In a message dated 5/24/2008 12:30:11 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, refero.relata@gmail.com writes:
The bottomline is that a close paraphrase is sometimes necessary, and when its done, it needs to be done with reference to the source, and should not be copy-edited without the copy-editor also reading and assimilating the source. The latter happens all the time.>>
------------ That restriction would have a chilling effect on copyediting. We can't expect copy-editors to read every source merely to fix grammatical errors. If the original editor could not be bothered to provide good writing that would not need copyediting, then that is their fault, not the fault of someone trying to improve the writing later.
**************Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AOL Food. (http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4&?NCID=aolfod00030000000002)
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 1:04 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 5/24/2008 12:30:11 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, refero.relata@gmail.com writes:
The bottomline is that a close paraphrase is sometimes necessary, and when its done, it needs to be done with reference to the source, and should not be copy-edited without the copy-editor also reading and assimilating the source. The latter happens all the time.>>
That restriction would have a chilling effect on copyediting. We can't expect copy-editors to read every source merely to fix grammatical errors. If the original editor could not be bothered to provide good writing that would not need copyediting, then that is their fault, not the fault of someone trying to improve the writing later.
We're not talking about fixing obvious errors in subject-verb agreement, we're talking about rewording for flow and readability. That frequently causes non-trivial changes in meaning and emphasis that can lead to misrepresentation of the source in question.
I am not claiming that the copyeditor is at "fault", merely that that behaviour should indeed be a concern.
RR
Relata Refero wrote:
We're not talking about fixing obvious errors in subject-verb agreement, we're talking about rewording for flow and readability. That frequently causes non-trivial changes in meaning and emphasis that can lead to misrepresentation of the source in question.
Who's to say that the meaning and emphasis of the original wording was accurate? Any two people can look at the same source and derive quite different meanings from it. This is not a trivial problem. People go into courts regularly because they interpret the same law differently.
Ec