 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / July 2010Understanding the thought process behind the Times' headline styles
Here is a pic of the front page of the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/pages/pageone/scannat/index.html As you can see, some of the headlines are italicised, some capitalize the first letter of each word, some capitalize every letter of every word, and some are mixes of those things. Does anybody know why the Times doesn't just use one style? What the purpose of all this? Sara filted: >Here is a pic of the front page of the New York Times: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Does anybody know why the Times doesn't just use one style? What the >purpose of all this? Take a look at the list of songs on the Beatles' "White Album"...if there's a capitalization standard in use there, it's as opaque as the sequence of hexagrams in the I Ching....r  SignatureMe? Sarcastic? Yeah, right. > Sara filted: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > capitalization standard in use there, it's as opaque as the sequence of > hexagrams in the I Ching....r Are the trigrams in the I Ching really that opaque? Maybe Space Cadets would like it that way. I'm no expert on the I Ching, but I was recently interested in the trigrams on the South Korean flag. I think that the description of them, and their origin from the I Ching is fascinating. It makes a lot of sense and echoes the classical conception of the elements as Earth, Air, Fire and Water: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_South_Korea Having read that, and 'The Tao of Poo', I'm not sure that Taoism isn't largely rather sensible. Not, maybe, Captain Sensible, but certainly First Lieutenant Sensible. Peter Brooks filted: >> Take a look at the list of songs on the Beatles' "White Album"...if there= >'s a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_South_Korea Problem there being that Chinese alchemy uses *five* elements (including Wood and Metal, and excluding Air) and arranges them in two different "cycles" (destructive and generative) rather than just identifying them with combinations of two pairs of opposites (hot/cold and wet/dry).... >Having read that, and 'The Tao of Poo', I'm not sure that Taoism isn't >largely rather sensible. Not, maybe, Captain Sensible, but certainly >First Lieutenant Sensible. The trigrams are fairly well organized, corresponding as they do to the eight directions of feng shui, for example...but the book-sequence of the sixty-four hexagrams has resisted all attempts at explanation for two thousand years....r SignatureMe? Sarcastic? Yeah, right. > Peter Brooks filted: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > (destructive and generative) rather than just identifying them with combinations > of two pairs of opposites (hot/cold and wet/dry).... Yes, but why is that a problem? We now know that they're all wrong, certainly, but the understanding of the world being constructed of elements is an important step forward. The similarity in the constructions is, to my mind, more important than any specific differences. The theory of humours reflects, to some extent, the same contradictions seen in Chinese thought of that pre-scientific time. > >Having read that, and 'The Tao of Poo', I'm not sure that Taoism isn't > >largely rather sensible. Not, maybe, Captain Sensible, but certainly [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > directions of feng shui, for example...but the book-sequence of the sixty-four > hexagrams has resisted all attempts at explanation for two thousand years....r Mmm... You do, I think, mean that as a challenge. There is the alternative. That there is no rational or sensible explanation. That, in itself, if established, is a solution. If it is truly the case that there is no solution, then no solution is the solution. Peter Brooks filted: >> Peter Brooks filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >constructions is, to my mind, more important than any specific >differences. The "problem" is that the Four Elements aren't seen as such in the Chinese view...there's a great little sci-fi novel I read about ten or fifteen years ago in which the premise is that Aristotle was right about everything...a Europe-based mission to extract a bit of the sun's substance is mounted, with the problem of getting the ship to move through the aether...part of the way there, they meet up with a Chinese ship governed by *those* erroneous notions of the physical world, and the hero finds that bits of physics he believes to be universal don't seem to work on the enemy ship.... >> The trigrams are fairly well organized, corresponding as they do to the e= >ight [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >Mmm... You do, I think, mean that as a challenge. You want to submit it as an SDC question, be my guest...but you might have trouble supplying a Totally Official Solution to go along with it.... >There is the alternative. That there is no rational or sensible >explanation. > >That, in itself, if established, is a solution. If it is truly the >case that there is no solution, then no solution is the solution. I'm willing to accept that, but it's vexing that the traditional sequence of 64 is so consistent that one feels there *must* be a rationale behind it....r SignatureMe? Sarcastic? Yeah, right. > Peter Brooks filted: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the physical world, and the hero finds that bits of physics he believes to be > universal don't seem to work on the enemy ship.... A lovely notion, and one that's not as far-fetched as one might think. Schrödinger's cat is the famous interpretation of quantum mechanics that believes that human observation changes (or settles rather, through the collapse of the wave function) the state of the universe acting at a distance. Also the fact that language alters the way that we think suggests that it is quite possible that reality appears different to minds shaped by different languages - and who's to say that that alternative could never come up with an apparently incompatible solution that works. > Having read that, and 'The Tao of Poo', I'm not sure that Taoism isn't > largely rather sensible. Not, maybe, Captain Sensible, but certainly > First Lieutenant Sensible. "Bother!" said Pooh. "The Poo that can be Pooped is not the Eternal Poo. And there doesn't seem to be a restroom in the Hundred-Acre Wood." Jim Deutch (JimboCat) -- "I think you have the snake by the udder, here." [marijke vanGans] JimboCat filted: >> Having read that, and 'The Tao of Poo', I'm not sure that Taoism isn't >> largely rather sensible. Not, maybe, Captain Sensible, but certainly [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Poo. And there doesn't seem to be a restroom in the Hundred-Acre >Wood." How do you think the game of Pooh Sticks got started?...r SignatureMe? Sarcastic? Yeah, right. > JimboCat filted: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > How do you think the game of Pooh Sticks got started?...r Wouldn't it have been the game of Pooh Leaves if that were the history? It might have been a better game altogether and could have been played in two parts - Pooh Leaves & Pooh Returns. >> JimboCat filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Wouldn't it have been the game of Pooh Leaves if that were the > history? As long as Pooh doesn't follow the example of the panda. --Jeff SignatureLove consists of overestimating the differences between one woman and another. --George Bernard Shaw >> Having read that, and 'The Tao of Poo', I'm not sure that Taoism >> isn't largely rather sensible. Not, maybe, Captain Sensible, but [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Poo. And there doesn't seem to be a restroom in the Hundred-Acre > Wood." 'Master Tung Kwo asked Chuang: "Show me where the Tao is found." Chuang Tzu replied: "There is nowhere it is not to be found." The former insisted: "Show me at least some definite place Where Tao is found." "It is in the ant," said Chuang. "Is it in some lesser being?" "It is in the weeds." "Can you go further down the scale of things?" "It is in this piece of tile." "Further?" "It is in this turd." At this Tung Kwo had nothing more to say.' (But Master Chuang went on at some length.) From Thomas Merton's meta-translation, _The Way of Chang Tzu_, always worth another look. Preview available at: http://books.google.ca/books?id=LDOCZPyg2MQC&printsec= frontcover&dq=merton+chuang+tzu&hl=en&ei=TgVSTJ_ LHoW0lQef8Nz7BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum =1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=turd&f=false http://tinyurl.com/2clf4cg > Here is a pic of the front page of the New York Times: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Does anybody know why the Times doesn't just use one style? What the > purpose of all this? No, but before attempting a (relevant) cross- post on the origins of a phrase that's hit the headlines in UK media today being rooted in a society rife with poor nutrition, I will point out that whether New York, London, Mumbai or wherever, it's probably more standard to treat a newspaper, like a family, in the singular when it comes to possessives. The Beatles were at various times John, Paul, George, George, Charlie, Pete, Stu and Ringo but each one can be referred to in the singular; e.g. "..., often referred to as 'The Fifth Beatle',..." As such common standard usage accepts one may go round the Jones's house; and would be equally favourable to "Understanding the thought processes behind The Times's headline style." As you are citing an online edition and many newspapers which market themselves in the "quality" sector do have a readers' editor whose job it is to know and answer such questions, it may be worth asking them. Traditionally such factors as how much news there is and therefore whether it's a case of filling space up or, literally, copyfitting, into the once-fabled fractal dimensions, text so heavily kerned it reads more as a multiphtongeme than a lexicographically-referenceable stringliteral. Once upon a time before that it may have depended how many letters of what size were left in which holes in the font rack. Dang, we're out of capital Q's...best re-phrase that one and stick it in italics... G DAEB COPYRIGHT (C) 2010 SIPSTON -- > multiphtongeme Too many beers this evening perchance? >> multiphtongeme >> > Too many beers this evening perchance? He was pregnant with thought. G Daeb filted: >The Beatles were at various times John, Paul, >George, George, Charlie, Pete, Stu and Ringo >but each one can be referred to in the singular; >e.g. "..., often referred to as 'The Fifth Beatle',..." Yez left out Billy Preston....r SignatureMe? Sarcastic? Yeah, right. >As you can see, some of the headlines are italicised, some capitalize >the first letter of each word, some capitalize every letter of every >word, and some are mixes of those things. > >Does anybody know why the Times doesn't just use one style? What the >purpose of all this? I don't, but you must remember that the NYT does a lot of things simply because they've "always" done them that way -- as with the use of honorifics, writing initialisms as abbreviations ("I.B.M.", "D.O.D."), and others. The result is a distinctive visual style that is fairly easy to recognize even when the nameplate is cut off. (Compare the Wall Street Journal and The New Yorker.) -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 On 28 Jul 2010, Garrett Wollman wrote > In article > <888123ba-57e1-43ca-bd50-5299e14bf833@m17g2000prl.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I don't, but you must remember that the NYT does a lot of things > simply because they've "always" done them that way Indeed; it's a very old style, which I presume grew out of 19th century conventions for book titling. I'm sure most people who post to AUE are familiar with the form, but for those who might not be, here's an example of a book title -- this is from the 1848 edition of what's usually referred to as "Lewis's Topographical Dictionary of England". (Everything should be centred and in upper-case; I've capitalised what appears in bold): ------------------------------------------ A TOPOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY of ENGLAND, comprising the Several Counties, Cities, Boroughs, Corporate and Market Towns, Parishes, and Townships, and the Islands of Guernsey, Jersy, and Man, with HISTORICAL AND STATISTICAL DESCRIPTIONS: and embellished with Engravings of the Arms of the Cities, Boroughs, Bishoprics, University,and Colleges; and of the Seals of the various Municipal Corporoations. ---------- By Samuel Lewis ---------- ------------------------------------------- I don't see a whole heap o' difference between that and the varying typography used by newspapers of the same period -- which is what the NYT style has stuck with. So: outdated typographical convention, yes; perverse, no. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.