Things my father said.

[DeYaKen]

My dad was an ordinary man. He wasn't a fighter pilot, a surgeon, a politician or even a published author. He was the kind of man that many such people look down on; but couldn't live without. He was a farm worker and a modest man. He had his picture on the cover of Farmer's Weekly and my mother had to rescue his copy from the bin. Like many teenagers in the sixties I didn't give him the respect he deserved and he was gone before I realised the error of my ways.

Like many fathers he had sayings that he loved to use and apply to everyday life. He never knew who he was quoting but he always applied them correctly. One such saying was brought home to me today when a person who is a self proclaimed editor and expert on the use of language edited a piece of text thus.

My text
I got there before Susan.
His edited version.
I got there before Susan did.

My father's saying "It's better to keep your mouth shut and let the world think you're an idiot, than open it and remove all doubt"

It was Mark Twain Dad, and for what it's worth your boy did OK

I won't have to tell you who made the gaff. He won't be able to resist responding.

You editors must have loads examples of such truisms why not share a few.

 

[_Lynn_]

I'm curious. Why do you think the edited version is wrong?

 

[lovecraft68]

Is either wrong or is it just word choices?

I would have used "I arrived", but I would think that falls under style.

 

[_Lynn_]

Is either wrong or is it just word choices?

I would have used "I arrived", but I would think that falls under style.

I don't know if I'll express this right, but when I read the first version, I find myself asking before Susan what? I got there before Susan went to sleep? Before Susan made dinner? I realize surrounding context would help, but if you look at just the one sentence, that's the way I read the words.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Theys called REFERENTIAL INDICES.

 

[lovecraft68]

I don't know if I'll express this right, but when I read the first version, I find myself asking before Susan what? I got there before Susan went to sleep? Before Susan made dinner? I realize surrounding context would help, but if you look at just the one sentence, that's the way I read the words.

I get your meaning.

But its one of those things-and I know am not using the proper terms- that I think fall under assumption on the readers part.

I got there before Susan. Okay, so where is there? who knows, it is as you said, in the surrounding text. But as the for the wordage I know what they mean. Why? Because I have been reading heavily since I was about 6 and know the wordage and imagery.

Its like when people post those paragraphs with a bunch of misspellings, but many times if you read quickly you're glazing over them and your brain is instantly translating the missing word or wrong letters into the correct one.

Did fills the gap, but I think reading wise it could stay as it was.

 

[_Lynn_]

I get your meaning.

But its one of those things-and I know am not using the proper terms- that I think fall under assumption on the readers part.

I got there before Susan. Okay, so where is there? who knows, it is as you said, in the surrounding text. But as the for the wordage I know what they mean. Why? Because I have been reading heavily since I was about 6 and know the wordage and imagery.

Its like when people post those paragraphs with a bunch of misspellings, but many times if you read quickly you're glazing over them and your brain is instantly translating the missing word or wrong letters into the correct one.

Did fills the gap, but I think reading wise it could stay as it was.

Yes, there are readers who will know what sentences mean because they've been reading for years. I won't dispute that. However, if we're talking a matter of correctness, as in publishing standards, then I would add the word did at the end.

 

[DeYaKen]

Redundancy

I'm curious. Why do you think the edited version is wrong?

In a word redundancy.
Neither is wrong but the original is more correct than the edit. The "did" is redundant and as such shouldn't be included. (Unless you are being paid by the word)

What is important here is that the editor ADDED a redundancy which did not exist in the original. What is more it came from someone who deigns to lecture others on the correct use of the language.

Being the son of such an unimportant man I do not normally point out such things but when a self professed expert, who has delivered many a lecture on this board, tells me he has made things better, I expect it to be better. Not worse.

Hence the Mark Twain quote.

 

[_Lynn_]

In a word redundancy.
Neither is wrong but the original is more correct than the edit. The "did" is redundant and as such shouldn't be included. (Unless you are being paid by the word)

What is important here is that the editor ADDED a redundancy which did not exist in the original. What is more it came from someone who deigns to lecture others on the correct use of the language.

Being the son of such an unimportant man I do not normally point out such things but when a self professed expert, who has delivered many a lecture on this board before, tells me he has made things better, I expect it to be better. Not worse.

Hence the Mark Twain quote.

But opinion and preference isn't the same as publishing standards and guidelines.

 

[DeYaKen]

But opinion and preference isn't the same as publishing standards and guidelines.

It would help if i gave you it in context.

I gave Sarah a call and asked her to delay picking me up so that I could go and see Alex again.

He was looking great, and I had obviously got there before Susan. It didn't take him long to get straight to what he wanted to know.

Add the did and it sounds more clumsy.

 

[sr71plt]

Since this thread is directed at me and what I added to an example edit (the OP still being in snit at having been shown to be a disaster with punctuation), I'll note that the original leaves open the question to "Susan did what?" because the sentence could go several different directions from there. To a grammarian, it just falls off a cliff.

Most readers will understand it without the "did" insertion, yes. But the publishing industry isn't satisfied with "most" readers understanding the text. They are trying to sell the work, so they bend over backwards to make it understandable to as many readers/buyers as possible. The "did" isn't redundant (redundant to what?) and it isn't necessary for most readers, but if you get a professional edit done, it probably will be added--to really pin the sentence down--and it most certainly isn't grammatically incorrect.

If you ask a question of a professional editor, you're going to get the standard they were trained to, if they can find an authority for that, not street "knowledge" or even their own unsupported opinion.

 

[lovecraft68]

It would help if i gave you it in context.

I gave Sarah a call and asked her to delay picking me up so that I could go and see Alex again.

He was looking great, and I had obviously got there before Susan. It didn't take him long to get straight to what he wanted to know.

Add the did and it sounds more clumsy.

Okay, but when you gave it to the editor(and let's face it we know who you're talking about so no need to be coy) was it complete like that? Or just a piece.

 

[Derroreaper]

My dad had a saying too, it was about leading a horse to water...

 

[robertreams]

I see nothing wrong with the sentence except it should be : "had gotten" The before what and the there are already described in the story, so there is no b]problem there, Maybe it is style, but i would have said " I had arrived before him." You have the "that"s The "that" in the first sentence is awkward and unnecessary. also you don't "go and see" someone you "go see" them.

I would have written: I called Sarah, asking her to delay picking me up so I could see Alex again. He was looking great, and I had obviously arrived before Susan.

 

[lovecraft68]

Since this thread is directed at me and what I added to an example edit (the OP still being in snit at having been shown to be a disaster with punctuation), I'll note that the original leaves open the question to "Susan did what?" because the sentence could go several different directions from there. To a grammarian, it just falls off a cliff.

Most readers will understand it without the "did" insertion, yes. But the publishing industry isn't satisfied with "most" readers understanding the text. They are trying to sell the work, so they bend over backwards to make it understandable to as many readers/buyers as possible. The "did" isn't redundant (redundant to what?) and it isn't necessary for most readers, but if you get a professional edit done, it probably will be added--to really pin the sentence down--and it most certainly isn't grammatically incorrect.

If you ask a question of a professional editor, you're going to get the standard they were trained to, if they can find an authority for that, not street "knowledge" or even their own unsupported opinion.

So I have a question. I understand grammar as having a standard by which an editor is trained to go by. There's rules for this and that and etc....

But when it gets past grammar; when it reaches the "Okay, see this chapter? You don't need any of it." Or "Lose this scene."

Now what standards is the editor going by? Because when it comes to editing out whole chunks of material isn't that in a sense opinion?

 

[sr71plt]

Okay, but when you gave it to the editor(and let's face it we know who you're talking about so no need to be coy) was it complete like that? Or just a piece.

No. What was given to the one being complained about is right here on this forum, on another thread.

To an editor, though, that would be irrelevant. A careful editor would pin that sentence down with the "did" in any case. Not a big deal for Literotica, but I didn't do a half-way edit. I did one to publishing standards. And I think the objection raised here is a red herring, hoping that no one will see how bad the punctuation was in the original--which sort of undermines the whole original "Literotica isn't treating my golden prose" right argument.

 

[robertreams]

No good grammarian would say got there before Susan did. Susan (got there) is called "understood".

 

[sr71plt]

Now what standards is the editor going by? Because when it comes to editing out whole chunks of material isn't that in a sense opinion?

You've lost me. Editing to a standard isn't opinion. It's knowing the authorities outside yourself and/or knowing where to look it up in the authorities. It's trying your best to cut opinion out of it. And part of being a trained editor is knowing what authorities are "best practice" for what instance.

With the example of this thread: I understood the context without the "did" also, and it wouldn't bother me to read it without the "did." But if I'm editing the piece, I'm trained to work to standard--to keep my opinion out of it as much as possible--and so that's why I added the "did." The publishing industry standard calls for it--to not have the sentence fall off a grammatical cliff of assumed understanding.

And this is a false issue. DaYaKen is just pissed and pulling at irrelevant straws. The punctuation of the original sucks and the work got rejected. It didn't get rejected on whether or not a "did" was needed in one place.

 

[sr71plt]

No good grammarian would say got there before Susan did. Susan (got there) is called "understood".

Maybe it's time that you registered your editing credentials with the forum moderators (as I did), since you seem to be claiming you have them.

You know, not trying to lead unwitting writers here down garden paths based on not really having any expertise. Just having access to a computer and the Internet does not necessarily make you a writing expert. The Internet is about equal access, not equal knowledge.

 

[_Lynn_]

It would help if i gave you it in context.

I gave Sarah a call and asked her to delay picking me up so that I could go and see Alex again.

He was looking great, and I had obviously got there before Susan. It didn't take him long to get straight to what he wanted to know.

Add the did and it sounds more clumsy.

More clumsy? Or clumsier?

 

[DeYaKen]

More clumsy? Or clumsier?

Touche

 

[Bramblethorn]

If you want to complain about somebody's editing suggestions, the thread where they made that suggestion is an excellent place.

OTOH, if you genuinely want to start a discussion about the wisdom of our forebears, tangling it up with aforementioned complaint is a bad idea.

In a word redundancy.
Neither is wrong but the original is more correct than the edit. The "did" is redundant and as such shouldn't be included.

Redundancy isn't ipso facto a bad thing. Redundancy can be boring and tedious and superfluous and unnecessary, but it can also be the grease that keeps the machinery moving smoothly. Some sentences can be read in one pass, their meaning absorbed instantly. Others require a little bit of figuring-out: "before Susan, full stop - is there an implied repeat of 'got there' here? Or has the author perhaps left out a word? Maybe it's supposed to be 'before Susan phoned'? Or maybe a 'before Christ' type of construction?"

The reader can figure it out pretty quickly - I don't think any of us came away from that sentence unsure of what you meant - but when you make them stop and put more effort into parsing your words, you risk losing momentum. In some cases redundancy makes it flow better since it saves re-reading.

IMHO this is a marginal one, and I wouldn't have bothered red-penning it if I was editing, but I can see why SR did.

 

[DeYaKen]

I see nothing wrong with the sentence except it should be : "had gotten" The before what and the there are already described in the story, so there is no b]problem there, Maybe it is style, but i would have said " I had arrived before him." You have the "that"s The "that" in the first sentence is awkward and unnecessary. also you don't "go and see" someone you "go see" them.

I would have written: I called Sarah, asking her to delay picking me up so I could see Alex again. He was looking great, and I had obviously arrived before Susan.

You are confusing English with American. Gotten doesn't exist in our language and we do "go and see" people. We also don't visit with people, we visit them.

"England and America are two nations divided by a common language. " Attributed to both George Bernard Shaw and Oscar Wilde.

 

[robertreams]

did, etc.

I already have. In the English language, no matter where you live and means plus, as in I bought peas and carrots. We "say" all kinds of things, but then we call it dialogue. Teenagers in America say "fuck" every third word. The frequency of oral usage is not the standard. In any case, the original editor was wrong in insisting on the word "did" the sentence was fine without it and using it made the sentence awkward. The last thing I will say about this is: An editor and his/her writer are supposed to be a team working together to produce a finshed product, not two huge egos battling for center stage. (With plenty of other huge egos claiming miles of credentials joining in)

 

[Bramblethorn]

You are confusing UK English with American.

Fixed that for you. As anybody with a Scots-based username ought to know, there is no One True Version of the English language.

(And if there was, US English would probably be closer to it; a lot of the differences between the two are cases where UK English has drifted and US English has adhered to its origins.)