ancle or ankle?

AlexBell · 07-22-2014, 09:06 PM

I'm now working on Round the Sofa by Elizabeth Gaskell. The 1859 Sampson Low edition contains the text:

'her foot had slipped upon the polished oak staircase, and her ancle had been sprained.'

I've no idea whether this was Mrs Gaskell's choice, or the publisher's or typesetter's decision.

I've more or less decided to silently change 'ancle' to 'ankle', and would be most grateful for feedback on the reasoning behind this decision.

- I don't want to leave the text unchanged - it just doesn't look right to me, and it's possible that readers may see it as an uncorrected typo.

- I don't want to mark the change with a footnote for two reasons:
-- When I first became interested in designing ebooks for the MR Library four years or so ago I looked at how others had designed their ebooks, and am certain that it was quite common for designers to write something like 'typos have been silently corrected'. I thought and still think that's a good example to follow.
-- I haven't come across any example of an author putting a footnote in a later version pointing out changes they have made. If anyone has an example of an author doing that please let me know.

What do other designers and readers think?

In case it needs to be written: I don't claim for a second that the choice I intend to make has any authority, or that anyone else should be impelled to make the same design choice. It just makes sense to me.

eschwartz · 07-22-2014, 09:44 PM

I don't think typos in the original text are an important heritage that should be preserved.

As a reader, I vote to correct it.

PeterT · 07-22-2014, 11:10 PM

My quick searching shows that ancle is a British spelling of ankle.

AlexBell · 07-23-2014, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeterT

My quick searching shows that ancle is a British spelling of ankle.

I think you'll find it's 'archaic.' It's not in my Oxford Paperback Dictionary, and not found at www.oxforddictionaries.com. And I've never seen it before. If it is archaic I think my original decision is still valid.

Could you tell me please where you found it?

PeterT · 07-23-2014, 01:39 AM

The OED for a start....

Its safe to say that at the time the book was written, and the edition you are using, ancle was an accepted spelling of ankle.

Unfortunately I'm currently unable to access my library's web site, so can't get back to the OED. Hopefully I'll be able to in the morning,

This link should work for the next 3 days.
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/7823?p...N1z5ijg&d=7823

Jellby · 07-23-2014, 05:33 AM

This scan has "ankle", and it seems to be as old (1858) as others that have "ancle". There may be other spelling changes, though. A search for "ancle" in Google Books yields more than a few 19th century results.

Araucaria · 07-23-2014, 11:28 AM

Have a look at the Google Ngram viewer with ancle/ankle (a fascinating tool). The spelling with a "c" was more common up to about 1830, after which it went into terminal decline. Mrs Gaskell would have seen the older spelling frequently in her younger days.

Mind you, I'm surprised that Victorian authors were able to mention the word at all without blushing. Perhaps they were talking about horses?

Bilbo1967 · 07-23-2014, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Araucaria

Mind you, I'm surprised that Victorian authors were able to mention the word at all without blushing. Perhaps they were talking about horses?

In which case it would be spelled, F.E.T.L.O.C.K

PeterT · 07-23-2014, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Araucaria

Have a look at the Google Ngram viewer with ancle/ankle (a fascinating tool).

WOW... Love that tool! Never seen it before!

AlexBell · 07-23-2014, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Araucaria

Have a look at the Google Ngram viewer with ancle/ankle (a fascinating tool). The spelling with a "c" was more common up to about 1830, after which it went into terminal decline. Mrs Gaskell would have seen the older spelling frequently in her younger days.

Mind you, I'm surprised that Victorian authors were able to mention the word at all without blushing. Perhaps they were talking about horses?

Thanks so much for the reference to NGram viewer. That looks to be an interesting and useful tool for future use. Karma on its way.

AlexBell · 07-23-2014, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jellby

This scan has "ankle", and it seems to be as old (1858) as others that have "ancle". There may be other spelling changes, though. A search for "ancle" in Google Books yields more than a few 19th century results.

Thanks, Jellby, for the notion of searching in Google Books. I didn't know that was possible.

I accept that ancle is an old spelling for ankle. But my original post still stands, and I really would appreciate feedback on my rationale for silently changing from ancle to ankle rather than leaving it or changing it and putting a footnote.

JSWolf · 07-23-2014, 07:33 PM

I would leave ancle since you now know that it's valid.

AnemicOak · 07-23-2014, 08:24 PM

Unless your goal is to duplicate that specific edition of the book IMO you're fine either way and it doesn't seem the kind of change that needs elaborate notation. You're not really changing the word and either spelling is accepted for the time period.

I say do what you want and don't stress too much over it (I think I know why you're asking the question).

As a reader who appreciates the work people put into nice editions of PD works I always appreciate it when changes are noted somewhere, either in the posting of the book or in the front/back matter, but I don't know if this change is significant enough to note separately or not.

JSWolf · 07-24-2014, 12:30 AM

Personally, I'd rather the original spelling as that's what the author used. But if you do change it, there could be a major incident. I would think leaving the word alone would be much safer for you given what's already happened.

Jellby · 07-24-2014, 05:04 AM

My take would probably be:

a. If you find other old or strange spellings, leave this as "ancle", on the assumption that this is the original and it's not wrong.

b. Otherwise (or if there are other instances of "ankle"), change it to "ankle" without notice (unless you give a full, detailed list of changes), based on the existence of contemporary editions with this spelling, which may indicate that this was actually a typo and unintended by the author.

07-22-2014, 09:06 PM	#1
AlexBell Wizard Posts: 3,413 Karma: 13369310 Join Date: May 2008 Location: Launceston, Tasmania Device: Sony PRS T3, Kobo Glo, Kindle Touch, iPad, Samsung SB 2 tablet	ancle or ankle? I'm now working on Round the Sofa by Elizabeth Gaskell. The 1859 Sampson Low edition contains the text: 'her foot had slipped upon the polished oak staircase, and her ancle had been sprained.' I've no idea whether this was Mrs Gaskell's choice, or the publisher's or typesetter's decision. I've more or less decided to silently change 'ancle' to 'ankle', and would be most grateful for feedback on the reasoning behind this decision. - I don't want to leave the text unchanged - it just doesn't look right to me, and it's possible that readers may see it as an uncorrected typo. - I don't want to mark the change with a footnote for two reasons: -- When I first became interested in designing ebooks for the MR Library four years or so ago I looked at how others had designed their ebooks, and am certain that it was quite common for designers to write something like 'typos have been silently corrected'. I thought and still think that's a good example to follow. -- I haven't come across any example of an author putting a footnote in a later version pointing out changes they have made. If anyone has an example of an author doing that please let me know. What do other designers and readers think? In case it needs to be written: I don't claim for a second that the choice I intend to make has any authority, or that anyone else should be impelled to make the same design choice. It just makes sense to me.

07-23-2014, 01:39 AM	#5
PeterT Grand Sorcerer Posts: 13,274 Karma: 78869092 Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Toronto Device: Libra H2O, Libra Colour	The OED for a start.... Its safe to say that at the time the book was written, and the edition you are using, ancle was an accepted spelling of ankle. Unfortunately I'm currently unable to access my library's web site, so can't get back to the OED. Hopefully I'll be able to in the morning, This link should work for the next 3 days. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/7823?p...N1z5ijg&d=7823 Last edited by PeterT; 07-23-2014 at 01:47 AM.

07-22-2014, 09:44 PM	#2
eschwartz Ex-Helpdesk Junkie Posts: 19,421 Karma: 85400180 Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: The Beaten Path, USA, Roundworld, This Side of Infinity Device: Kindle Touch fw5.3.7 (Wifi only)	I don't think typos in the original text are an important heritage that should be preserved. As a reader, I vote to correct it.

07-22-2014, 11:10 PM	#3
PeterT Grand Sorcerer Posts: 13,274 Karma: 78869092 Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Toronto Device: Libra H2O, Libra Colour	My quick searching shows that ancle is a British spelling of ankle.

07-23-2014, 05:33 AM	#6
Jellby frumious Bandersnatch Posts: 7,543 Karma: 19001583 Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Spaniard in Sweden Device: Cybook Orizon, Kobo Aura	This scan has "ankle", and it seems to be as old (1858) as others that have "ancle". There may be other spelling changes, though. A search for "ancle" in Google Books yields more than a few 19th century results.

07-23-2014, 11:28 AM	#7
Araucaria Bibliophile Posts: 166 Karma: 934516 Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Cantal in the French Auvergne Device: Kindle Voyage, Kobo Libra H20, Kindle PW2, Moon Pro on Lenovo tablet	Have a look at the Google Ngram viewer with ancle/ankle (a fascinating tool). The spelling with a "c" was more common up to about 1830, after which it went into terminal decline. Mrs Gaskell would have seen the older spelling frequently in her younger days. Mind you, I'm surprised that Victorian authors were able to mention the word at all without blushing. Perhaps they were talking about horses?

07-23-2014, 07:33 PM	#12
JSWolf Resident Curmudgeon Posts: 78,986 Karma: 144284074 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Roslindale, Massachusetts Device: Kobo Libra 2, Kobo Aura H2O, PRS-650, PRS-T1, nook STR, PW3	I would leave ancle since you now know that it's valid.

07-23-2014, 08:24 PM	#13
AnemicOak Bookaholic Posts: 14,391 Karma: 54969924 Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Minnesota Device: iPad Mini 4, AuraHD, iPhone XR +	Unless your goal is to duplicate that specific edition of the book IMO you're fine either way and it doesn't seem the kind of change that needs elaborate notation. You're not really changing the word and either spelling is accepted for the time period. I say do what you want and don't stress too much over it (I think I know why you're asking the question). As a reader who appreciates the work people put into nice editions of PD works I always appreciate it when changes are noted somewhere, either in the posting of the book or in the front/back matter, but I don't know if this change is significant enough to note separately or not.

07-24-2014, 12:30 AM	#14
JSWolf Resident Curmudgeon Posts: 78,986 Karma: 144284074 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Roslindale, Massachusetts Device: Kobo Libra 2, Kobo Aura H2O, PRS-650, PRS-T1, nook STR, PW3	Personally, I'd rather the original spelling as that's what the author used. But if you do change it, there could be a major incident. I would think leaving the word alone would be much safer for you given what's already happened.

07-24-2014, 05:04 AM	#15
Jellby frumious Bandersnatch Posts: 7,543 Karma: 19001583 Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Spaniard in Sweden Device: Cybook Orizon, Kobo Aura	My take would probably be: a. If you find other old or strange spellings, leave this as "ancle", on the assumption that this is the original and it's not wrong. b. Otherwise (or if there are other instances of "ankle"), change it to "ankle" without notice (unless you give a full, detailed list of changes), based on the existence of contemporary editions with this spelling, which may indicate that this was actually a typo and unintended by the author.

Advert

Advert