NhülyaYILMAZ

And the Errors on Last Post’s Proofreading-Practice Text Were . . .

As with the previous posts, the original text shared here before for only a proofreading practice follows below. The errors are underlined.

“The question as to what we mean by truth and falsehood, which we considered in the proceeding chapter, is of much less interest than the question as to how we can know what is true and what is false. This question will occupy us in the present chapter. There can be no doubt that some of our beliefs are eroneous; thus we are led to inquire what certainty we can ever have that such and such a belief is not erroneous. In other words, can we ever know anything at all, or do we merely sometimes by good luck believe what is true? Before we can attack this question, we must, however, first decide what we mean by ‘knowing’, and this question is not so easy as might be supposed.

At first site we might imagine that knowledge could be defined as ‘true belief’. When what we believe is true, it might be supposed that we had achieved a knowledge of what we believe. But this would not accord with the way in which the word is commonly used. To take a very trivial instance: If a man believes that the late Prime Minister’s last name began with a B, he believes what is true, since the late Prime Minister was Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman. But if he believes that Mr. Balfor was the late Prime Minister, he will still believe that the late Prime Minister’s last name began with a B, yet this belief, though true, would not be thought to constitute knowledge. If a newspaper, by an intelligent anticipation, announces the result of a battle before any telegram giving the result has been received, it may by good fortune announce what afterwards turns out to be the right result, and it may produce belief in some of its less experienced readers.” [Source: “Free Weekly Proofreading Exercise” at http://www.proofreading-course.com]

Corrections:

  1. The word “proceeding” is semantically incorrect as far as the intended context. It should be replaced with “preceding”.
  2. There is a spelling error with “eroneous”. The correct spelling is “erroneous”.
  3. Like with the first error, the word “site” is semantically incorrect and it is to be replaced with “sight”.
  4. There is another spelling error in question here: “Balfor” should be “Balfour”, if researched, which at times becomes unavoidable during proofreading any text.

aid3204-v4-728px-Copyedit-and-Proofread-Written-Work-Step-9

NhülyaYILMAZ

Another Text for a Proofreading Practice

aid3204-v4-728px-Copyedit-and-Proofread-Written-Work-Step-9

Today’s post entails yet another sample text-based worksheet [Source: “Free Weekly Proofreading Exercise” at http://www.proofreading-course.com].

“The question as to what we mean by truth and falsehood, which we considered in the proceeding chapter, is of much less interest than the question as to how we can know what is true and what is false. This question will occupy us in the present chapter. There can be no doubt that some of our beliefs are eroneous; thus we are led to inquire what certainty we can ever have that such and such a belief is not erroneous. In other words, can we ever know anything at all, or do we merely sometimes by good luck believe what is true? Before we can attack this question, we must, however, first decide what we mean by ‘knowing’, and this question is not so easy as might be supposed.

At first site we might imagine that knowledge could be defined as ‘true belief’. When what we believe is true, it might be supposed that we had achieved a knowledge of what we believe. But this would not accord with the way in which the word is commonly used. To take a very trivial instance: If a man believes that the late Prime Minister’s last name began with a B, he believes what is true, since the late Prime Minister was Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman. But if he believes that Mr. Balfor was the late Prime Minister, he will still believe that the late Prime Minister’s last name began with a B, yet this belief, though true, would not be thought to constitute knowledge. If a newspaper, by an intelligent anticipation, announces the result of a battle before any telegram giving the result has been received, it may by good fortune announce what afterwards turns out to be the right result, and it may produce belief in some of its less experienced readers.”

Next week: Correction of the errors

NhülyaYILMAZ

And the Errors on Last Post’s Proofreading-Practice Text Were . . .

Here is the text in question for your convenient reading:
“[ . . . ] we see is constantly changing in shape as we move about the room; so that here again the senses seem not to give us the truth about the table itself, but only about the appearance of the table.
     Similar difficulties arise when we consider the sense of touch. It is true that the the table always gives us a sensation of hardness, and we feel that it resists pressure. But the sensation we obtain depends upon how hard we press the table and also upon what part of the body we press with; thus the various sensations due to various pressures or various parts of the body cannot be supposed to reveal directly any definite property of the table, but at most to be signs of some property which perhaps causes all the sensations, but is not actually apparent in any of them. And the same applies still more obviously to the sounds which can be elicted by rapping the table.
     Thus it becomes evident that the real table, if there is one, is not the same as what we immediately experience by sight or touch or hearing. The real table, if there is one, is not
immediately known to us at all, but must be an inference from what is immediately known. Hence, two very difficult questions at once arise; namely, (1) Is there a real table at all? 2) If so, what sort of object can it be? It will help us in considering these questions to have a few simple terms of which the meaning is definite and clear. Let us give the name of ‘sense-data’ to the things that are immediately known in sensation: such things as colours, sounds, smells, hardnesses, roughnesses, and so on. We shall give the name ‘sensation’ to the experience of being immediately aware of these things.”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Errors (underlined in the text):
  1. The word “the” is repeated in the same sentence twice in a row (lines 4 and 5)
  2. The 2nd verb is misspelled ~ “elicited” is its correct version (1st full paragraph, last line)
  3. Question options (1) and (2) are incorporated into the text, out of which either one would be correct. In other words, there is inconsistency in this formulation (3rd full paragraph, lines 4 and 5)
  4. The line that starts with “It will help us [. . .]” should appear in a new paragraph; hence, there is an error in “transitioning” (2nd full paragraph, line 5)
  5. The U.S. spelling of the word “color” appears in the text in its U.K. & Australian English version, “colours” (3rd full paragraph, line 9)
  6. While this matter does not constitute an error (hence, not underlined as one), the phrases, “hardnesses” and “rougnesses” seem unnatural in U.S. English (2nd full paragraph, 2nd to last line). Whenever there is an alternative phrasing, such word use is best to avoid – unless, we are talking about “poetic license”.

Next week: More opportunities to practice proofreading

aid3204-v4-728px-Copyedit-and-Proofread-Written-Work-Step-9

NhülyaYILMAZ

A Text for a Proofreading-Practice

aid3204-v4-728px-Copyedit-and-Proofread-Written-Work-Step-9

[Free online image]

A sample text-based worksheet for self-editing practices . . . was last week’s forecast. So, here comes an opportunity to practice proofreading [Source: “Free Weekly Proofreading Exercise” at http://www.proofreading-course.com]:

“[ . . . ] we see is constantly changing in shape as we move about the room; so that here again the senses seem not to give us the truth about the table itself, but only about the appearance of the table.
     Similar difficulties arise when we consider the sense of touch. It is true that the the table always gives us a sensation of hardness, and we feel that it resists pressure. But the sensation we obtain depends upon how hard we press the table and also upon what part of the body we press with; thus the various sensations due to various pressures or various parts of the body cannot be supposed to reveal directly any definite property of the table, but at most to be signs of some property which perhaps causes all the sensations, but is not actually apparent in any of them. And the same applies still more obviously to the sounds which can be elicted by rapping the table.
     Thus it becomes evident that the real table, if there is one, is not the same as what we immediately experience by sight or touch or hearing. The real table, if there is one, is not
immediately known to us at all, but must be an inference from what is immediately known. Hence, two very difficult questions at once arise; namely, (1) Is there a real table at all? 2) If so, what sort of object can it be? It will help us in considering these questions to have a few simple terms of which the meaning is definite and clear. Let us give the name of ‘sense-data’ to the things that are immediately known in sensation: such things as colours, sounds, smells, hardnesses, roughnesses, and so on. We shall give the name ‘sensation’ to the experience of being immediately aware of these things.”
Next week: The corrections