Forum Moderators: not2easy
Anyway, being an academic in the US, I think of the Chicago Manual of Style as the ultimate arbiter on questions of style, though I pretty much only look up style issues if something is going into print. I suppose the main competitor would be the AP style manual, though I've never used it.
Do you use a style manual when writing for print or web? If so, which one?
If you are not from the United States, do you have predominant style manual in your country and language, eh?
More important than a style manual, IMO, is some kind of style guide, so that you're consistent throughout your site. Could just be in your head, could be noted down somewhere.
Can we have a bit more information? Do you mean an actual set of guidelines that determines how font styles, sizes, leading, etc. are to be handled? Or, are you referring to Style as in "a certain style" or "a certain technique"?
<added> Okay, I searched and found it. Hmmm, Chicago, that's in the U.S. Would that Manual apply globally?
[edited by: pageoneresults at 5:45 pm (utc) on May 14, 2008]
an actual set of guidelines that determines how font styles, sizes, leading etc.
Such things would be part of what sets the style for a site, but I think Ergophope was referring more to issues of style in language and word usage ... things like consistent spelling, standard capitalization, logical punctuation, how numbers will be presented, and so on.
Consistent style is something that people rarely think about if you do things well.
I've never actually thought of using a Style Manual. I guess my 15+ years in the Marketing and Advertising industry (printing and promotions) has ingrained a certain Style Manual within. I've proofed an untold number of documents in that time. From 400 page books to a business card layouts and everything you can imagine inbetween. I've been surrounded by style and it comes naturally I guess.
It would be interesting to see if I read that manual how it would affect my current line of thinking. If only time would allow it.
I guess the one I always run into is when to use a comma and when not to. Is that when you would reference the Chicago Manual of Style?
More important than a style manual, IMO, is some kind of style guide, so that you're consistent throughout your site. Could just be in your head, could be noted down somewhere.
<added>
I guess the one I always run into is when to use a comma and when not to. Is that when you would reference the Chicago Manual of Style?
He bought apples, oranges and bananas.
He bought apples, oranges, and bananas.
You can argue three ways from Sunday over which version is correct. The only thing to do is to pick the one that best suits your taste and be consistent in its use.
</added>
I've yet to see an effective style manual for the web - most of the attempts I've seen reek of fusty old librarians who fail to appreciate that the web is a unique medium, and a given site has likely evolved a house style, even if it isn't written down.
If I'm working with a copywriter, I'm anywhere from ludicrously prescriptive (do not exceed x number of characters here, paragraph one must fit these criteria) to totally hands off. A good copywriter is worth their weight in gold, and usually thrive on freedom. But a bad copywriter needs steering, otherwise you're guaranteed to end up with bad copy.
Here in the UK, major publications will often have a guide to house style, and a pointer to a preferred style manual for other cases. House style usually targets key areas of content, like headlines: which translates to the title for a web page in internet terms, and more general advice for other areas.
Few websites have effective style guides, and so it's usually a case of judging based on past copy and tailoring to suit. For user-generated content in particular, and the web in general, it's anyone's guess ;)
<grumpy>
If you ask me, the lack of definition of correct word usage is continually eroding the meaning of words. The internet is a major contributor to the devolution of language. Few seem to realise that words gradually losing meaning is not just a problem for pedantic grammarians like me.
</grumpy>
You can argue three ways from Sunday over which version is correct
Tsk, no comma before "and"! ;)
The Oxford (or Serial) Comma... [siue.edu]
The Economist Style Guide is not only informative, it's also a jolly entertaining read.
In the main though, I've rarely used a style guide. It's one of those things, I feel, that you develop in your head over a period of time. However, applying your style isn't always what's best, particularly if you're writing or editing text destined for a platform that is not your own.
Syzygy
Tsk, no comma before "and"! ;)
Ah, but that's why I picked the serial comma [google.com] as my example. Back more than 25 years ago when an editorial team I was a part of was putting together a style guide for a series of textbooks we debated and revisited the usage of the serial comma for days. We reached a compromise: don't use it except where needed for clarity in social studies or arts texts; do use it always, again for clarity, in math texts. Why we came up with that? No real logic behind it, I think we were just tired.
The debate [google.com] continues.
No comma before "and"? Double tsk...
I should know better than to invite a grammar fight, and I apologise ;)
But to lazily quote Eats, Shoots & Leaves:
There are people who embrace the Oxford comma, and people who don't, and I'll just say this, never get between these people when drink has been taken.
So: if you don't define the style you want, you get a variety of individual styles. Ideal for many web publications, perhaps less so for print.
to lazily quote
Receptional Andy, you are not a true grammar pedant. :)
;)
But then, what dash is used to separate two pair of compound hyphenated terms? The thing I like about the CMS is that it has a fairly old tradition and people with a good background in typography and such have usually weighed in over years and years and, though perhaps not the best solution, they usually have a fairly agreeable and safe solution.
Another thread got me wondering about what references were used especially by non-US English speakers(and Elizabeth, notice that my first post said "US" but never "American" - I was specifically thinking of our northern neighbors).
If you ask me, the lack of definition of correct word usage is continually eroding the meaning of words.
I've spent too much time as a sixteenth-century historian poring over old documents and dictionaries of dialect and obsolete words and definitions to agree with this. A language needs to be dynamic and fluid in order to stay vital and too much obession with "correct" grammar and definition slowly erodes the vitality of the language. So, yes, I'm of the "usage defines correct grammar and definition" camp.
Following a style manual is a different thing though - it's as much a matter of typographic consistency as anything and it generally makes a book easier and more pleasing to read. However, I always support those who want to break with the standard if there's a good reason to do so.
Still, it's nice to have a few references for when you do not want to unintentionally break the standard.
notice that my first post said "US" but never "American" - I was specifically thinking of our northern neighbors
For the record, many Canadians would take offense at being called "American". To call us "North American" would be okay, but never just "American".
I've spent too much time as a sixteenth-century historian...
Indeed. I expect the 21st Century is very much a breath of fresh air...
;-)
I've spent too much time as a sixteenth-century historian...A language needs to be dynamic and fluid in order to stay vital and too much obession with "correct" grammar and definition slowly erodes the vitality of the language
I applaud you for reminding us of the history of the words we use. But IMO, you forget the present. There are more words on single websites today than were written during the entire c17th.
Language is defined by usage, and it's being defined now, in way that has never been done before. The same people explaining the words in a dictionary are also choosing the words to include.
I'm not opposed to the anarchy of this principle, but I'm sceptical about whether the results will be any more worthwhile than those from the 16th century ;)
I've spent too much time as a sixteenth-century historian...Who needs fresh air when one has books?
Sorry, ambiguity strikes again. My point was in wondering how you so easily traverse from the 16th Century to the present.
As an historian from the 16th Century, what are your opinions of these "modern times"? ;-)
Syzygy
Perhaps that's true in that for probably the first time in history, written language is often less formal than spoken language (text messaging, forums, etc). Which is also part of what got me to ask whether the people here used style manuals - do they regard their work as formal or informal language and, if formal does it need a style manual?
As for the rest of it (quantity of words and these modern times), I think that will have to be for another time and place.
if formal does it need a style manual?
Every style manual I've ever read is more about clarity than formality or informality.
Does a book like "Woe is I" count as a style reference?
I know that the AP style guide is oriented towards clarity and precision (long list of words not to confuse for example), but I would say that it's both clarity and consistency, and especially consistency of visual presentation, that is the job of a style manual.
It got me curious so I had to consult the OED, which says that a style manual or style sheet refers to "style" in the sense of "The rules and methods, in regard to typography, display, etc., observed in a particular printing-office."
That corresponds with what I think of as the purpose of a style manual, rather than clarity per se, though quite often consistent style helps a lot with clarity. However, few readers know or care about the "proper" use of an en-dash versus a hyphen. Though I think that aesthetically the en-dash is more pleasing, I couldn't say it makes a difference in clarity:
see p. 177–188 (en-dash)
see p. 177-188 (hyphen)
>>Woe is I
I don't know it, but it sounds more like a grammar book, which is not really the same thing. To me a style guide is primarily about formatting, not about usage.
If you look at the AP's "ask the editor" page [apstylebook.com] or the Chicago Style Q&A [chicagomanualofstyle.org] you'll get an idea of the sorts of things that style manuals typically handle.
[edited for clarity and style ;-)]
