Tuesday, 16 June 2015

BOOKS - PAPER OR ELECTRONIC?

Kindle vs paper books

I bought an Amazon Kindle back in 2010; since then, I've only bought a few paper books for myself, usually when the Kindle version wasn't available. I acquired a Kindle Fire a few years later and now I'm rarely without it. I love being able to carry a whole library of books around with me and being able to read any of them at any time.

Not everyone, however, likes the idea of electronic books. For many people, the appearance, texture and smell of paper books is important. It has also been pointed out to me that, should Amazon ever fall, I could lose my library of electronic books.

As a perpetual Open University student, I've found that Kindle or e-books don't always work well as textbooks, particularly when you want to have several of them open at the same time, or when you're asked to read certain pages and the e-book has no page numbers.

When I used paper books, I frequently lent or gave them to other people once I'd finished reading them. This can't be done with Kindle books and I do sometimes miss being able to do that.

The Kindle is fairly simple to use for anyone who is comfortable using, for example, a mobile phone; it does, however, require some technological know-how. This might be regarded as a problem by some people.

Despite these drawbacks, for me, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Our house is full of books - we have at least one large, full bookcase in every room and no space for more book storage. As a family of four, we have collected just over 500 e-books since we bought our first Kindle; as paper books, these would fill at least two floor-to-ceiling-height bookcases.

That brings me to another advantage of Kindle books. Although we can't lend them out or give them away, as a family sharing the same Amazon account, we all have access to each other's books through our Kindles and we can read them at the same time, should we wish to.

Kindle books are generally cheaper than paper books and are sometimes free. Many of the older classics can be downloaded free from Amazon. Free e-books can also be downloaded from the Project Gutenberg website as well as from Internet Archive. Amazon runs regular offers on Kindle books and books that would normally cost a few pounds can often be bought for under a pound on a particular day or during a particular month. Even Kindle books purchased at their full price are nearly always a pound or two cheaper than their paperback equivalent.

Have you ever been reading a novel and encountered a character whose name you recognise but can't remember how they relate to other characters or to the plot in general? When reading a Kindle book, you can search back through the book to find past references to that character and remind yourself how they fit into the story. The search facility is also useful if you want find a quote from a book. As well as being searchable, Kindle books can be highlighted or annotated, without permanently defacing the book.

If you find a word you don't know, on the Kindle Fire, you can touch that word and immediately obtain a dictionary definition - this is much quicker and less disruptive to the reading process than looking the word up in a paper dictionary.

On a Kindle, you can alter the print size from very small through to very large, which is really useful if you struggle to read small print. You can also change the font, the line spacing, and the background colour.

It can certainly be argued that e-books are more environmentally friendly than paper ones. Taking the average weight of a paperback book as 440g (Source: Ask), 500 paperbacks weigh about 220kg. That's quite a lot of paper.


Tuesday, 2 June 2015

SIMILAR WORDS WITH DIFFERENT MEANINGS

Many words in the English language look and sound similar to others. Whether we are writing novels or scientific papers, we like to make our writing interesting by varying the words we use. We do need to be careful how we do this, though. Here are a couple of errors I spotted recently:

The adjective, consistent versus the verb, consist

When writing a scientific paper, we often say that a particular scientific result is consistent with those obtained by other researchers. This means that our result is in agreement with what other researchers have found.

So . . . can we rephrase that and say that our results are consisting with those of Smith et al.?
Unfortunately, no; this does not make sense. The verb, 'consist' is nearly always followed by the preposition, 'of'. We use 'consist of' when we are talking about the component parts or ingredients in something. For example, 'The loaf of bread I made this morning consists of yeast, flour, sugar, oil, water and salt.' 

'Consist' and 'consistent' may sound very similar, but they do not mean the same thing.



The adjectives, common and communal

I recently came across a reference to a communal, rather than a common plant. 'Communal' is, after all, very similar to the word 'common', so this was an understandable mistake. Although both words come from the same Latin root, they have different meanings in English. The adjective, communal, is used to describe things held in common or used by a lot of people at once (such as 'communal bins'), whereas the adjective, common, is used to describe something which is widely available or frequently seen.

When in doubt, it's best to check dictionary definitions. The good news is, many dictionaries are available free online, for example:

http://www.collinsdictionary.com and
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com




Sunday, 17 May 2015

VERB AGREEMENT: VOLUME AND MASS


I frequently proofread scientific papers containing statements like, fifty millilitres of [chemical] was/were poured into a flask.

Previously, I would have always used the plural form, 'were' in this context, reasoning that fifty millilitres is a plural quantity. This view was challenged recently, which led me to find out what the experts had to say on the subject. According to 'English Grammar for Dummies', 'was' should be used.

"In grammar, treat them as singular whenever we think of them as a lump."
(English Grammar for Dummies, L J Ward & G Woods)

(The other books I consulted did not mention this issue.)

This view is supported by American Journal Experts; similarly, the ACS (American Chemical Society) Style Guide states that, "Units of measure are treated as collective nouns that take a singular verb."

I have now stopped changing 'was' to 'were' in sentences like this.

A quick look at some online forums made it clear that there are differing views on the matter.

(e.g. Protocol Online, English Language & Usage Stack Exchange, Word Reference)

Many organisations produce style guides, although most of those I found online did not mention this issue.


The following style guides state that a singular verb should be used in the above context.

MacMillan Cancer Support
NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence)
University of Cincinnati
University of South Carolina
Wiley-Blackwell

I was only able to find one manual that required the use of a plural verb for plural units of measurement.

American Physiological Society

It appears therefore, that the consensus is that a singular verb should be used for units of measure.

Please feel free to comment if you have a view on this.