Proof reading help please - specific examples

[AlexBell]

I've recently prepared two books for the MobileRead library which were first published in the 1890s.

The text in both books did not capitalize the first words of sentences which followed exclamation or questions marks, though of course that is normally done in 2016 English. One example is:

'O sage! what are we to do?' which one would expect to see as 'O sage! What are we to do?'

Is there any consensus whether it is best to capitalize words after exclamation and questions marks even when the original does not? Or to leave the words as in the original?

One of the books features a 'magic ring' which the first time it is mentioned is called Pentarbë, with the e having an umlaut. Every other time it is mentioned it is called Pentarbè, with the e having a grave accent. Is there any consensus as to whether it is best to have the spelling consistent? Or leave the diacritic as is?

I should mention perhaps that I have checked both spellings and the lack of capitalization against the HathiTrust version.

[Jellby]

For the capitalization, I'd leave it as is. This looks like what we would punctuate in Spanish as "¡O sage!, ¿what are we to do?", which is of course different from "¡O sage! ¿What are we to do?" (not different in meaning, just in style). The fact that you cannot make that distinction now doesn't mean you should eliminate it from the past

For the diacritic, I'd vote for consistency. Pick the most frequent one and use it (unless the difference could be intentional).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by AlexBell

I've recently prepared two books for the MobileRead library which were first published in the 1890s.

The text in both books did not capitalize the first words of sentences which followed exclamation or questions marks, though of course that is normally done in 2016 English. One example is:

'O sage! what are we to do?' which one would expect to see as 'O sage! What are we to do?'

This was a common editorial convention in the 19th century, because the "!" was not regarded as being the end of a sentence, but merely accentuating a word within the sentence.

[dwig]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This was a common editorial convention in the 19th century, because the "!" was not regarded as being the end of a sentence, but merely accentuating a word within the sentence.

+1

The sentence is really "O sage, what are we to do?", except the author wanted to accentuate the "O sage" and did so by replacing the coma with an exclamation mark. Capitializing the "W" in "what" makes the "O sage!" a sentence fragment.

Today, we usually consider exclamation marks and question marks as modified versions of full-stops or periods, but I've seen them used as a replacement for a comma in older books.

[AlexBell]

Thanks for all your responses. I'm inclined to leave things as the original printer did.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by dwig

+1

The sentence is really "O sage, what are we to do?", except the author wanted to accentuate the "O sage" and did so by replacing the coma with an exclamation mark. Capitializing the "W" in "what" makes the "O sage!" a sentence fragment.

Today, we usually consider exclamation marks and question marks as modified versions of full-stops or periods, but I've seen them used as a replacement for a comma in older books.

I actually think that the "old" way of doing it was a lot better, in that it gave the author the choice of accentuating a word or phrase within a sentence, or ending a sentence. Today, only the second can be done.

[GrannyGrump]

+1 for consistency. I've seen books, particularly collections of short pieces, that have varied spelling and punctuation (probably due to multiple sources for that publisher), and I generally apply the most-used variant throughout the book.

[kalwisti]

Originally Posted by AlexBell

One of the books features a 'magic ring' which the first time it is mentioned is called Pentarbë, with the e having an umlaut. Every other time it is mentioned it is called Pentarbè, with the e having a grave accent. Is there any consensus as to whether it is best to have the spelling consistent? Or leave the diacritic as is?

I agree with those who voted for consistency as the key criterion. I also did some research on "pantarbe" and can share what I found.

In the online version of the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon (which is available for free at http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/ [although it requires registration]), "pantarbe" is defined as 'a precious stone (perhaps ruby)':



pantarbe

One of the standard methods of transliterating the Greek characters yields "pantarbe" [its word-final 'e' has a long vowel mark (macron)]. I suspect that the 'e' with an accent grave in Rowland Smith's translation was the closest they could get to reproducing an 'e' with a macron.

(I also suspect that the variant found in Rowland Smith, an 'e' with an umlaut, is an OCR / scanning error. I'd vote for ignorning that variant).

"Pantarbe" is also related to the adjective "pantarbes" ('fearing all'):



pantarbes

Moses Hadas uses "Pantarbe" [with initial capital] consistently in his translation of the Aethiopica (University of Michigan Press, 1957).

Another tidbit I learned is that "pantarbe" is mentioned in Philostratus' Life of Apollonius as a precious stone from India, which draws other gemstones to it when it is lowered into a river or sea. In Heliodorus, however, Pantarbe protects its bearer against the effects of fire; this is important for Chariclea, who is captured at the novel's climax and is to be burned at the stake as a sacrificial victim. (Not to worry, though ... the flames miraculously refuse to touch her, Theagenes is recognized as her legitimate betrothed and the couple is married).

[AlexBell]

Thanks for the information, kalwisti, and for spending so much time pointing out the errors. I may have to go back and do a version 3.