APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2009-06 > 1245958574


From: <>
Subject: Re: [APG] FW: first reply re Exhaustive
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:36:14 -0500
References: <142239.91129.qm@web31605.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <142239.91129.qm@web31605.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


> What use is an important principle so poorly articulated even a
professional editor must seek clarification in order to determine what is
intended?


Any professional editor, when asked to comment upon the appropriateness of a
pair of isolated words, would ask for the context in which the words were
used.

In the present case, I would assume that the professional editor was then
provided with the full five parts of the genealogical proof standard--and
that the professional editor was grounded in historical research principles
so that editor could knowledgeably respond to the concept.

At the same time, experienced writers are keenly aware that "professional
editors" have widely different ways of expressing similar thoughts, and that
a turn of phrase used by one editor will be eagerly replaced by another.
(The edited versions of the Declaration of Independence make for fascinating
reading.)

Elizabeth
(Just another professional editor :)




This thread: