The nit-picking glory of The New Yorker's Comma Queen | Mary Norris

Translator: Isabella Møller Reviewer: Sune Vilsted Østergaard

I have spent the past 38 years trying to be invisible.

Jeg har brugt de sidste 38 år på at forsøge at være usynlig.

I'm a copy editor.

Jeg er korrekturlæser.

I work at The New Yorker,

Jeg arbejder for The New Yorker,

and copyediting for The New Yorker is like playing shortstop

og at læse korrektur for The New Yorker er som at være målmand

for a Major League Baseball team:

i en Superliga-klub:

every little movement gets picked over by the critics --

kritikere er opmærksomme på hver eneste lille bevægelse -

God forbid you should commit an error.

gud forbyde, at man begår en fejl.

Just to clarify: copy editors don't choose what goes into the magazine.

Korrekturlæsere bestemmer ikke, hvad der kommer med i tidsskriftet.

We work at the level of the sentence,

Vi arbejder med sætninger,

maybe the paragraph,

måske med afsnit,

the words, the punctuation.

ord og tegnsætning.

Our business is in the details.

Vores arbejde ligger i detaljerne.

We put the diaeresis, the double dot, over the "i" in "naïve."

Vi sætter tremaet, de to prikker, over "i'et" i det engelske ord "naïve".

We impose house style.

Vi indskriver tidsskriftets stilregler.

Every publication has a house style.

Ethvert tidsskrift har en stil.

The New Yorker's is particularly distinctive.

Stilen hos The New Yorker er særligt karakteristisk.

We sometimes get teased for our style.

Vi bliver til tider drillet med vores stil.

Imagine -- we still spell "teen-ager" with a hyphen,

Tænk sig - vi staver stadig "teen-ager" med bindestreg,

as if that word had just been coined.

som om ordet lige var blevet dannet.

But you see that hyphen in "teen-age"

Men når du ser bindestregen i "teen-age"

and that diaeresis over "coöperate,"

og tremaet i det engelske ord "coöperate",

and you know you're reading The New Yorker.

så ved du, at du læser The New Yorker.

Copyediting at The New Yorker is a mechanical process.

Korrekturlæsning hos The New Yorker er en mekanisk proces.

There is a related role called query proofreading,

Der findes en beslægtet opgave, der kaldes sprogrevision

or page-OK'ing.

eller sprogvask.

Whereas copyediting is mechanical,

Hvor korrekturlæsningen er mekanisk,

query proofreading is interpretive.

er sprogrevision fortolkende.

We make suggestions to the author through the editor

Vi foreslår ændringer til skribenten gennem redaktøren

to improve the emphasis of a sentence

for at forbedre emfasen i en sætning,

or point out unintentional repetitions

eller for at gøre opmærksom på utilsigtede gentagelser,

and supply compelling alternatives.

og vi foreslår fængslende alternativer.

Our purpose is to make the author look good.

Vores opgave er at få skribenten til at tage sig godt ud.

Note that we give our proofs not directly to the author,

Bemærk at vi ikke giver vores rettelser direkte til skribenten,

but to the editor.

men til redaktøren.

This often creates a good cop/bad cop dynamic

Det opstiller ofte en illusion om "den gode" og "den onde",

in which the copy editor -- I'll use that as an umbrella term --

hvor korrekturlæseren - her brugt som en paraplybetegnelse -

is invariably the bad cop.

altid er "den onde".

If we do our job well, we're invisible,

Hvis vi gør vores arbejde godt, er vi usynlige.

but as soon as we make a mistake,

Men så snart vi begår en fejl,

we copy editors become glaringly visible.

kommer vi korrekturlæsere i læsernes søgelys.

Here is the most recent mistake that was laid at my door.

Her er den fejl, jeg senest er blevet præsenteret for.

[Last Tuesday, Sarah Palin, the pre-Trump embodiment

[Sidste tirsdag, gav Sarah Palin, præ-Trump personificeringen

of populist no-nothingism in the Republican Party,

af populistisk ingen-intethed, sin opbakning

endorsed Trump.]

til Donald Trump.]

"Where were The New Yorker's fabled copy editors?" a reader wrote.

"Hvor var The New Yorkers sagnomspundne korrekturlæsere?", skrev en læser.

"Didn't the writer mean 'know-nothingism'?"

"Mente skribenten ikke 'intetvidenhed'?"

Ouch.

Av.

There's no excuse for this mistake.

Der er ingen undskyldning for den fejl.

But I like it: "no-nothingism."

Men jeg kan lide det: "Ingen-intethed."

It might be American vernacular for "nihilism."

Det kan være et folkeligt, amerikansk udtryk for "nihilisme".

(Laughter)

(Latter)

Here, another reader quotes a passage from the magazine:

Her citerer en anden læser en passage i tidsskriftet:

[Ruby was seventy-six, but she retained her authoritative bearing;

[Ruby var seksoghalvfjerds, men hun bibeholdt sin autoritative holdning;

only her unsteady gait belied her age.]

kun hendes usikre gang bedrog hendes alder.]

He added:

Han tilføjede:

"Surely, someone at The New Yorker knows the meaning of 'belied,'

"Der må da være nogen, der forstår betydningen af 'bedrog',

and that it is the opposite of how it is used in this sentence.

og at den er det modsatte af, hvordan det bruges i denne sætning.

Come on! Get it together."

Kom nu! Tag jer sammen."

Belie: to give a false impression.

Bedrage: At give et falsk indtryk

It should have been "betrayed."

Det skulle have været "røbede."

E.B. White once wrote of commas in The New Yorker:

Skribent E.B. White beskrev engang kommaer i The New Yorker:

"They fall with the precision of knives outlining a body."

"De falder lige så præcist som knive, der kastes og omridser et menneske."

(Laughter)

(Latter)

And it's true -- we get a lot of complaints about commas.

Og det er sandt - vi får mange klager der omhandler kommaer.

"Are there really two commas in 'Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard'?"

"Er der virkelig to kommaer i 'Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard'?"

There may not be on the sign, but yes, that is New Yorker style for "Jr."

Det er der muligvis ikke på vejskiltet, men sådan er The New Yorkers stil.

One wag wrote:

En spøgefugl skrev:

["Please, could you expel, or, at least, restrain,

[Vil I ikke være så venlige at droppe, eller, i det mindste, begrænse,

the comma-maniac, on your editorial staff?"]

komma-galningen, i jeres redaktion?"]

(Laughter)

(Latter)

Ah, well.

Åh, ja.

In this case, those commas are well-placed,

I dette tilfælde, er kommaerne velplacerede.

except that there should not be one

Bortset fra, at der ikke skal være komma

between "maniac" and "on."

mellem "galning" og "i"

(Laughter)

(Latter)

Also, if we must have commas around "at least,"

og hvis vi skal have kommaer omkring "i det mindste"

we might change it up by using dashes around that phrase:

kan vi løsne det op ved at bruge tankestreger:

"... -- or, at least, restrain --"

"... - eller, i det mindste, begrænse -"

Perfect.

Perfekt.

(Applause)

(Bifald)

Then there's this:

Og så er der dette:

"Love you, love your magazine,

"Elsker jer og jeres tidsskrift

but can you please stop writing massive numbers as text?"

men vil I ikke venligst stoppe med at skrive store tal i tekstform?"

[two and a half million ...]

[to og en halv million...]

No.

Nej.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

One last cri de coeur from a spelling stickler:

Et sidste klageråb fra en ordkløver:

["Those long stringy things are vocal cords, not chords."]

["de lange, strengede ting er stemmebånd, ikke -strenge."

The outraged reader added,

Den forargede læser tilføjede:

"I'm sure I'm not the first to write

"Jeg er næppe den første, der pointerer

regarding this egregious proofreading error,

denne uhørte korrekturlæsningsfejl,

but I'm equally sure I won't be the last.

og er sikkert heller ikke den sidste.

Fie!"

Skam jer!"

(Laughter)

(Latter)

I used to like getting mail.

Jeg plejede at kunne lide at få post.

There is a pact between writers and editors.

Der er en pagt mellem skribenter og redaktøre.

The editor never sells out the writer,

Redaktøren forråder aldrig skribenten,

never goes public about bad jokes that had to be cut

fortæller aldrig offentligheden om dårlige vittigheder, der skulle fjernes

or stories that went on too long.

eller historier, der blev for lange.

A great editor saves a writer from her excesses.

En god redaktør redder skribenten fra hendes overfloder.

Copy editors, too, have a code;

Korrekturlæsere har også et kodeks:

we don't advertise our oversights.

Vi udstiller ikke hinandens forsømmelser.

I feel disloyal divulging them here,

Jeg føler mig illoyal ved at røbe dem her,

so let's have look at what we do right.

så lad os se på, hvad vi gør rigtigt.

Somehow, I've gotten a reputation for sternness.

På en eller anden måde, har jeg fået et ry for at være hård.

But I work with writers who know how to have their way with me.

Men jeg arbejder sammen med skribenter der ved, hvordan de får deres vilje.

I've known Ian Frazier, or "Sandy," since the early 80s.

Jeg har kendt Ian Frazier, eller "Sandy" siden starten af firserne.

And he's one of my favorites,

Han er en af mine yndlinge,

even though he sometimes writes a sentence

selvom han til tider skriver sætninger,

that gives a copy editor pause.

der får korrekturlæseren til at stoppe op.

Here is one from a story about Staten Island

Her er et eksempel fra en historie om Staten Island

after Hurricane Sandy:

efter orkanen Sandy:

[A dock that had been broken in the middle and lost its other half

[En bådebro der var brækket midt over og havde mistet sin ene halvdel

sloped down toward the water,

skrånede ned mod vandet

its support pipes and wires leaning forward

med sine sikkerhedsrør og -liner hængende ned

like when you open a box of linguine and it slides out.]

som når man åbner en pakke frisk pasta, og pastaen glider ud.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

This would never have got past the grammarian in the days of yore.

Det ville aldrig være sluppet igennem hos grammatikeren i fordums tid.

But what could I do?

Men hvad kunne jeg gøre?

Technically, the "like" should be an "as,"

Teknisk set skulle "som" have været "ligesom"

but it sounds ridiculous,

men det lyder latterligt,

as if the author were about to embark on an extended Homeric simile --

som om skribenten ville kaste sig ud i en omfattende homerisk sammenligning -

"as when you open a box of linguine."

"ligesom når man åbner en pakke frisk pasta."

(Laughter)

(Latter)

I decided that the hurricane conferred poetic justice on Sandy

Jeg besluttede at orkanen gav Sandy poetisk retfærdighed

and let the sentence stand.

og lod sætningen stå.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

Generally, if I think something is wrong,

Generelt, hvis jeg synes, noget er forkert,

I query it three times.

foreslår jeg ændring tre gange.

I told Sandy that not long ago in a moment of indiscretion and he said,

Det fortalte jeg Sandy for kort tid siden i et svagt øjeblik, og han svarede:

"Only three?"

"Kun tre?"

So, he has learned to hold out.

Så han har lært at holde ud.

Recently, he wrote a story for "Talk of the Town,"

Han skrev for nyligt en historie i "Talk of the Town"

that's the section at the front of the magazine

sektionen på forsiden af tidsskriftet

with short pieces on subjects ranging from Ricky Jay's exhibit

med korte historier om alt fra Ricky Jays udstilling

at the Metropolitan Museum

på The Met i New York

to the introduction of doggie bags in France.

til indførelsen af "doggie bags" i Frankrig.

Sandy's story was about the return to the Bronx

Sandys historie handlede om den hjemvendte

of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

højesteretsdommer, Sonia Sotomayor .

There were three things in it that I had to challenge.

Der var tre ting i historien, jeg måtte ændre.

First, a grammar query.

Først en grammatisk rettelse.

The justice was wearing black and Sandy wrote,

Dommeren var klædt i sort, og Sandy skrev:

[Her face and hands stood out like in an old, mostly dark painting.]

[Hendes ansigt og hænder skilte sig ud som i et gammelt, overvejende mørkt billede.]

Now, unlike with the hurricane,

I modsætning til teksten om orkanen

with this "like," the author didn't have the excuse

havde skribenten ikke undskyldningen at bruge "som"

of describing hurricane damage.

til at beskrive orkanskader.

"Like" in this sense is a preposition, and a preposition takes an object,

"som" er i denne betydning en præposition og præpositioner tager et objekt,

which is a noun.

hvilket er et substantiv.

This "like" had to be an "as."

Dette "som" skulle være "ligesom."

"As in an old, mostly dark painting."

"Ligesom i et gammelt, overvejende mørkt billede."

Second, a spelling issue.

For det andet, et staveproblem.

The author was quoting someone who was assisting the justice:

Skribenten citerede en, der assisterede dommeren:

["It will be just a minute.

["Det tager lige et øjeblik.

We are getting the justice mic'ed,"]

Vi skal lige have mic'et dommeren,"]

Mic'ed?

Mic'et?

The music industry spells it "mic"

Musikindustrien staver det "mic",

because that's how it's spelled on the equipment.

fordi det er sådan, det staves på deres udstyr.

I'd never seen it used as a verb with this spelling,

Jeg havde ikke set det brugt som verbum stavet sådan

and I was distraught to think that "mic'ed"

og jeg blev oprørt over tanken om at "mic'et"

would get into the magazine on my watch.

skulle komme med i tidsskriftet på min vagt.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

New Yorker style for "microphone" in its abbreviated form is "mike."

The New Yorkers forkortelse for "mikrofon" er "mike".

Finally, there was a sticky grammar and usage issue

Endelig var der et stridspunkt i den anvendte grammatik,

in which the pronoun has to have the same grammatical number

hvor et pronomen skal have samme grammatisk bøjning

as its antecedent.

som sin antecedent.

[everyone in the vicinity held their breath]

[Everyone in the vicinity held their breath]

"Their" is plural and "everyone," its antecedent, is singular.

Det engelske "their" er pluralis men antecedenten "everyone" er singularis.

You would never say, "Everyone were there."

På engelsk ville man aldrig sige "Everyone were there."

Everyone was there. Everyone is here.

Man ville sige "was there" eller "is here". I singularis.

But people say things like, "Everyone held their breath" all the time.

Men folk siger sætninger som "Everyone held their breath" hele tiden.

To give it legitimacy,

For at gøre det legitimt

copy editors call it "the singular 'their,'"

kalder korrekturlæsere det "singularis-'their'"

as if calling it singular makes it no longer plural.

som om at kalde det singularis fjerner pluralis-betydningen.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

It is my job when I see it in print to do my best to eliminate it.

Når jeg ser det skrevet, er det min opgave at gøre hvad jeg kan for at fjerne det.

I couldn't make it, "Everyone held her breath,"

Jeg kunne ikke foreslå "everyone held her breath"

or "Everyone held his breath,"

eller "everyone held his breath"

or "Everyone held his or her breath."

eller "everyone held his or her breath."

Whatever I suggested had to blend in.

Mit forslag skulle passe ind.

I asked, through the editor,

Jeg spurgte, via redaktøren,

if the author would consider changing it

om skribenten ville overveje at ændre det

to "All in the vicinity held their breath,"

til "all in the vicinity held their breath"

because "all" is plural.

Fordi det engelske "all" er pluralis.

Nope.

Nej.

I tried again: "All those present held their breath?"

Jeg prøvede igen: "All those present held their breath?"

I thought this sounded vaguely judicial.

Jeg tænkte, at det lød svagt juridisk.

But the editor pointed out

Men redaktøren påpegede,

that we could not have "present" and "presence"

at "present" og "presence" ikke fungerer

in the same sentence.

i samme sætning.

When the final proof came back,

Da den endelige tekst kom tilbage,

the author had accepted "as" for "like,"

havde skribenten accepteret "ligesom",

and "miked" for "mic'ed."

og "miked".

But on "Everyone held their breath," he stood his ground.

Men ved "Everyone held their breath" holdt han fast.

Two out of three isn't bad.

To ud af tre er ikke dårligt.

In the same issue,

I samme nummer,

in that piece on doggie bags in France,

i artiklen om "doggie bags" i Frankrig,

there was the gratuitous use of the f-word by a Frenchman.

indgik en franskmands umotiverede brug af "f-ordet".

I wonder, when the mail comes in,

Jeg spekulerer over, ved næste postlevering,

which will have offended the readers more.

hvad der så vil have fornærmet læserne mest.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

Thank you.

Tak.

(Applause)

(Bifald)