satire still works.
I think in a lot of smaller publishing houses, in-house editors are not being replaced, but rather the work is being farmed out to freelance editors who work on a book-by-book basis rather than being full-time employees with benefits. Not sure what is happening at the big publishing houses, but traditionally-published books are still not going out into the world without both substantive and copy-editing -- just that publishing houses are cutting back on how they hire and pay editors. (This is obviously based on my experience of being published and edited by a small press, not on working on the business end of it).
I'm thinking maybe your experience is not generalizable.
Not true, since I have applied for a posted editorial position.
As have I. The most anger-inducing of late was a relatively recent book on the failure of diplomacy in 1914. The name of a Serbian town appeared on a map (not a reproduction) using a transliteration into German, and in the text using two different English transliterations. If you were a novice to the subject or didn't know what it would look like in Serbian Cyrillic, it's conceivable that you'd think that three different locations were being discussed.
I think, as per lamb chopped, editors exist, but as with the "lean" doctrine in biz school, they are required to do more with less.
"X scarcely exists"
"Not true, I know of an X"
Do you know what "scarcely" means? It doesn't mean "not at all."
-- greed (I want all I can get)
-- covetousness (I want some thing specific that belongs to my neighbor)
-- envy (I deserve to have something at least as good as what my neighbor has)
-- jealousy (this is mine and my neighbor can't even look at it).
In particular, people often say "I'm jealous" when they mean "I'm envious".
What did it use to mean? That's the only meaning I've ever known.
Hmm.
Yes I agree there, but I have also heard despise use for an inanimate object or condition. I remember hearing the other usage first in an episode of Deep Space Nine (I think) where a character said "Cardassians despise the cold" which I thought was strange.
This explains my confusion when I re-read 1984 a while back. Orwell writes of Syme's attitude toward Smith that he "despised him and slightly disliked him".
'Hatred' is something quite different to me. It's something intense and deep seated, much more than even a very strong dislike. However, I suppose part of the question is whether it is 'hate' or 'despise' that have different meanings here from with you. 'Hate' is quite often used inappropriately here e.g. 'I hate custard' but 'I hate you' is something really serious.