tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post5124780314622955868..comments2024-03-26T21:47:45.016+00:00Comments on MEI's Barry Wills: Why good technical English is essential for journal papersMEIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14834780351452765156noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-6150985321935065292021-04-01T07:07:40.549+01:002021-04-01T07:07:40.549+01:00Thank you very much for the interesting article an...Thank you very much for the interesting article and the comments below. It was very interesting to read it especially from the perspective of a German engineer... English native speakers pointing at the comlexity (and beauty) of their language... fascinating!<br /><br />There is certainly a lot to say about that. Besides, I have to support Barry's initial demand regarding high quality technical English (or language in general). We teach our students that a German engineer has to be able to phrase as short, clear and accurate as possible all necessary (technical) details. Sometimes articles in English journals are confusing for me if they use a variety of terms for one technical subject (e.g. the comment of Anonymous from 30 September 2010 regarding the use of waste/overburden/tailings).<br /><br />Please be patient with non native speakers if we don't hit immedeately the right phrase. We take gladfully your reviewers' advice to get better (as users of your interesting language as well as authors of scientific papers).Thomas Mützenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-20713157842847050712020-06-27T13:07:59.461+01:002020-06-27T13:07:59.461+01:00Thanks Barry, noted. Regards, NormThanks Barry, noted. Regards, NormNorman Lotterhttp://www.flowsheets.canoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-17789016583886801042020-06-27T09:15:05.165+01:002020-06-27T09:15:05.165+01:00Thanks Norm, this is useful as it highlights somet...Thanks Norm, this is useful as it highlights something of importance. You, as a reviewer, should not be spending any time on an author's spelling or grammar. I have advised Minerals Engineering reviewers many times of this, so take this opportunity of doing so again. If you feel that the English is unacceptable, then this must be reported back and the author will be asked to revise, either by seeking professional help or by seeking the aid of an English speaking contact or colleague. At all times the onus is on the author to submit a manuscript with English of a reasonably high standard.MEIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14834780351452765156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-15056135081833552802020-06-26T20:50:46.928+01:002020-06-26T20:50:46.928+01:00Barry, the article is relevant and well-written. ...Barry, the article is relevant and well-written. From a reviewer's perspective I spend as much time on the spelling and grammar for the authors as I do on the technical content. Many of the replies that you have posted itemise several of the repetitive mistakes that I see in submitted abstracts. May I suggest that you enlarge the visibility of this article beyond your blog (not everyone who submits papers to the journal visits your blog). I think there is also a writeup on the submitting authors's webpage hosted by Elsevier?<br />Norman Lotterhttp://www.flowsheets.canoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-32254525819658183072020-05-31T09:25:12.166+01:002020-05-31T09:25:12.166+01:00Hi TC, yes in general the standard of English has ...Hi TC, yes in general the standard of English has improved vastly- mainly because we do not accept papers with poor EnglishMEIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14834780351452765156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-42783987630110931132020-05-31T05:03:57.641+01:002020-05-31T05:03:57.641+01:00Any improvement(s) in the language of article you ...Any improvement(s) in the language of article you get for publication, Barry?10 years is a long time -<br />Rao,T.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11160713677908165404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-6630257313734321022020-05-23T19:03:15.103+01:002020-05-23T19:03:15.103+01:00Even HM Government seems to have difficulty with a...Even HM Government seems to have difficulty with apostrophes, as with today's message re Covid-19. "Controlling the virus means no visits to friend's homes". How many homes does your friend have?MEIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14834780351452765156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-10389647096645848372017-03-05T11:35:11.764+00:002017-03-05T11:35:11.764+00:00Amazing what you take for granted- English really ...Amazing what you take for granted- English really is a difficult language to learn!MEIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14834780351452765156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-54866019484209031702017-03-05T11:34:25.218+00:002017-03-05T11:34:25.218+00:00And also:
We’ll begin with a box, and the plural i...And also:<br />We’ll begin with a box, and the plural is boxes,<br /> But the plural of ox becomes oxen, not oxes.<br /> One fowl is a goose, but two are called geese,<br /> Yet the plural of moose should never be meese.<br /> You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice,<br /> Yet the plural of house is houses, not hice.<br /><br />If the plural of man is always called men,<br /> Why shouldn’t the plural of pan be called pen?<br /> If I speak of my foot and show you my feet,<br /> And I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet?<br /> If one is a tooth and a whole set are teeth,<br /> Why shouldn’t the plural of booth be called beeth?<br /><br />Then one may be that, and three would be those,<br /> Yet hat in the plural would never be hose,<br /> And the plural of cat is cats, not cose.<br /> We speak of a brother and also of brethren,<br /> But though we say mother, we never say methren.<br /> Then the masculine pronouns are he, his and him,<br /> But imagine the feminine: she, shis and shim!<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-71985688591049291692017-03-05T11:09:46.906+00:002017-03-05T11:09:46.906+00:00A poem which sums it up:
Dearest creature in crea...A poem which sums it up:<br /><br />Dearest creature in creation,<br /> Study English pronunciation.<br /> I will teach you in my verse<br /> Sounds like corpse, corps, horse, and worse.<br /> I will keep you, Suzy, busy,<br /> Make your head with heat grow dizzy.<br /> Tear in eye, your dress will tear.<br /> So shall I! Oh hear my prayer.<br /><br />Just compare heart, beard, and heard,<br /> Dies and diet, lord and word,<br /> Sword and sward, retain and Britain.<br /> (Mind the latter, how it's written.)<br /> Now I surely will not plague you<br /> With such words as plaque and ague.<br /> But be careful how you speak:<br /> Say break and steak, but bleak and streak;<br /> Cloven, oven, how and low,<br /> Script, receipt, show, poem, and toe.<br /><br />Hear me say, devoid of trickery,<br /> Daughter, laughter, and Terpsichore,<br /> Typhoid, measles, topsails, aisles,<br /> Exiles, similes, and reviles;<br /> Scholar, vicar, and cigar,<br /> Solar, mica, war and far;<br /> One, anemone, Balmoral,<br /> Kitchen, lichen, laundry, laurel;<br /> Gertrude, German, wind and mind,<br /> Scene, Melpomene, mankind.<br /><br />Billet does not rhyme with ballet,<br /> Bouquet, wallet, mallet, chalet.<br /> Blood and flood are not like food,<br /> Nor is mould like should and would.<br /> Viscous, viscount, load and broad,<br /> Toward, to forward, to reward.<br /> And your pronunciation's OK<br /> When you correctly say croquet,<br /> Rounded, wounded, grieve and sieve,<br /> Friend and fiend, alive and live.<br /><br />Ivy, privy, famous; clamour<br /> And enamour rhyme with hammer.<br /> River, rival, tomb, bomb, comb,<br /> Doll and roll and some and home.<br /> Stranger does not rhyme with anger,<br /> Neither does devour with clangour.<br /> Souls but foul, haunt but aunt,<br /> Font, front, wont, want, grand, and grant,<br /> Shoes, goes, does. Now first say finger,<br /> And then singer, ginger, linger,<br /> Real, zeal, mauve, gauze, gouge and gauge,<br /> Marriage, foliage, mirage, and age.<br /><br />Query does not rhyme with very,<br /> Nor does fury sound like bury.<br /> Dost, lost, post and doth, cloth, loth.<br /> Job, nob, bosom, transom, oath.<br /> Though the differences seem little,<br /> We say actual but victual.<br /> Refer does not rhyme with deafer.<br /> Foeffer does, and zephyr, heifer.<br /> Mint, pint, senate and sedate;<br /> Dull, bull, and George ate late.<br /> Scenic, Arabic, Pacific,<br /> Science, conscience, scientific.<br /><br />Liberty, library, heave and heaven,<br /> Rachel, ache, moustache, eleven.<br /> We say hallowed, but allowed,<br /> People, leopard, towed, but vowed.<br /> Mark the differences, moreover,<br /> Between mover, cover, clover;<br /> Leeches, breeches, wise, precise,<br /> Chalice, but police and lice;<br /> Camel, constable, unstable,<br /> Principle, disciple, label.<br /><br />Petal, panel, and canal,<br /> Wait, surprise, plait, promise, pal.<br /> Worm and storm, chaise, chaos, chair,<br /> Senator, spectator, mayor.<br /> Tour, but our and succour, four.<br /> Gas, alas, and Arkansas.<br /> Sea, idea, Korea, area,<br /> Psalm, Maria, but malaria.<br /> Youth, south, southern, cleanse and clean.<br /> Doctrine, turpentine, marine.<br /><br />Compare alien with Italian,<br /> Dandelion and battalion.<br /> Sally with ally, yea, ye,<br /> Eye, I, ay, aye, whey, and key.<br /> Say aver, but ever, fever,<br /> Neither, leisure, skein, deceiver.<br /> Heron, granary, canary.<br /> Crevice and device and aerie.<br /><br />Face, but preface, not efface.<br /> Phlegm, phlegmatic, ass, glass, bass.<br /> Large, but target, gin, give, verging,<br /> Ought, out, joust and scour, scourging.<br /> Ear, but earn and wear and tear<br /> Do not rhyme with here but ere.<br /> Seven is right, but so is even,<br /> Hyphen, roughen, nephew Stephen,<br /> Monkey, donkey, Turk and jerk,<br /> Ask, grasp, wasp, and cork and work.<br /><br />Pronunciation — think of Psyche!<br /> Is a paling stout and spikey?<br /> Won't it make you lose your wits,<br /> Writing groats and saying grits?<br /> It's a dark abyss or tunnel:<br /> Strewn with stones, stowed, solace, gunwale,<br /> Islington and Isle of Wight,<br /> Housewife, verdict and indict.<br /><br />Finally, which rhymes with enough —<br />Though, through, plough, or dough, or cough?<br /> Hiccough has the sound of cup.<br /> My advice is to give up!!!*<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-4176581023827460322010-09-30T13:31:45.956+01:002010-09-30T13:31:45.956+01:00The publication was a book chapter for a well-read...The publication was a book chapter for a well-read mining handbook, rather than a journal paper so I guess they had good reasons to be strict in language usage. Furthermore, most reviewers consistently picked up on the same words so it was quite easy to make the changes. <br /><br />Another thing that tends to be confusing is whether or not to use the Oxford comma. Some people seem to prefer them, others don't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-45054923907197692642010-09-30T09:33:49.421+01:002010-09-30T09:33:49.421+01:00Many thanks for pointing out my slip regarding ...Many thanks for pointing out my slip regarding 'effect' and 'affect'. You are quite right.<br /><br />Your experience with the American journal is interesting. An international journal should accommodate the nuances in both "languages" but this one sounds a little parochial!MEIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14834780351452765156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-65252460086993832002010-09-30T09:22:16.719+01:002010-09-30T09:22:16.719+01:00I feel a bit cheeky saying this but wouldn't &...I feel a bit cheeky saying this but wouldn't 'effect' more commonly be the noun and 'affect' more commonly be the verb (only being a noun in psychology/psychiatry)?<br /><br />On a different note, I was involved with writing a chapter for an American publication last year and was amazed at the corrections we received from the American peer reviewers. Things we never thought off, like 'waste' being unacceptable when referring to overburden because it has a nuclear connotation. Even 'tailings' was pushing it apparently. Also, we thought that 'overtaking' was a commonly used English term. All three reviewers preferred 'passing'. We implemented the changes but nonetheless were quite amazed at some of these unexpected differences between two prominent English-speaking countries.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-63447022375100862292010-09-23T00:54:14.590+01:002010-09-23T00:54:14.590+01:00Thanks very much... Actually we have that very boo...Thanks very much... Actually we have that very book at home and read it with much pleasure. Another two commonly misunderstood parts of speech are:<br /><br />"Comprises" and "Consists of" - it is very common that even first-language English speakers write "comprises of..", this is really irritating. Of course it has its origin from the French "il est compris de..." but underwent a transformation over the centuries.<br /><br />Another one - my favourite - the abuse of the apostrophe..... Very common to see the apostrophe incorrectly used to indicate the plural.<br /><br />In the romantic languages they have sensible clear rules to indicate possessive and plural. For example, "une pomme de terre" becomes "les<br />pommes de terre" in the plural, and "C'est le pomme de terre de Jean" clearly differentiates between plural and possessive. In the case of<br />English, there are several legal uses, including to indicate a contraction such as "it's" meaning "it is". To a non-first language English speaker this is typically confusing. This is one of the reasons that the use of contractions has no place in the written language.<br /><br />How much of my time I have spent in my career guiding younger engineers in the writing of technical English.....<br /><br />Thanks for writingAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-79480511900308082192010-09-22T22:48:45.652+01:002010-09-22T22:48:45.652+01:00Very Important topic for a post, thanks for the in...Very Important topic for a post, thanks for the info. Loved the examples, helps to make the rules more memorable. The effect bs affect one is always the one I struggle with.<br /><br />The other culprit is "it's" and "its".Jamie Rosshttp://www.miningman.comnoreply@blogger.com