Adams, Henry: Democracy. v1. 14 June 07

[Anais9000]

1880 This anonymously-published novel of Washington intrigue was the "Primary Colors" of its day. Features minor characters Gore, Senator Clinton and spouse -- believe it or not.

This work is assumed to be in the Life+70 public domain OR the copyright holder has given specific permission for distribution. Copyright laws differ throughout the world, and it may still be under copyright in some countries. Before downloading, please check your country's copyright laws. If the book is under copyright in your country, do not download or redistribute this work.

To report a copyright violation you can contact us here.

[HarryT]

Attachment removed while copyright issues are investigated.

[Madam Broshkina]

Attachment removed while copyright issues are investigated

The book is available at Project Gutenberg: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2815

And Manybooks.net at:
http://manybooks.net/titles/adamshenetext01demam10.html

[HarryT]

Yes, we are aware that the book is available in the public domain. The issue is whether the specific version uploaded is free from copyright, because it appears to be a commercial e-Book. We are seeking clarification from the uploader as to its origin.

[HarryT]

Clarified with the uploader. Attachment restored.

[JSWolf]

I'm reading this at the small size. So all page numbers referred to are at small.

So far it is an interesting read. Anyway, here is my (so far) list of things that need fixing. I did clarify some with my wife in case it was a UK way of doing something.

Page 9: forty millions should be forty million

Page 26: to-day should be today & na-tive should be native

Page 31: to-morrow should be tomorrow

Page 38: Webster 's should be Webster's

Page 44: practising should be practicing

Page 53: to-day should be today

Page 57: to-night should be tonight

Page 67: chuckied should be chuckled

Page 69: to-morrow should be tomorrow

This next request is for myself only. Would it be possible please to remove the line spaces and put in paragraph indents? Thanks!

Jon

[Anais9000]

Thanks for noting the two errors above (" 's", "chuckied") ; they'll certainly be fixed in a future edition. The rest are the orthography and usage of the period, except "na-tive" -- where Adams is burlesquing his heroine's Boston accent. See for instance http://books.google.com/books?id=k-kBAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1

[JSWolf]

So things like "forty Millions" instead of "forty million" are correct? Was it the practice back then to use bad grammar and poor spelling aka practising?

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

So things like "forty Millions" instead of "forty million" are correct? Was it the practice back then to use bad grammar and poor spelling aka practising?

It sounds like it's at least partly a matter of regional dialectoid type variance, JSWolf. Then too, there's the effect of usage drift, i.e. things that are correct now weren't then and vice versa, language and usage have shifted a bit even in a mere 210 years.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by NatCh

It sounds like it's at least partly a matter of regional dialectoid type variance, JSWolf. Then too, there's the effect of usage drift, i.e. things that are correct now weren't then and vice versa, language and usage have shifted a bit even in a mere 210 years.

Well, my wife is from Scotland and she has also lived in Englad and Germany as well. I asked her about this and she said that "forty millions" and "practising" were incorrect. The rest just look wrong because there doesn't seem to be a good way to handle a Boston accent in print. I would have just not bothered to be honest since it just looks like errant hyphens left in by mistake.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Well, my wife is from Scotland and she has also lived in Englad and Germany as well. I asked her about this and she said that "forty millions" and "practising" were incorrect.

I didn't mean to say they were correct, just that they may have been in common usage 210 years ago.

Technically speaking "ain't" ain't correct, for instance, but it's very common usage here-abouts.

Another example is the use of the word "they" as a singular gender-neutral pronoun. The usage isn't "correct," but because folks tend to get upset if they're referred to by the wrong gender, or as "it" (the only "correct" singular, gender neutral pronoun which the English language currently boasts), which leaves us trying to replace "he" (the "correct" usage for this circumstance) with something else. "He or she" is just too cumbersome, so "they" gets conscripted.

Thirty years ago, I would have been (and was) corrected consistently for using "they" this way. Now it's fairly commonplace, though still "incorrect." In another thirty years, I rather doubt anyone will even notice, and it may well have already moved into "correct" status.

Language is one of those rare things in which what's common is often much more important than what's correct. I mean that in reference to the fact that the whole point of language is to communicate ideas between sentient minds. It's often simply more important to be understood, than it is to be correct.

That being said, there is, of course, great value in being correct with your language, because 'well-spoken' folks tend to get taken more seriously, than those who don't speak correctly.

Which actually brings us back to the book under discussion -- the author may have been attempting to do something with the characterization of his character by way of the accent. It does have an effect on the way a character is viewed by the reader if that character's dialog is prominently dialectic or accented.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Well, my wife is from Scotland and she has also lived in Englad and Germany as well. I asked her about this and she said that "forty millions" and "practising" were incorrect. The rest just look wrong because there doesn't seem to be a good way to handle a Boston accent in print. I would have just not bothered to be honest since it just looks like errant hyphens left in by mistake.

"Forty millions" is somewhat archaic, but not terribly unusual British English.

"Practising" is perfectly correct British English. We have "practise" as a verb, but "practice" as a noun, unlike American English which uses "practice" for both. Thus, we would say "the doctor is practising in his medical practice". "Practicing" is incorrect - but frequently used by poor spellers - in the UK.

Before about the late 19th century, "to-day", "to-morrow", "to-night", etc, were the standard spellings. The hyphen was dropped relatively recently. One occasionally still comes across these word hypenated in the UK and it's not regarded as incorrect.

[JSWolf]

The problem then becomes how does someone from the USA proof read something from back then in British English when it's no longer in use today? To me it just looks wrong. If there are too many of those sorts of things, it's possible to be put off as you see what looks wrong too many times.

[NatCh]

That is, indeed a challenge. I don't know an easy answer to it, I'm afraid.

[JSWolf]

There is one solution. Fix all the things that look incorrect to what looks correct. Some can be fixed by a simple search/replace.