2 of 2
2
Harmless Drudge: Copy Editing at the New Yorker
Posted: 24 September 2012 03:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3322
Joined  2007-02-26

Other maps are such shapes, with their islands and capes! But we’ve got our brave Captain to thank: (So the crew would protest) “that he’s bought us the best — A perfect and absolute blank!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 September 2012 03:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  833
Joined  2007-06-20
lionello - 24 September 2012 11:48 AM

I noticed the sentence The O.K.’er then copies these changes onto a pristine proof called the Reader’s (to keep the paper trail). I’m not sure I quite understand what the word “pristine” is intended to mean. It seems a long way from here to Livy’s “pristine virtue”. I’ve seen the word used (in leftpondian writing, more often than rightpondian) in an astonishing variety of contexts.  Would “unsullied” or “unblemished” more or less fit this case? Is it a proofreader’s jargon word?

The expression I’d use here, as a sub/copy editor, would be “clean proof”, that is, one without marks: in other words, this is a fresh proof run out with all the previous corrections done to it, so that the new, supposedly final corrections can be clearly seen without a confusing mess of proofmarks from previous rounds of proofing all over it. Never heard “pristine” used of this sort of proof - I think it’s just being used as a fancy work for “unmarked” rather than a term of art.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 September 2012 06:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2967
Joined  2007-01-31

Eliza writes:

I have what I believe is the unique distinction of being called “snarky” on this very forum,

Languagehat called OP Tipping “snarky” here, though he later (more or less) retracted it, and I once so characterized a letter to the editor I myself had written.  That’s without going back to the yuku archives.

[ Edited: 24 September 2012 06:30 PM by Dr. Techie ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 September 2012 02:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5038
Joined  2007-01-03

Yeah, pristine is a poor choice here; it could be confused with the original proof, with no changes having been made. Clean is the word I’ve heard most often in copy editing circles for an unmarked proof that incorporates earlier changes.

And in this case, a simple new would suffice, given that she also refers to it by the name actual term they use in house, reader’s proof.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 September 2012 07:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1382
Joined  2007-01-29

Other maps are such shapes, with their islands and capes! But we’ve got our brave Captain to thank: (So the crew would protest) “that he’s bought us the best — A perfect and absolute blank!

“The Hunting of the Snark” - Lewis Carroll - Nice one, OP!

Snarky is first cited in 1906, meaning irritable, short-tempered, “narky” (which means irritable, bad-tempered; sarcastic, disparaging). From snark v. “to snore, to snort, to find fault with, to nag” - 1866.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 September 2012 07:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  376
Joined  2012-01-10

FWIW, I think it is pretty common in the US to use “pristine” to mean, “really, really, really clean”, without regard to why something is clean or which sense of “clean” is meant.  So a pure, untainted tract of wilderness is pristine because it has been left untouched by human civilization, but a mopped and handscrubbed tile floor that sparkles with cleany-goodness is also said to be “pristine”.  It isn’t much of a stretch from pristine (well-scrubbed) floor to pristine (heavily-proofread) text.  So I found the reference to “pristine” propf to be unremarkable.  But I agree that another descriptor would have been a better choice.

Edit: I should clarify that by “heavily proofread” I mean that several errors have been caught and fixed, not that the text is covered with proofreader’s comments and corrections.  I’m assuming that by pristine the speaker meant both that it is a new draft of the text which does not contain any comments or marks AND that the text has had either all or the vast majority of any typos or other errors fixed (I.e., it has been scrubbed of such errors).  If the speaker just meant that it was a new draft with no proofreader comments or marks on it then it was an even worse word choice than I thought it was.

[ Edited: 25 September 2012 07:31 AM by Svinyard118 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 September 2012 01:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5038
Joined  2007-01-03

FWIW, I think it is pretty common in the US to use “pristine” to mean, “really, really, really clean”, without regard to why something is clean or which sense of “clean” is meant. 

Exactly. I wasn’t suggesting the usage was incorrect, just confusing in this context. Does it mean go back to the original, or does it mean print a new corrected copy?

(Sometimes when a text has been through many hands, it becomes so mangled that you need to just chuck it and start the editing over. This particular need probably doesn’t arise that often in the context of a magazine, where there is a clear author and editorial changes tend to be lighter and directed by a defined house style, but it happens all the time when copy editing business and marketing material.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2015 07:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1389
Joined  2007-03-21
OP Tipping - 24 September 2012 07:42 AM

Just encountered reëntered in Hound of the Baskervilles.

The “Comma Queen” aka Mary Norris, the copy editor at the New Yorker explains the use of diaeresis in the New Yorker:

I wouldn’t wish an episode of diaeresis on anyone, but you asked for it.

A diaeresis (also spelled “dieresis”) is a diacritical mark in the form of two dots, like an umlaut, placed over a vowel to indicate that it is pronounced as a separate syllable. It is from the Greek for “division”: dia (apart) + hairein (to take). Here we learn how to pronounce it and how to use it, as well as how to avoid it, if desired.

The plural is “diaereses.”

I love her somewhat pedantic humor. I now know how to pronounce it!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2015 08:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2149
Joined  2007-02-19

FWIW, I think it is pretty common in the US to use “pristine” to mean, “really, really, really clean”,

When I see that word used in that way, I tend to feel snarky --- suspecting that people are using it to show off their huge vocabulary, rather than to describe something clearly. The same snarky feeling comes when i see someone refer to a zoftig young female person as “nubile”, without any consideration as to whether she’s marriageable or not. I once made the mistake of using the word “germane” in conversation with an American company executive: he used it three times in the following five minutes, evidently practicing it for his next executive meeting. Indiscriminate use of words does not make for intelligent intercourse (yes, yes, I can hear the wisecracks coming already)

;-)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2015 04:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3670
Joined  2007-01-29

The “Comma Queen” aka Mary Norris, the copy editor at the New Yorker explains the use of diaeresis in the New Yorker

I disliked that article intensely, FWIW.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 June 2015 03:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5038
Joined  2007-01-03

I don’t have any strong feelings for or against the article/video either way, but I wouldn’t recommend the use of diaeresis. If The New Yorker wants to keep it as one of their style quirks, more power to them; it’s kind of endearing. But it’s seldom used by anyone else and tends just to confuse people. And we have the hyphen as an alternative.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 June 2015 12:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  161
Joined  2007-02-14

I don’t understand snarky to mean irritable.  It is more a synonym of “snide” and has a quality of superciliousness.  It is a word well suited to the internet—but the concept at least goes back long before computers.  Example: “The trouble with her is that she lacks the power of conversation, but not the power of speech.” G.B. Shaw

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 June 2015 03:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5038
Joined  2007-01-03

The irritable sense is the original one. From the OED:

1906 E. Nesbit Railway Children ii. 49 Don’t be snarky, Peter. It isn’t our fault.

But I agree that doesn’t match how the word tends to be used today. (The OED entry is from 1933 and is badly in need of updating.)

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2
 
‹‹ Blyton updated      refudiate, etc. ››