Proofreaders' pleasures

Дом на екипа, който превежда, популяризира и продуцира български художествени текстове в чужбина.

Proofreaders' pleasures

Postby AllyVRK » Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:29 pm

Let's keep the English-related topics here -- Kal.

Alright vs. All Right

The debate in the scholarly world is on. Miriam webster says:
"The one-word spelling alright appeared some 75 years after all right itself had reappeared from a 400-year-long absence. Since the early 20th century some critics have insisted alright is wrong, but it has its defenders and its users. It is less frequent than all right but remains in common use especially in journalistic and business publications. It is quite common in fictional dialogue, and is used occasionally in other writing <the first two years of medical school were alright — Gertrude Stein>."
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alright)

Here's what the American Heritage Book of English Usage tells us (p. 71 in google books)
"Is it all right to use alright? Despite the appearance of alright in the works of such well-known writers as Flannery O’Connor, Langston Hughes, and James Joyce, the merger of all and right has never been accepted as standard. This is peculiar, since similar fusions like already and altogether have never raised any objections. The difference may lie in the fact that already and altogether became single words back in the Middle Ages, whereas alright (at least in its current meaning) has only been around for a little over a century and was called out by language critics as a misspelling. You might think a century would be plenty of time for such an unimposing spelling to gain acceptance as a standard variant, and you will undoubtedly come across alright in magazine and newspaper articles. But if you decide to use alright, especially in formal writing, you run the risk that some of your readers will view it as an error, while others may think you are willfully breaking convention."
(http://books.google.com/books?id=BEHFyM ... ht&f=false)

And for desert, here's something on the debate of different meanings.
"It seems pretty simple: go ahead and use “all right” as two words, and stay away from “alright” as one word. But the esteemed Brian Garner (6) notes that “alright” as one word “may be gaining a shadowy acceptance in British English.” And the American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style (7) seems to contradict itself. It states that “alright” as one word “has never been accepted as standard” but it then goes on to explain that “all right” as two words and “alright” as one word have two distinct meanings. It gives the example of the sentence “The figures are all right.” When you use “all right” as two words, the sentence means “the figures are all accurate.” When you write “The figures are alright,” with “alright” as one word, this source explains that the sentence means “the figures are satisfactory.” I’m not sure what to make of this contradiction. The many other grammar sources I checked, including a large dictionary, reject “alright” as one word. Regular listeners of this show know that language is always in flux, so perhaps “alright” as one word is gaining a small footing."
(http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/al ... right.aspx)

Also:
The use of alright in place of all right has never been recommended by dictionaries or usage authorities, but this convention is not likely to last. Web searches already generate approximately one alright for every all right, and the brevity and versatility of alright is likely to overpower the clunkiness (in some uses) of all right.
(http://www.grammarist.com/usage/all-right-alright/)

Here's another example of different meanings, it's from a comment:
You might have a sentence like this: 'The students were alright.' That means they were OK, as in nothing bad happened to them. But if you said that the students were all right, that could mean they all got the correct answer on the test.
The hardest thing you'll ever learn to say is how to say 'goodbye'.
User avatar
AllyVRK
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 463
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:12 am
Has thanked: 560 times
Has been thanked: 559 times

Re: Proofreaders' pleasures

Postby Кал » Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:36 pm

Покрай коректурата на разноезичните версии на алманаха „ФантАstika“, които готвим за Уърлдкон, възникна въпросът как да изписваме имената на бг автори на латиница.

Моята позиция е: без значение към кой език превеждаме, придържаме се към правилата, изложени в правописния речник от 2012 г. (Сега видях, че се наричали „Обтекаема система за транслитерация на българската кирилица“.) И в частност, НЕ се опитваме да „индивидуализираме“ изписването за всеки различен език в стремеж да съхраним произношението. Ето защо:

В пощата си Кал wrote:Смисълът на еднаквото изписване на -всички- езици, ползващи латиница,
е визуалната разпознаваемост на името. Тези езици нямат навика да
променят изписването според собствената си фонетика – вижте например
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Verne,
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Verne и
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Verne. Въпреки че фонетичните
правила на трите езика са напълно различни, всичките пишат Жул Верн
еднакво. (Изключвам специалните символи с умлаути и пр., които може да
не присъстват в отделните разновидности на латиницата.)

Плюс, ако държим да запазим произношението, имена като „Георги“ стават
напълно невъзможни за изписване на английски. Georgi се чете
(най-вероятно; английският няма единен набор от правила за всяка
комбинация от букви) „Джиорджи“ или „Джиорджай“, а повлияното от
френския Gueorgui може да се произнесе като „Гиорги“ или „Гиърги“
(където „иъ“ е ЕДИН звук, наречен дифтонг – като в „Ричард Гиър“),
или... кой знае още ка
к;)
User avatar
Кал
Творчески директор
 
Posts: 10265
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Рамо до рамо. Искаш ли?
Has thanked: 7020 times
Has been thanked: 5469 times

Re: Proofreaders' pleasures

Postby Кал » Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:51 am

O darn apostrophe possessive
You make my grammar dreams obsessive ....


Some rules from The Punctuation Guide:

The general rule is that the possessive of a singular noun is formed by adding an apostrophe and s, whether the singular noun ends in s or not.

Xerox’s sales manager
Tom Jones’s first album
Jesus’s disciples
Aeschylus’s finest drama
a week's vacation

The possessive of a plural noun is formed by adding only an apostrophe when the noun ends in s, and by adding both an apostrophe and s when it ends in a letter other than s.

excessive lawyers’ fees
children’s toys
the alumni’s fundraising
someone with twelve years’ experience


Exceptions to the general rule

Use only an apostrophe for places or names that are singular but have a final word in plural form and ending with an s.

Beverly Hills’ current mayor
the United States’ lingering debt problem
Cisco Systems’ CEO

Nouns that end in an s sound take only an apostrophe when they are followed by sake.

for goodness’ sake
for conscience’ sake

A proper noun that is already in possessive form is left as is.

T.G.I. Friday’s menu was recently changed.

This post by Кал received thanks from:
Люба (Tue Oct 24, 2017 4:06 pm)
Rating: 9.09%
 
User avatar
Кал
Творчески директор
 
Posts: 10265
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Рамо до рамо. Искаш ли?
Has thanked: 7020 times
Has been thanked: 5469 times


Return to Фантазийска преводаческа школа

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests