WHIM VERSUS PRINCIPLE.
Conscientious proof-readers are often confronted with the perplexing
problem of dealing with the whims of authors and editors. One of
the most difficult phases of the problem arises in the fact that
proof-readers themselves are, equally with the authors and editors,
possessed of whimsical notions, and the two sets of whims clash.
What shall the conscientious proof-reader do? He can not let everything
go unchallenged just as it is written; if he does, he is not
conscientious in the true sense of the word, though of course writers
should know what they want, and should write their matter just as it is
to be printed.
The only way successfully to combat unreasonable whim is by opposing
it with true principle; yet even this will not always succeed. When
a clear statement of principle fails to convince a writer that he is
at fault, of course the proof-reader must yield, often to his great
disadvantage. All intelligent people know that printed matter passes
through the hands of a proof-reader, and they naturally attribute to
his carelessness or incompetency all errors in printing. Examples are
not lacking.
A paragraph in a magazine says that “the poet Will Carleton has
established a monthly magazine, and calls it _Everywhere_.” This is
not a true announcement of the name, as Carleton splits it into two
words--_Every Where_--and the word is so barbarously split each time it
is used in his periodical. Any one noticing this form _every where_ in
print would naturally wonder why the proof-reader did not know better.
It is a matter of personal knowledge that in this case the reader did
know better, but Carleton stuck to his whim, saying that he had a right
to make _where_ a noun, whether others considered it so or not.
A New York newspaper says, with reference to political action, but in
words equally applicable otherwise: “There is nothing that we know of
in the Constitution of the United States, nor in the Constitution of
any State, nor in the United States Statutes at Large, nor in any State
law, nor any municipal regulation, that hinders any American citizen,
whatever his calling or his walk in life, from making an ass of himself
if he feels an irresistible impulse in that direction.”
Every man has a right to refuse to conform to general practice and
principle, of course; but the arbitrary whimsicality shown in writing
_every where_, and not _everywhere_, must fail to find its mate in any
other mind, and can be applied to suit its writer only by himself. The
only way to work for such a writer is to follow copy literally always.
He has not a right to expect from the proof-reader anything more than
the correcting of wrong letters.
_Everywhere_ is an adverb of peculiar origin that may itself be
classed as whim; but this whim is in accord with principle, and the
one that splits the word is not. Probably the word was suggested by a
question, as “Where are certain things done?” Answers are often made
by repeating a word prominent in the question, and so it must have been
in this case, “Every where.” This simulated a noun qualified by an
adjective, and the two-word form was used until people realized that
it was not right grammatically. Many years ago the correct single-word
form was universally adopted, and it should not be dropped.
Real principle forbids the unifying in form of some words that may
seem to be like _everywhere_ but are actually of a different nature.
_Anyone_, _everyone_, and _oneself_ (the last being erroneously
considered as similar to _itself_, etc.) are as bad as single words as
_every where_ is as two words, notwithstanding the fact that they are
often so printed. Tendency to adopt such whimsicalities of form is, for
some unaccountable reason, very common. It is something against which
every competent proof-reader should fight, tooth and nail, because
it is subversive of true principle. The utmost possible intelligent
effort will not prevent common acceptance of some forms and idioms
that are, in their origin at least, unreasonable; but these particular
abominations are not fully established, and there is ground for belief
that their use may be overcome.
Some Latin particles are used as prefixes in English, and have not the
remotest potentiality of being separate English words, if the matter
of making words is to be controlled by real principle. One of these is
_inter_, meaning “between.” A paper published in Chicago is entitled
the _Inter Ocean_, making the only possible real sense of the title
something like a command to “inter (bury) ocean,” as _inter_ is not,
and never can be, properly an English adjective.
Many people are now printing as separated words such mere fragments as
_non_, _quasi_, _counter_ as in _counter-suit_ and _counter-movement_,
_vice_ as in _vice-chairman_, and a few others, though the writer has
not seen _ante_ or _anti_ so treated. These prefixes are all of the
same nature, and if one of them is treated as a separate word, every
one of the others should be so.
These are things that should be combated by proof-readers who know the
main principles of language form, even though they know also that human
perversity is sufficiently willful at times to persist in the face of
all reason.
Another sort of whim has full swing on the New York _Mail and Express_.
That paper prints the name of its own political party capitalized,
and that of the opposite party with a small initial--Republican and
democrat. How the editors can suppose that this belittles the Democrats
is past finding out, since it should be a matter of pride to a true
United States Republican that he is a democrat. Such ignoring of
language principle is silly, and belittling to those who indulge it
rather than to those at whom it is aimed. It is, however, beyond the
proof-reader’s province, unless the reader is sufficiently familiar
with the editor to influence him by moral suasion.
Notwithstanding the certainty that authors will be more or less
whimsical, it is the proof-reader’s duty to do all he can to make
the matter he reads perfect in every respect. He should be able to
challenge anything that does not conform to generally accepted rules
of grammar, and to state clearly his reasons for desiring to make
changes.
A thorough practical knowledge of English grammar is indispensable
to a good proof-reader, though it counts for nothing without a quick
eye to detect errors. If Bullions’s English Grammar had been read by
a proof-reader as well equipped in grammatical knowledge as every
reader should be, that book would have been cleared of one of the most
ludicrous blunders possible. After stating that abridging is cutting
short, examples are given, including the following: “When the boys
have finished their lessons we will play. _Abridged_--The boys having
finished their lessons we will play.” The second sentence is one word
shorter than the first, but the tense is changed, and so, of course,
the sense is changed. Real abridgment, of course, would not change the
time from future to present; yet this is what a noted teacher does in
each of his examples of abridgment, and it is something that a thorough
proof-reader would have helped him not to do.
A proof-reader can not afford to neglect study, if he desires the best
kind of success. The more he studies, the better able he will be to
distinguish between whim and principle, and to combat one with the
other when the first is not such that he knows it can not be combated
successfully. Proper study, also, of men and events, as well as of
language, etc., will enable him to distinguish helpfulness from what
may be considered impertinence in making queries. By its aid he will be
able to give a reason with each query, in a helpful way. Many queries
on authors’ proofs pass unanswered, or are merely crossed off, because
their point is not apparent, or because they have been made in such a
manner as to give offense.
In proof-reading, as in every other pursuit, the closest student of
principles and of men will ever be the most successful. Generally,
as we have said elsewhere, our best proof-readers eventually pass up
to an editorial chair, or into literary or other employment which
is more remunerative than reading proof. No employment should be
more remunerative, unless it may be some which involves the control
or disposition of large sums of money. A more difficult or rarer
accomplishment than that of humoring authors’ whims, while still
preserving much essentially good matter from the chaotic form it would
assume at the hands of unpractical writers, would be hard to name.