Just for fun

Many of our blogs rely on the shortcoming of the writers in our care but JD and I are also blessed with some competent wordsmiths, one of whom takes delight in inserting phrases that might not be lucid, but make us smile. F'rinstance:

"It must seek out a partner that can operate in a manner empathetic to the Swedish manufacturer's verticalised predilections."

"You'd expect a truck manufacturer to capture visual harmony across its range but getting analogous driving characteristics is surely a step too far."

"Anyone want raspberries with their bowl of cognitive dissonance?"

Yes, I know... we should be stamping out this kind of playful language in a hard-nosed business magazine, but it's good to see a writer having fun.

Lovestruck by an emu

Free London paper thelondonpaper runs a regular column called 'Lovestruck', in which readers can write in with a short message declaring their interest in a stranger or near-stranger they've seen on a bus/met on the tube/drooled over while drunk.

As you can imagine, many of the messages reek of desperation and yesterday's column contained a particularly fine example:

To Alison, the long-legged emu-like girl I met in the Hampstead lido. You're gorgeous. Glass of wine? ANON.

I really hope there is more of a story behind this one, because I think calling any girl 'emu-like' is likely to backfire. No wonder Anon didn't manage to get her number when he met her in the lido (although to be fair, not many people keep a pen and paper or even a mobile phone inside their trunks...)

See Lovestruck online...

What a tasty bird

Intent if not determined to

Just came across this sentence in some copy I was subbing for an opinion piece. To put it in context, the writer had been talking about emissions controls across the EU.

Up to 80% of the rest of the populated world not only couldn’t care less [about emissions levels], they are intent if not determined to massively increase uncontrolled pollution

Um, right. Firstly, I just don't believe this is true. Certain countries may not care a great deal about limiting pollution compared to, say, boosting the economy or increasing industrial output, but that's very different to being "determined to massively increase pollution". However I'll put that aside, seeing as it is taken from an opinion piece not a news story.

Secondly, where does the figure of 'up to 80%' come from? I haven't quoted the relevant passage but the writer goes on to list China, Russia, India, South America, the Middle East, the US and Africa as some of the main culprits making up that 80%. And it leaves just 20% of the world, not specified but presumably not Europe or the above, as the 'good guys'.

Thirdly, 'intent if not determined to'? Can you be intent but not determined? And surely it should be 'intent on'...

Fourthly, 'uncontrolled pollution'? If these countries are determined to massively increase pollution, surely (they at least believe) it is under their control. And if it truly is uncontrolled, we shouldn't worry so much about what the rest of the world is 'intent if not determined to' do.

And don't even get me started about the word 'populated'...

Short and sweet

Some of the writers in our care delight in using long phrases for no clear reason; JD and I take equal delight in cutting them back. Here are some recent examples:

• An increase in overall vehicle length would enable significant volume carrying capacity to be achieved (= longer trucks have more room)
  

• Larger in size (= bigger)
  

• In a much shorter time frame (= sooner)
  

... and here's a spelling mistale that brings a gloriously surreal image to mind: "The lights are controlled by the steering column storks."

Substantive editing

I recently found a nice little web page outlining the differences between copy editing, proofreading, and a third type of editing, 'substantive editing'. This third type of editing:

looks at both the content and structure of a manuscript as a cohesive whole. Does the story or argument flow logically? Are there obvious gaps in a certain area? Too much information someplace else? Substantive editing can involve re-ordering large chunks of text, removing text, adding text, and even rewriting

This quite accurately describes a lot of the work that Apus and I do (in addition to our copy-editing duties). We are both sub editors (or subeditors, or sub-editors if you will), which is a job title that seems to be confined to this side of the Atlantic. Is it possible that the 'sub' in 'sub editor' stands for 'substantive'? Probably not, but it's a nice thought, and it might be of interest to our American copy-editor readership...

Word of the day: globesity

Recently I keep catching news stories about 'globesity', the growing problem of obesity across the globe (yes, the word is yet another portmanteau). Michael Quinlon's World Wide Words has some good info about the origins of the term 'globesity' so I won't go into too much detail.

However, I have noticed several commentators talk or write about the "globesity epidemic": here in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, for example. The World Wide Words page also quotes the Guardian doing the same.

This leads me to ask: if globesity is, by its nature, global, shouldn't it always be a pandemic ("prevalent over a large part of the world" OED), not just an epidemic ("widespread in a community", OED)? And if yes, wouldn't a "globesity pandemic" be a tautology anyway?

And now I'm off home for my dinner.

Christmas message

In lieu of a Christmas bonus the chairman of the company that employs JD and I has boosted staff morale with an inspirational e-mail including the news that:

Each of our divisions has performed well and ahead of their respective markets

The word "respective" is meaningless in this context, but what about a spot of verb agreement? He could have written "Each of our divisions has performed well and ahead of its market" or "All of our divisions have performed well and ahead of their markets".

A minor point? Certainly – but we are a publishing house, after all.

Fear is a great guard dog

Back to work after the long Christmas break and one of the first pieces of copy I sub contains this phrase:

Fear is a great guard dog but a very poor guide

This sounds like a proverb or a quotation, but if so it's a new one on me and Apus. It isn't listed in our reference books and Google fails to shed any light on it.

Anyone else out there heard this one before – or has one of our writers been reading too many horoscopes? Which reminds me: happy new year...

Not a great guard dog, unlike fear

No FT style book... no comment

Tucked into my Christmas stocking was a copy of the Financial Times Style Guide; whether Mrs Apus was commenting on my lack of style I have yet to ascertain. In any case, while flicking through it as an aid to the digestion of a rather fine rib of beef on Christmas afternoon I came across the following, under 'honorifics':

Do not give awards such as VC... Queen's Counsel keep their QC.

This alone was enough to put me off the entire 218-page guide.

Why? Because the suffix VC stands for Victoria Cross, which is the UK's highest award for valour, to the extent that many heroes have been awarded their VCs posthumously. A Queen's Counsel is a senior barrister (lawyer) who is appointed on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor.

Subs who run foul of the libel laws might have good reason to fear encountering a QC, but do the FT's subs really rate a VC below a QC?

Whoever came up with that one should be ashamed of themselves.

PS
The same style guide calls for the use of Mr/Mrs/Ms in news stories -- except for "people in show business, sportsmen and the dead".

It was almost enough to put a chap off his Christmas pudding.