alexknibb
Silver
"I have never fallen in love. I've stepped in it a few times..."
Posts: 194
|
Post by alexknibb on Jan 26, 2009 11:40:18 GMT
Hi all. We've touched on this in the past, but could someone clarify the etiquette when it comes to putting Latin words in italics? Should it always be done? The word in this instance is 'versus', but does this apply to everything Latin? And is it only Latin words that should be italicised? Or all foreign words? Sorry, lots of questions there... Thanks in advance! Al.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jan 26, 2009 12:46:44 GMT
Al: My approach - as someone who sets text for a living - is to italicise only foreign terms (any language) that have not been "naturalised" into common English. Once a word has become naturalised, I see no need to italicise it.
A few sample words that have been naturalised include (italicised because I'm referring to them, not because they're foreign): etc. / et cetera; ad hoc; ad infinitum; ad nauseam; cafe / café; karma; et al.; in toto; and versus.
Some terms that I do still italicise are: ad hominem; ibid. / ibidem; viz / videlicet; op. cit. Although these terms are common enough in academic literature - particularly in reference lists - I do not regard them as having been naturalised into everyday English.
|
|
alexknibb
Silver
"I have never fallen in love. I've stepped in it a few times..."
Posts: 194
|
Post by alexknibb on Jan 26, 2009 13:19:02 GMT
Thanks very much for the reply. Is there a rule-of-thumb for when a word has been 'naturalised' or is it just a common sense approach?
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jan 26, 2009 13:36:22 GMT
Thanks very much for the reply. Is there a rule-of-thumb for when a word has been 'naturalised' or is it just a common sense approach? If I see a "foreign" word frequently in ordinary English, I'm inclined to consider it naturalised. Some foreign terms I see a lot of, but they are in specialised subsets of English - e.g. academic - so I don't regard those as naturalised because their context is not "ordinary English". Yes, I suppose it's a commonsense judgment call.
|
|
|
Post by Vadim on Jan 26, 2009 15:38:20 GMT
[...]karma; et al.; in toto; [/i] and versus.[...] [/quote] An interesting one this, Vv. I've changed my mind on the subject so many times (and used find&replace extensively) that I'm not sure on the usage of " et al". Some use it with the point after the " al", I prefer not to. Is it a matter of choice and the consistency, or is there some governing rule? Thanks Vadim
|
|
|
Post by Alan Palmer on Jan 26, 2009 19:48:40 GMT
I agree with Vv; you have to use your own judgement in this instance. I don't think there can be any hard-and-fast rules on whether a word has become naturalised. Obviously opinions will vary.
Take the German word Schadenfreude, for instance. I've probably seen it italicised half the time. What I would mention in this particular case is that it should have a capital letter at the beginning, to follow the German rules for nouns, if treated as a foreign word and placed in italics, but should start with a lower-case letter if treated as an English word.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jan 26, 2009 21:27:59 GMT
[...]karma; et al.; in toto; [/i] and versus.[...] [/quote] An interesting one this, Vv. I've changed my mind on the subject so many times (and used find&replace extensively) that I'm not sure on the usage of " et al". Some use it with the point after the " al", I prefer not to. Is it a matter of choice and the consistency, or is there some governing rule? Thanks Vadim [/quote] I apply the following convention: When an abbreviation ends with the same letter as the full term it represents, no period; if the abbrev. ends with a different letter from the final letter of the full term, a period. It's more important to decide on an approach, and be consistent with it throughout a document or related series of documents, than to slavishly "obey" a "rule". Please, one thing not to do: Employ a single period with e.g. (e.g. eg.) and i.e. (e.g. ie.); use both or none. I agree with Vv; you have to use your own judgement in this instance. I don't think there can be any hard-and-fast rules on whether a word has become naturalised. Obviously opinions will vary. Take the German word Schadenfreude, for instance. I've probably seen it italicised half the time. What I would mention in this particular case is that it should have a capital letter at the beginning, to follow the German rules for nouns, if treated as a foreign word and placed in italics, but should start with a lower-case letter if treated as an English word. I concur!
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Jan 26, 2009 21:36:55 GMT
So, should I be putting "inter alia", which I use frequently, in slanty font?
Tone (or is that Tone?)
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jan 26, 2009 21:39:30 GMT
It's Tone. Definitely alien.
|
|
alexknibb
Silver
"I have never fallen in love. I've stepped in it a few times..."
Posts: 194
|
Post by alexknibb on Jan 27, 2009 9:57:00 GMT
There's a lot of rumblings about the French getting très ennuyé at the creeping prevalence of English words in their language, out of interest does anyone know if they have the same etiquette, putting English words in italics?
|
|
|
Post by Bertie on Jan 27, 2009 20:25:26 GMT
It's quite a while since I had anything to do with committees, but I seem to recall that minutes invariably recorded a unanimous vote thus: 'nem con' - i.e. in quotes not italics.
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Jan 27, 2009 21:02:58 GMT
Bertie, >but I seem to recall that minutes invariably recorded a unanimous vote thus: 'nem con' <
Very odd committees that you consorted with!
If it's nem con it certainly isn't unanimous!
Unanimous -- all say "for" or all say "against".
Nem con -- none dissenting with the votes cast (either way).
Thus: passed (or failed) nem con means some voted for (or against) and no-one voted against (or for) -- those others didn't vote at all.
Tone
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Jan 28, 2009 2:58:23 GMT
thus: 'nem con' - i.e. in quotes not italics. Perhaps the minutes were/are handwritten? (and then typed later?) We used to use underlining where italics might now be used, both in handwritten and typed papers; but maybe your secretary's or organization's style was to use quotation marks. What do you do when italics aren't available?
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jan 28, 2009 8:26:47 GMT
I was taught to underline foreign words and phrases in hand-written English.
|
|
|
Post by Bertie on Jan 28, 2009 8:29:42 GMT
That's very nit-picking, Tone. I was not attempting a dissertation on the exact meaning of the Latin phrase. merely using a simple word to describe a situation where there was, basically, no disagreement with the passage of the proposal.
|
|