OK, Listen Up. This Is Simple.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Thu Jan 01, 2004 6:04 am

Homeland Security Department spokeswoman Rachael Sunbarger told Reuters the flight had been detained on the tarmac for screening. She gave no further details. (Reuters)***"Tarmac." Obsolete term. Do not use.***

RimRat · **Posted:** Thu Jan 01, 2004 6:05 pm

OK, I confess my ignorance. What is the correct term?

SusanV · **Posted:** Fri Jan 02, 2004 11:15 am

It's obsolete? Since when?

jjmoney62 · **Posted:** Fri Jan 02, 2004 12:15 pm

January 01, 2004, 6:04 a.m., apparently.we're not going to debate it, are we?

Bakelite · **Posted:** Fri Jan 02, 2004 12:28 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by RimRat:
What is the correct term?<hr></blockquote>You'll find few references to tarmac outside of newspaper stories; it's not used in aviation circles. I usually see tarmac used to describe the area of an airport where a plane is parked; that's correctly called the ramp. Planes land on a runway, travel along taxiways to the ramp, then pull up to the gate to drop off and pick up passengers.Tarmac is a British trademark for a certain type of tar-covered macadam, or asphalt. Airport ramps are almost universally concrete, not asphalt, which makes the use of tarmac even more incorrect.[ January 02, 2004: Message edited by: Bakelite ]

mcarlson · **Posted:** Fri Jan 02, 2004 1:27 pm

A secondary definition of "tarmac" is "airport runway or apron," with the notation that it's "chiefly British." Dictionary shows it down, so it apparently lost its trademark status somewhere along the line. I don't know that it's obsolete, but I keep out of the paper because it's British and our newspaper is written and edited in American English, damn it.Don't get me started about the pest who tried to get me to put accent marks in "resume" and the like.

Rio · **Posted:** Sat Jan 03, 2004 1:51 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Walter:
Don't get me started about the pest who tried to get me to put accent marks in "resume" and the like.<hr></blockquote>"Resume" doesn't have accent marks. "RÃ©sumÃ©" does, however.

paulwiggins · **Posted:** Sat Jan 03, 2004 10:08 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gary Kirchherr:
"Resume" doesn't have accent marks. "RÃ©sumÃ©" does, however.<hr></blockquote>Not in English it doesn't. Nor does facade, cafe and the rest.
Note that resume is rendered curriculum vitae in the antipodes.. Why? Lord alone knows, when ''lie sheet'' would do the job better.[ January 03, 2004: Message edited by: Paul Wiggins ]

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Sat Jan 03, 2004 10:30 pm

Squabbles about tarmacs and accent marks. I love this site. It's better than the Kool-Aid acid tests.

paulwiggins · **Posted:** Sun Jan 04, 2004 12:00 am

Gotta concur about the word tarmac being obsolete in this context. As for the assertion it is not part of US English, the folks at the Justice Department who launched Operation Tarmac last year might not agree. Let your ears for regional English be your desk's guide to what words from other countries to adopt I reckon, given that sometimes dictionary compilers follow newspapers and not the other way round as with, say, when I first started writing about DVDs, arguing that within a year they would become a widely known consumer product.

Rio · **Posted:** Sun Jan 04, 2004 12:09 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Paul Wiggins:
Not in English [rÃ©sumÃ©] doesn't [have accent marks].<hr></blockquote>But it's not an English word. <blockquote>quote:<hr>Nor does facade, cafe and the rest.<hr></blockquote>That's true about "facade" and "cafe," but they've been fully assimilated into American English, so of course they don't need the accent marks. They're English words now.Sorry, but the only reason that newspapers have replaced, for example, "Ã©" with "e" all these years is that the latter looks something like the former; typewriters couldn't handle it; and AP's archaic technology still can't. At least we copy editors now possess the technology to make it right.Sorry, mate, but "the pest" was right.[ January 04, 2004: Message edited by: Gary Kirchherr ]

paulwiggins · **Posted:** Sun Jan 04, 2004 12:48 am

see this guidance that I disagree with
When I learnt my ABC there were 26 characters in the alphabet.
It's time the usage books acknowledged that.
If folks want to check the pronunciation of something they look it up in a dictionary just as they do with the different pronunciations of the word bow.
Time for l'Acadamie Anglais

SeaRaven · **Posted:** Sun Jan 04, 2004 2:43 am

Didn't someone say this was going to be simple?

SeaRaven · **Posted:** Sun Jan 04, 2004 3:16 am

By the way, I vote for retaining the accent marks on "rÃ©sumÃ©" so that it is not confused, even momentarily, with the English verb "resume."... Ah, I see that Paul's link points to just such a discussion.[ January 04, 2004: Message edited by: SeaRaven ]

paulwiggins · **Posted:** Sun Jan 04, 2004 3:31 am

There are lots of words in English that are spelt the same but have different meanings. That is why I enjoy drinking in the Russian Club so much.

SeaRaven · **Posted:** Sun Jan 04, 2004 4:06 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Paul Wiggins:
There are lots of words in English that are spelt the same but have different meanings.Right, so why add to the confusion by dropping the accents from "rÃ©sumÃ©"? It's bad enough that we have "bow" and "bow" (and "bough") and the like already. That is why I enjoy drinking in the Russian Club so much.<hr></blockquote>Not sure what you mean, but it sounds like fun.

paulwiggins · **Posted:** Sun Jan 04, 2004 4:51 am

English as a second language speakers trip up occasionally with results almost as funny as my limited Russian.
The custom in the club is to use both languages, with tolerance of mistakes.

SeaRaven · **Posted:** Sun Jan 04, 2004 5:10 am

Indeed it does sound like fun. I enjoyed similar entertainment in graduate school with a group of chums that included an Albanian, several Arabs, a couple of Chinese and a Mongolian. There was even a guy from Nebraska, who spoke less English than the others.

jjmoney62 · **Posted:** Sun Jan 04, 2004 11:42 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Paul Wiggins:
English as a second language speakers trip up occasionally with results almost as funny as my limited Russian.
The custom in the club is to use both languages, with tolerance of mistakes.<hr></blockquote>
I've heard of targeting the paper to those with a third-grade education but never intentionally editing for an audience of drunken immigrants.

Oeditpus Rex · **Posted:** Sun Jan 04, 2004 3:07 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gary Kirchherr:
That's true about "facade" and "cafe," but they've been fully assimilated into American English, so of course they don't need the accent marks. They're English words now.<hr></blockquote>I'm reminded of the Dan Quayle-like character in "My Fellow Americans" who, upon assuming the presidency through some dirty dealing, reveals that his apparent dumbness "was all just a big facade" -- and pronounces it "fa-kade."
<blockquote>quote:<hr>Sorry, but the only reason that newspapers have replaced, for example, "Ã©" with "e" all these years is that the latter looks something like the former; typewriters couldn't handle it; and AP's archaic technology still can't. At least we copy editors now possess the technology to make it right.<hr></blockquote>Earthlings these days have the technology to do a lot of things that don't need to be done. I don't think we should advocate use of diacrits because it would open a huge can of worms. Readers already find enough reasons to rip us new orifices, and I'm not about to start putting accents over the 'e' in "Jose" when it would inevitably invite someone to trash me for missing an umlaut somewhere. It's a case of being fair by being equally unfair, and of entering an area where most of us lack the familiarity necessary for competence.Btw -- ever notice that people who begin retorts with "sorry" usually aren't?

paulwiggins · **Posted:** Sun Jan 04, 2004 4:36 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by jjmoney62:

I've heard of targeting the paper to those with a third-grade education but never intentionally editing for an audience of drunken immigrants.<hr></blockquote>
Actually, the club is a refuge from the excessive drinking practised in these here parts.
The editing for immigrants thing is quite important when I wear my suburban papers hat.
A substantial part of the audience are migrants and appreciate matters of history and geography not being taken for granted.
We limit idiom in body copy and headlines for precisely the same reason.
People outside high income brackets are just as entitled to get the news and opinion as anyone else.
The craft is to do it in a way that people whose families have been here for generations still enjoy the papers.

Rio · **Posted:** Sun Jan 04, 2004 5:08 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Oeditpus Rex:
Earthlings these days have the technology to do a lot of things that don't need to be done. I don't think we should advocate use of diacrits because it would open a huge can of worms. Readers already find enough reasons to rip us new orifices, and I'm not about to start putting accents over the 'e' in "Jose" when it would inevitably invite someone to trash me for missing an umlaut somewhere. It's a case of being fair by being equally unfair, and of entering an area where most of us lack the familiarity necessary for competence.<hr></blockquote>What you call "fair by being equally unfair," I call "dumbing down the newspaper." What galls me is that the best argument that you and others can come up with is thinly veiled laziness.What's the big deal about diacritics? Learning which words use them is no different than learning which of several alternate spellings to use. Surely you have a better argument than you might make a mistake.Lacking "the familiarity necessary for competence" is a weak cop-out. When I started in this business, no one had competence in Quark, or, for that matter, Microsoft Word. When desktop publishing became the new way of doing things, we gained competency, instead of sitting around whining that we didn't have it. Those that didn't like the inconvenience of learning something new got over it, or got into other lines of work.Granted, technology does give copy editors the means to do a lot of things that don't need to be, or shouldn't be, done. I think specifically of The Allegan County (Mich.) News and its front-page text boxes, each with its own color. But just because technology makes something possible doesn't make that "something" bad by definition. In fact, the opposite is often true, and the ability to use diacritical marks is an example of that. I'm just glad that you and Paul weren't J.R.R. Tolkien's editors. Heaven forbid we have someone named SmÃ©agol and a place called Barad-dÃ»r in English-language novels! "C'mon, John, if we put in those funny accent marks, we're opening a can of worms and may make a mistake somewhere in the trilogy! Then readers will rip us a new orifice!" <blockquote>quote:<hr>Btw -- ever notice that people who begin retorts with "sorry" usually aren't?<hr></blockquote>TouchÃ©. Or perhaps I should say "touche."[ January 04, 2004: Message edited by: Gary Kirchherr ]

Dapper Dan · **Joined:** Fri Dec 12, 2003 1:01 am **Posts:** 273

Bill Walsh had a good argument about this some time ago on The Slot. Unfortunately, I can't find it on his site now, so I'll paraphrase from memory as best I can. He said that if you use a significant amount of wire-service copy, it's highly unlikely that you'll have the time to check every name and see if its owner prefers it to be written with accent marks. So, he said, for consistency's sake, editors who can't check every name that comes over the wire for accent marks ought to render all names without them.I would add: Better yet, phone your local AP bureau chief and ask why the company is still using an antiquated pre-ASCII character set that doesn't even recognize the percent sign, much less accent marks. (That character set, by the way, is why AP spells out "percent" in all references.) I doubt you'll get accent marks over the wire any time in the next few years, but the company will never consider this a priority if members don't ask.

jjmoney62 · **Posted:** Sun Jan 04, 2004 6:03 pm

I have to say, Wiggins, your arguments can be a bit slippery and your context elusive, as has been pointed out before. Do you drink in those clubs or not, mate? And what exactly does that repartee have to do with the written word? And we don't like accent marks in here because they clarify too much and because ... well just because this is English and 26 letters are enough, dammit, damn the "usage books"? We use accent marks in these parts a lot simply because many names have them. This is not a class issue. (Or about whether people who speak other languages are rich or poor.) It's about clarity and, once again, knowing your audience. And your usage books.Sometimes we bicker about the strangest things.

paulwiggins · **Posted:** Sun Jan 04, 2004 6:05 pm

What's the big deal about diacritics?
Is there any other industry in this country which seeks to presume so completely to give the customer what he does not want? - Rupert Murdoch
I've yet, in more than 20 years in this game, ever to receive a letter from a reader complaining about the lack of accent marks. Even the academics I know understand the intense dislike for them. I edit for a steel industry town that's in transition to a highly educated service industry city and don't dumb stuff down, but to add unnecssary complications to the language seems unnecessary. If folk want accents let them read Tolkein, as I did, and be fascinated by the accents, as I was.
Bottom line is that my Mum and Dad wouldn't have the foggiest of what the accent marks mean and that's what makes me form an egalitarian view.[ January 04, 2004: Message edited by: Paul Wiggins ][ January 04, 2004: Message edited by: Paul Wiggins ]

jmcg · **Posted:** Sun Jan 04, 2004 7:51 pm

Point, Wiggins.

RimRat · **Posted:** Sun Jan 04, 2004 9:10 pm

Sad to say up here in the Great White North, few English language newspapers use the accents demanded in French names -- even for the most recent ex-prime minister -- even though it's supposedly a bilingual country. Since most in the Anglo end of the industry have at least a smattering of high school French, it's rather a case, I think, of laziness and/or will.
Either that, or it's proof of what the French-speaking minority has always said: We're prejudiced.

Oeditpus Rex · **Posted:** Sun Jan 04, 2004 9:55 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gary Kirchherr:
Learning which words use them is no different than learning which of several alternate spellings to use. Surely you have a better argument than you might make a mistake.<hr></blockquote>Mistakes would be made, and they would be repeated, because there's no reference for which Jose uses an accent over his 'e' and which one doesn't, and we wouldn't always have the opportunity to check them individually. Multiply "Jose" by any number of first names and surnames, then by X number of languages. This isn't about being too lazy to learn keystrokes (I have a list of commands for oft-used diacrits taped to my monitor). It's about consistency. If you've got Jose on the phone or you have his business card, you know how to spell his name. If it's on a police report or something, you can't be sure.Obviously, local demographics would skew this. I happen to live and work in an area where some 55 percent of the population is Hispanic, so it would be a major factor in writing and editing. As for "dumbing down," wouldn't it first need to be smarted up? Anyway, I don't agree. Context should tell the reader the difference between "resume" and "resumÃ©." If it doesn't, something besides punctuation needs to be fixed.My bottom line is, since it would be damned near impossible to be diacritically accurate all the time, it'd be inconsistent. And if we're going to be inconsistent, we might as well say "fuck style" and write any old which way.

paulwiggins · **Posted:** Sun Jan 04, 2004 9:59 pm

And if we're going to be inconsistent, we might as well say "f--- style" and write any old which way. Hard day, comrade?

Rio · **Posted:** Sun Jan 04, 2004 10:07 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Dapper Dan:
Bill Walsh had a good argument about this some time ago on The Slot. Unfortunately, I can't find it on his site now. [...]<hr></blockquote>It's in his book, "Lapsing Into a Comma." I presume the discussion you're speaking of was one of the things Walsh was pressured to take off his site when it went into the book. By the way, "Comma" is a great read, but much of it is highly subjective and far from absolute truth -- including his discussion on this particular matter. <blockquote>quote:<hr>I would add: Better yet, phone your local AP bureau chief and ask why the company is still using an antiquated pre-ASCII character set that doesn't even recognize the percent sign, much less accent marks. (That character set, by the way, is why AP spells out "percent" in all references.) I doubt you'll get accent marks over the wire any time in the next few years, but the company will never consider this a priority if members don't ask.<hr></blockquote>Now that's the smartest thing I've read in this thread so far.

jjmoney62 · **Posted:** Mon Jan 05, 2004 11:58 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Paul Wiggins:

I've yet, in more than 20 years in this game, ever to receive a letter from a reader complaining about the lack of accent marks. Even the academics I know understand the intense dislike for them. I edit for a steel industry town that's in transition to a highly educated service industry city and don't dumb stuff down, but to add unnecssary complications to the language seems unnecessary. ....
Bottom line is that my Mum and Dad wouldn't have the foggiest of what the accent marks mean and that's what makes me form an egalitarian view.
<hr></blockquote>I'm beginning to think this is a cultural thing that's not translating across the globe. I don't see how diacritical marks complicate text; it seems they clarify. If you can read at a basic level are you seriously challenged by an accent mark?And maybe you don't get letters on the subject because the people it would matter to don't read your paper (but might if you did).

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Mon Jan 05, 2004 1:19 pm

I'm a foreign-language buff, and probably would be better at knowing when to place accent marks than the average copy editor, but I've always been adamantly opposed to the use of diacritics in English. English is a language that does not use them, and when a foreign word becomes assimilated into English, it loses its diacritics. Resume is an English word now -- it doesn't matter that we took it from the French and still pronounce it as they do. If English can handle minute and minute, it can handle resume and resume.Were this not the case, I would still concur with the pragmatic reasons given above. I do not think this is laziness -- it is an acknowledgement that copy desks have their hands full knowing English inside out without mastering all the planet's other tongues. All rules of style should serve the purpose of providing readers with the courtesy of consistency, and while we are not perfect in any endeavor, I think there is a certain critical line of accuracy we need to attain in a given area before we can give them that, and I think even the best of us would fall short of that mark when it comes to placing accents on languages foreign to us.That said, if a reporter is so daring as to use a foreign word or phrase that has not become a part of English usage, I expect her to get it right and use any necessary diacritics, and the copy desk should check to the best of its ability. Proper nouns are excluded, of course, since like all countries we feel free to render our own spellings of the names of foreign people and places.

mcarlson · **Posted:** Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:13 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Matthew Grieco:
I'm a foreign-language buff, and probably would be better at knowing when to place accent marks than the average copy editor, but I've always been adamantly opposed to the use of diacritics in English. English is a language that does not use them, and when a foreign word becomes assimilated into English, it loses its diacritics. Resume is an English word now -- it doesn't matter that we took it from the French and still pronounce it as they do. If English can handle minute and minute, it can handle resume and resume.<hr></blockquote>
Jesus, finally. Thank you.

Oeditpus Rex · **Posted:** Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:44 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Walter:
Jesus, finally. Thank you.<hr></blockquote>Indeed. Thank you, Matthew, for being my translator.Also, I apologize to anyone offended by my earlier... uh, testiness.[ January 05, 2004: Message edited by: Oeditpus Rex ]

Peter Sibley · **Posted:** Tue Jan 06, 2004 10:38 pm

If I removeo co tilde from Joey PeÃ±a, I gain nothing.Rather, I have rendered him "Joey Pain," and robbed the reader of a key pronunciation cue.

paulwiggins · **Posted:** Tue Jan 06, 2004 11:38 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by jjmoney62:

And maybe you don't get letters on the subject because the people it would matter to don't read your paper (but might if you did).<hr></blockquote>
I've spent most of my time working for papers read by top echelon of income earners. The dropping accents still applied, though we would put them on people's names and I still do.

Testy Copy Editors

OK, Listen Up. This Is Simple.

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links