Copyediting sample 55:
Person markers

In this academic abstract on linguistics, there were problems with inconsistency, word choice, verbose phrasing, mechanical style for capitalization, spelling, punctuation, and typeface, and other things. In her feedback, the author rejected some of my suggested revisions.

Note: The author of this piece was not a native English speaker. She very much appreciated the heavy commentary that explained my thinking behind the many suggested revisions. The highlighted comments elucidated for her many of the subtle peculiarities of American English.

Skip this sample and advance to the next one in the series.

This sample is presented here with the author’s permission.

Original
Click to go to the markup.

The grammatical category of “person” is usually connected to the independent personal pronoun (called “kinuy Parud” in the study of Hebrew). The basic morpho-phonological distinction of person markers in languages of the world is between an "independent marker" and a "dependent marker". A rough division of languages into two types is customary in typological linguistics: those enabling the omission of the pronoun, and those which do not. At the base of Goldenberg’s1 Hebrew verb theory stands the assumption that Hebrew is a language enabling the addition of a person marker ("Pro-Add phenomenon") to the verb, but in fact, does not require its presence. Therefore, every such addition will contribute an added meaning which is absent without it. This added meaning will require explanation. Following Goldenberg, this paper will show that Hebrew is a language enabling the addition of an external person marker to the verb, consequently being a “Pro-Add language”, rather than one enabling its omission (“Pro-Drop”), as customarily referred to in typological linguistics.2 Further, I wish to establish a theory, according to which the independent person markers have a clear role, a consistent arrangement, and distinct conditions of performance. They do not appear randomly or non-systematically in the spoken Hebrew. This paper is grounded on an expansive research corpus, whose database includes 60,000 words, in which 24 informants were recorded in the years 2000-2004. It will deal with the analysis of verbal structures in speech units, and will present the person markers' system in verbal units in the spoken Hebrew of the onset of the 2000’s in Israel. 1 .349 295 2 The classification of a language according to the status of its pronouns is a theoretic-philosophical issue, and it is one of the important parameters which localize the language in the global language map.

Markup (the first pass of my edit)
Click to go to the feedback from the author.

The grammatical category of “person” is usually connected to [should "connected to" be changed to "associated with"?] the independent personal pronoun (called “kinuy Parud” in (called kinuy Parud [technical terms get italics (not quotes) when introduced (at their first instance)] in the study of Hebrew). The basic morpho-phonological distinction basic morphophonological distinction [the preceding compound word is not a misspelling, even though MS Word flags it as one; if conforms to University of Chicago Manual of Style (CMS), the "bible" of the publishing world, and Merriam-Webster... this rule applies to many other compounds, such as nonsystematically] of person markers in languages of the world is in world languages is between an "independent marker" and a "dependent marker". an “independent marker” and a “dependent marker.“ [(1) You need to be consistent with whether you use "tick" quotes and apostrophes ("..." and '...' and 's) or “curly” quotes and apostrophes (“...” and ‘...’ and ’s); you started with “curly,” so let’s stay with it. (2) U.S. publishers, in contrast with British publishers, want the terminal punctuation (comma [,] or period [.]) to be before, not after, the end quotation mark. (3) I got rid of your paragraph break here.] A rough division of languages into two types is customary in typological linguistics: those enabling the those that enable the omission of the pronoun, and pronoun and those which do those that do not. At the base of Goldenberg’s1 Hebrew Goldenberg’s Hebrew verb theory stands the verb theory is based on the assumption that Hebrew is a language enabling the addition of [(1) it seems to me that enabling (or, in my revision, enables), rather than addition, is the word to be emphasized in this sentence (since Hebrew doesn't necessarily add the person marker but it can add it); (2) italics, not boldface, is the preferred way to emphasize a term] language that enables the addition of a person marker ("Pro-Add phenomenon") to marker (the pro-add phenomenon) to the verb, but in verb but, in fact, does not require its presence. Therefore, every presence.1 [this is where the footnote callout should go] Nevertheless, though the person marker is not required, every such addition will contribute an [there is no justification for future tense to describe situations that are true in the present] addition contributes an added meaning which is absent meaning to the sentence, a meaning that is absent without it. This added meaning will require explanation meaning requires explanation. Following Goldenberg, this paper will show that This paper supports Goldenberg by showing that Hebrew is a is indeed a language enabling the addition of the addition of an external person marker [is "external person marker" the same as "independent person marker"? If so, I suggest you settle on a single term (or provide the alternative term as an appositive at the first instance). If not, you need to explain the difference.] to the verb, consequently being a verb—in other words, that Hebrew is a “Pro-Add language”, rather a pro-add language rather than one enabling its omission (“Pro-Drop”), as customarily referred to in enabling the person marker’s omission ( a pro-drop language), the terms customarily used in typological linguistics.2 [(1) Typological linguistics does not "refer to" the terms; it uses the terms to refer to linguistic phenomena--correct? (2) In the preceding sentence have I captured your intended meaning?] Further, I wish to establish a Further, this paper proposes a theory, according theory according to which [or perhaps we can change (simplify) the preceding words of this sentence to: "Further, this paper theorizes that ..." Shall I make this change?] the independent person markers have a clear role, a consistent arrangement, and distinct conditions of performance. They do performance; they do not appear randomly or non-systematically in the spoken randomly, or nonsystematically, in the spoken Hebrew. [(1) I joined two very closely related sentences with a semicolon, because the second one explained the first one; (2) "nonsystematically" is synonymous (or nearly so) with "randomly," so I set it off as an appositive with commas] This paper is grounded on an The conclusions of this paper rely on an expansive research corpus, whose database includes 60,000 words, in which 24 informants were recorded in the years 2000-2004. It will deal with the analysis of verbal years 2000–2004. It analyzes verbal structures in speech units, and will present the person markers' system in verbal and it presents the system of person markers within verbal units in the spoken units of spoken Hebrew of the onset of the 2000’s in Israel Hebrew in Israel at the onset of the twenty-first century. 1 .349 295 [of course, I do not understand the Hebrew here. My inserting the foregoing into Google's Hebrew-English translation tool gave me G. Goldenberg, "On the theory of the Hebrew verb and the verb", Studies in the preparation of m, p Jerusalem TRIP (and is the page range for the article 295-349?).. Please provide a better translation (as well as the journal's author instructions), and in the second pass I will ensure the citation conforms to the journal's standards] 2 The classification of a language according to the status of its pronouns is a theoretic-philosophical issue, and it is one issue, one of the important parameters which localize parameters that localize the language in the global language map.

Author feedback (after her review)
My instructions to the author with the first-pass markup were for her to insert feedback comments in BLUE BOLDFACE ALL CAPS after the relevant markup or query (without replacing or altering any of the markup or commentary itself). There was no need for the author to respond to any revision she agreed with.
Click to go to the result.

The grammatical category of “person” is usually connected to [should "connected to" be changed to "associated with"?] OK the independent personal pronoun (called “kinuy Parud” in (called kinuy Parud [technical terms get italics (not quotes) when introduced (at their first instance)] in the study of Hebrew). The basic morpho-phonological distinction basic morphophonological distinction [the preceding compound word is not a misspelling, even though MS Word flags it as one; it conforms to University of Chicago Manual of Style (CMS), the "bible" of the publishing world, and Merriam-Webster... this rule applies to many other compounds, such as nonsystematically] of person markers in languages of the world is in world languages is between an "independent marker" and a "dependent marker". an “independent marker” and a “dependent marker.“ [(1) You need to be consistent with whether you use "tick" quotes and apostrophes ("..." and '...' and 's) or “curly” quotes and apostrophes (“...” and ‘...’ and ’s); you started with “curly,” so let’s stay with it. (2) U.S. publishers, in contrast with British publishers, want the terminal punctuation (comma [,] or period [.]) to be before, not after, the end quotation mark. (3) I got rid of your paragraph break here.] A rough division of languages into two types is customary in typological linguistics: those enabling the those that enable the omission of the pronoun, and pronoun and those which do those that do not. THERE ARE SOME LINGUISTS WHO REPRESENT A THIRD TYPE OF LANGUAGES -- THOSE ENABLING PARTIAL OMISSION OF THE PRONOUN. At the base of Goldenberg’s1 Hebrew Goldenberg’s Hebrew verb theory stands the verb theory is based on the assumption I WOULD LIKE TO SAY HERE THAT GOLDENBERG IS THE ONE ESTABLISHED THIS ASSUMPTION that Hebrew is a language enabling the addition of [(1) it seems to me that enabling (or, in my revision, enables), rather than addition, is the word to be emphasized in this sentence (since Hebrew doesn't necessarily add the person marker but it can add it); NO. THE IDEA HERE IS THAT THIS THEORY AS OPPOSED TO ALL OTHER THEORIES ENABLES THE ADDITION OF PERSON MARKERS AND NOT THE OMISSION OF THEM (2) italics, not boldface, is the preferred way to emphasize a term] language that enables the addition of a person marker ("Pro-Add phenomenon") to marker (the pro-add phenomenon) to the verb, but in verb but, in fact, does not require its presence. Therefore, every presence.1 [this is where the footnote callout should go] Nevertheless, though the person marker is not required, every such addition will contribute an [there is no justification for future tense to describe situations that are true in the present] addition contributes an added meaning which is absent meaning to the sentence UNIT (NOT SENTENCE) , a meaning that is absent without it. This added meaning will require explanation meaning requires explanation. Following Goldenberg, this paper will show that This paper supports Goldenberg I CANNOT SAY THIS PAPER SUPPORTS G. G WAS A GREAT PROFESSOR, A THEORETICIAN, HE ESTABLISHED THIS THEORY. THAT'S WHY I PREFERRED "FOLLOWING" AS IF--HE IS THE LEADER AND I FOLLOW HIS WAY by showing that Hebrew is a is indeed a language enabling the addition of the addition of an external person marker [is "external person marker" the same as "independent person marker"? If so, I suggest you settle on a single term (or provide the alternative term as an appositive at the first instance). If not, you need to explain the difference.] STAY WITH INDEPENDENT PERSON MARKER THROUGHOUT to the verb, consequently being a verb—in other words, that Hebrew is a “Pro-Add language”, rather a pro-add language rather than one enabling its omission (“Pro-Drop”), as customarily referred to in enabling the person marker’s omission ( a pro-drop language), the terms customarily used in typological linguistics.2 [(1) Typological linguistics does not "refer to" the terms; it uses the terms to refer to linguistic phenomena--correct? (2) In the preceding sentence have I captured your intended meaning?] YES Further, I wish to establish a Further, this paper proposes a theory, according theory according to which [or perhaps we can change (simplify) the preceding words of this sentence to: "Further, this paper theorizes that ..." Shall I make this change?] YES the independent person markers have a clear role, a consistent arrangement, and distinct conditions of performance. They do performance; they do not appear randomly or non-systematically in the spoken randomly, or nonsystematically, in the spoken Hebrew. [(1) I joined two very closely related sentences with a semicolon, because the second one explained the first one; (2) "nonsystematically" is synonymous (or nearly so) with "randomly," so I set it off as an appositive with commas] This paper is grounded on an The conclusions of this paper rely on an expansive research corpus, whose database includes 60,000 words, in which 24 informants were recorded in the years 2000-2004. It will deal with the analysis of verbal years 2000–2004. It analyzes verbal structures in speech units, and will present the person markers' system in verbal and it presents the system of person markers within verbal units in the spoken units of spoken Hebrew of the onset of the 2000’s in Israel Hebrew in Israel at the onset of the twenty-first century. 1 .349 295 [of course, I do not understand the Hebrew here. My inserting the foregoing into Google's Hebrew-English translation tool gave me G. Goldenberg, "On the theory of the Hebrew verb and the verb", Studies in the preparation of m, p Jerusalem TRIP (and is the page range for the article 295-349?).. Please provide a better translation (as well as the journal's author instructions), and in the second pass I will ensure the citation conforms to the journal's standards] G. GOLDENBERG, "ON THE THEORY OF THE HEBREW VERB AND THE VERB", STUDIES IN LANGUAGE, M. BAR-ASHER (ED.), JERUSALEM, 1985, VOL. 1, PP. 295-349. (HEBREW) 2 The classification of a language according to the status of its pronouns is a theoretic-philosophical issue, and it is one issue, one of the important parameters which localize parameters that localize the language in the global language map.

Result
I could not find the Goldenberg piece to verify what the author provided in her footnote, and I needed to alert her that she still needed to provide the publisher for the Bar-Asher edited book.
Click to go to the next sample in the series.

The grammatical category of “person” is usually associated with the independent personal pronoun (called kinuy Parud in the study of Hebrew). The basic morphophonological distinction of person markers in world languages is between an “independent marker” and a “dependent marker.“ A rough division of languages into two types is customary in typological linguistics: those that enable the omission of the pronoun and those that do not. (There are some linguists who postulate a third type of languages, those enabling partial omission of the pronoun.) Goldenberg’s Hebrew verb theory is based on the assumption that Hebrew is a language that enables the addition of a person marker (the pro-add phenomenon) to the verb but, in fact, does not require its presence.1 Nevertheless, though the person marker is not required, every such addition contributes an added meaning to the unit, a meaning that is absent without it. This added meaning requires explanation. This paper follows Goldenberg by showing that Hebrew is indeed a language enabling the addition of an independent person marker to the verb—in other words, that Hebrew is a pro-add language rather than one enabling the person marker’s omission (a pro-drop language), the terms customarily used in typological linguistics.2 Further, this paper theorizes that the independent person markers have a clear role, a consistent arrangement, and distinct conditions of performance; they do not appear randomly, or nonsystematically, in the spoken Hebrew. The conclusions of this paper rely on an expansive research corpus, whose database includes 60,000 words, in which 24 informants were recorded in the years 2000–2004. It analyzes verbal structures in speech units, and it presents the system of person markers within verbal units of spoken Hebrew in Israel at the onset of the twenty-first century. 1 G. Goldenberg, “On the theory of the Hebrew verb and the verb,” in Studies in Language, ed. M. Bar-Asher (Jerusalem; publisher, 1985), 1:295–349 [Hebrew]. [please replace publisher with the name of the publisher (not in italics)] 2 The classification of a language according to the status of its pronouns is a theoretic-philosophical issue, one of the important parameters that localize the language in the global language map.