Re: the grammar of photographic writers
From Oxford Guide to Style (2002):
The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry generates
advise on chemical nomenclature, terminology ... By their
recommendation, symbols for the elements are set in roman with and
initial capital, no point at the end; spelt-out names of chemical
compounds are in lower case roman...
Thanks,
Doug Howk
On Oct 14, 2007, at 4:11 PM, Judy Seigel wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007, Ryuji Suzuki wrote:
I don't know of any current authors of chemistry who
capitalizes names of an element or compound. I also don't know
of those from the past, but to be sure(er) I looked at several
authors from 1920s (primarily because I have more specimens
from this era that I've seen in the original volume/printing
rather than reprints, etc.)
Etc....
I've paid particular attention to names of alt-photo processes, for
instance, "Albumen" (albumen), "Gum Bichromate" (gum bichromate),
and so forth, having found a wide variety of practice, both in
contemporary writing and history. Some sources capitalize, some
don't. I decided after a little trial and experiment, that in a
Post-Factory article about a particular process, it improved
clarity to capitalize the process under discussion, but not
others... unless the sense of the sentence seemed to call for that
as well. (Which is to say, according to editorial judgment.)
At times it didn't work out, or didn't *look* right, say, in
narrative disquisition (as in John Coffer's life story, where the
term "wet plate" is incidental) or sometimes I just forgot,
especially editing other people's copy. But generally speaking I
think it was a distinct improvement -- and since "the rules" are
supposedly devised to aid comprehension rather than test our
docility or rote memory, I recommend the practice.
In any event, IMO the WORST bloopers are attempts to be oh so
correct, as in "between you and I." I came across a howler in the
NY Times today... one of those lines like a fingernail up the
blackboard. I don't remember the exact words, but the construction
was along the lines of:
"The choice in the matter belongs to we the readers."
The writer may think (if he thought) that "we the readers" is the
subject of the phrase, as in "we the people." But "we" is in fact
the object of the preposition "to" and thus takes the objective
case. ("The readers" is a parenthetical extension of "we", or
something like that -- the phrasing/terminology here is
improvised.. sorry, but please do not say anything "belongs to we.")
"We the people" is clearly the subject of its sentence in the US
Constitution. Conceivably, "the choice belongs to we the people"
would fly, because through repetition & familiarity "we the people"
could be considered sort of one word. I have no phrase on hand for
that... It could be some kind of metaphor, along the lines of, say,
"metonymy??? (Don Sweet, are you there?)
Judy
|