In the days of hard copy editing (i.e. on paper or in "dead tree" format), copyediting used to be the word used for editing copy before it was set in type and proofreading for editing the "proof sheets" you got back from the printer's. (Basically, copyediting made more use of corrections between the lines while proofreading was mostly in the margins. Why? Because you didn't have room to write between the lines after it was set in type.) Those differences don't matter as much as they used to now, since most editing takes place on computers. But they do explain why we have two different symbols for some things.
Why am I confusing you with another set of symbols? Because our book features mostly proofreading symbols, and some of the copyediting symbols are easier to use. If you go to Rich Cameron's L - Copyediting webpage linked below, it'll show how to delete extra words by crossing them out and drawing a line over them. His way is easier than using the little curlique (actually an old-fashioned "d" for delete) that book editors use. Cameron is also good on showing the difference between opening and closing quotation marks. Here are some links:
- The University of Colorado has a good summary of both editing (on the left) and proofreading (on the right) marks in two columns. Notice when they put marks in the margins, they draw a circle around them? That circle is a signal to the printer not to set what's inside the circle.
- Nancy Edmonds Hanson of Minnesota State University at Moorhead has a shorter list of the more common symbols if you need one you can print out in one page and take with you.
- Rich Cameron of Cerritos College has a very clear explanation of copyediting symbols, how they differ from proofreading symbols and how to use them in copyediting. Highly recommended.
- We won't use it much in class, but University of Chicago style is the standard for proofreaders' marks used in book editing. All of them are written in the margins, often with a guideline drawn to the word, letter or punctuation mark to be corrected.
No comments:
Post a Comment