Proofs redux

[la_marquise]

So, having looked at the electronic set that I received this a.m. and spotted this in the middle of p. 1'G. looked enquiringly' (and checked my MS and found that I had not in fact committed that sentence -- mine original reads 'G looked enquiring') I enquired of the marquis if the new version was by any stretch possibly grammatically correct. It looked wrong to me, but US grammar is another creature. He thought it might be all right, though I was not convinced. (On the one hand, he went to a posh school that taught formal grammar. On the other, he's a mathematician.) As a result, I trotted off into town in search of a book on US English grammar and a US dictionary.
I am now the proud owner of a large heavy copy of The Chicago Manual of Style (15th edition. It's Bright Orangey Red. So unlike my much loved Cambridge Handbook of Copy-Editing in its sober grey plumage) and a Merriam Webster Dictionary to guide me through this new world of transatlantic spelling and grammar and punctuation. (Capitalisation after a colon! That looks so wrong to me!)
And yea, lo and verily, I am right about that sentence. According CMS 5.158, 'Adverbs do not generally follow linking verbs such as be, appear, seem, become, look...'
That -ly is history.

Comments

[zaan.livejournal.com]

Capitalization after a colon? Never seen that in any of my stuff, or anywhere I can think of. What an extremely odd idea...

And Yay, well done, on being at proof stage. Mine has still to be read. :( Sheesh!

On returning proof corrections

[zaan.livejournal.com]

Oh, you do not need to send back the whole manuscript to them. I have always either faxed corrections or when they got email up and running properly, sent them by email in a template I will email to you. Saves a LOT or time and money doing it this way and gives you more time to finish proofing - I often only got 5-7 days to do it!