Can I Apply for Proofreader?

[LouR]

In the July/August issue on page 31, there is a compelling photo of a killed gorilla being carried out of the jungle.<br>Underneath, within the subtitle of the article, you see the word &quot;corageous&quot;. I'm not sure what that word means, so I assume it was meant to say &quot;courageous&quot;.<br>A national magazine and that got to print???? /me shakes her head.....

[scrapbooker]

Many of the students will learn Engllish through magazines. What will they do if it happens like this? some will correct it and some are wrongly learn.

[ronk]

At least POP knows how to spell "lens" correctly.

[Diogenes]

At least POP knows how to spell "lens" correctly.

This makes them better at spelling than half of the user base of this forum.

Also, as far as the original poster is concerned, shouldn't she have asked, "MAY I apply for proofreader?" :rolleyes:

[LouR]

This makes them better at spelling than half of the user base of this forum.

Also, as far as the original poster is concerned, shouldn't she have asked, "MAY I apply for proofreader?" :rolleyes:

Not really, because "may I" denotes asking permission; "can I" asks if I am able to do so. They're semi-interchangeable in matters of applying for a position.

[Russ]

This makes them better at spelling than half of the user base of this forum.

.......................

For the record, when you have or refer to a single lens...its lens. When you have 2 or more (ie plural), its lenses. What we commonly refer to as a lens, ie the attachment we place on our DSLR, is composed of more than 1 lens and thus has lenses within it.

[Landscaper]

For the record, when you have or refer to a single lens...its lens. When you have 2 or more (ie plural), its lenses. What we commonly refer to as a lens, ie the attachment we place on our DSLR, is composed of more than 1 lens and thus has lenses within it.

Your explanation is correct, Russ, as far as it goes. What you overlooked is that even if a device were attached to the front of the camera that contained a single glass element (or plastic, as the case may be), it would still be called "a lens."

I find the inconsistencies of the English language endlessly fascinating. :D

[JayCanon]

Eye wood mayk uh awsum prufe reedr.

[JeffA]

Lou, I'm sure you're perfectly capable of applying. :)

Whether American Photo would allow you to, and whether they would have the sense to take you up on your generous offer, is a totally different matter! :D

Jeff

[elvatoloco]

RE: lens, lenses:

It is commonly known by a large segment of the population that in Latin, masculine singular nouns usually ended in -us, and the masculine plural in -i.

Now therefore, if a guy owns a Lexus, and his wife owns one, do they have two Lexi or two Lexuses?

Granted, both cars came along a good while after Latin grammar. MIrabile dictu.

[Landscaper]

RE: lens, lenses:

It is commonly known by a large segment of the population that in Latin, masculine singular nouns usually ended in -us, and the masculine plural in -i.

Now therefore, if a guy owns a Lexus, and his wife owns one, do they have two Lexi or two Lexuses?

Granted, both cars came along a good while after Latin grammar. MIrabile dictu.

I'm pretty sure that Latin rule on pluralizations only applies to ordinary nouns and not proper nouns.

Did the Romans have "brand" names for things, in any case? It's discussions like this that make you appreciate why Latin is considered a dead language. :D

[rotay44]

Lens/lenses:
I once had a photography pal by the name of Len, so when I borrowed a wide angle and a telephoto from him was it a case of "Len lends Len's lens" or "Len lends Len's lenses"? I guess it was the later from the above discussion.

Dead Latin:
I think we are wrong to assume that "most people" remember, or even studied Latin at school. After three years of Latin schooling all I remember is "illigitimi non carburundum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegitimi_non_carborundum)". Or should that be "carburundantis"? :D

Proof readers?
Nobody I know employs proof readers any more, nor editors. I'm told by various clients and employers that editing/grammar checking software is powerful enough to remove any problems we might have. We don't even get time to proof read each other's work.

You can't edit/proof read your own work because you read what you meant to write, not what you actually wrote. Naturally, if we deliver a document with typos the client will scream blue murder.

- Roy

[TSphoto]

Get in line, I've already applied. I work for a printer and this skill has indeed gone by the wayside.

With all due respect, I have seen occasions where several people have read the same thing and each one found something different that was wrong. I'm talking 5 people. This was a simple piece of about 300 words. Amazing what was missed.

With deadlines it gets crazy. "When you're up to you're a$$ in alligators, it's hard to remember that the initial objective was to drain the swamp."