“Copyeditor” vs. “copy editor”
Published by Deanna Hoak November 14th, 2007 in blog, copyeditingI said a long while back that I’d talk about my preference for “copyeditor†over “copy editor,†and now seems as good a time as any to do so.
For my field, “copy editor†as two words has never made much sense to me, for a number of reasons. First, nothing I edit is referred to as “copyâ€; I edit manuscripts. Thus, the term refers not to what I edit (as might be the case with “newspaper editor†or “fiction editorâ€), but to what I do, which is “copyeditâ€â€”and according to Merriam Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition (Web11), the dictionary most often used by fiction publishers, that verb is one word.
It’s puzzling, then, that Web11 specifies the noun “copy editor†as two words, despite the fact that they have “proofreader†as one word and lo and behold even have “copywriter.†Why “copyeditor†is treated differently than those terms is completely beyond me. Even the editors over at The Chicago Manual of Style seem to show frustration with it when they note, “Finally, a caveat: as our own preference for “copyeditor†has shown (Webster’s lists “copyedit†[v.] but “copy editor†[n.]), it is not always easy for a specialist community to impose its own usage on the rest of the world.â€
For a long time, I had “copy editor†on my cards and blog, even though I never liked the spelling, because I feared turning off potential employers. As I became more confident in my skill, though, I decided it was quite likely that any managing editor who took issue with “copyeditor†was unlikely to be happy with other exceptions I allow—exceptions based on logic and sound and common use, just as “copyeditor†is. Thus, for instance, even though most SF authors prefer “airlock†to “air lockâ€â€”and even though the single word makes perfect sense and is incredibly unlikely to bother any reader and even though the authors don’t want the copyeditor to change it—such a person might have an issue with my leaving it as one word, since Web11 specifies otherwise. Using “copyeditor†is, for me, one way of letting such people know my stances right up front.
The danger, of course, is that someone might assume I don’t know any better rather than that I made a conscious decision–but they would likely assume that about other exceptions as well. And as to that…well, my credentials speak for themselves, and many authors who feel I’ve helped and respected their work have spoken for me to add to that voice. I’m content with the decisions I’ve made. :-)
9 Responses to ““Copyeditor” vs. “copy editor””
Leave a Reply
Search
About
I'm a freelance copyeditor specializing in fantasy and science fiction. SF/F novels I have copyedited have been finalists for (and have sometimes won) the Hugo, Nebula, Arthur C. Clarke, Golden Spur, John W. Campbell Memorial, Quill, Locus, Philip K. Dick, British Science Fiction, British Fantasy, and World Fantasy awards. In 2007 I was short-listed for a World Fantasy Award for my copyediting.
Next: More tricks I don’t do on my unicycle
Previous: GalleyCat
RSS FeedCategories
- blog (473)
- conventions (14)
- copyediting (54)
- food (12)
- grammar (2)
- kids (21)
- praise (14)
- SFnal (11)
- writing (23)
I wonder if they don’t like pairing the vowel of edit with the sometimes-vowel of copy, when smooshing together words?
…only logic I can see, anyway.
When I first had my business cards printed up, I specified copyeditor and whoever printed the cards “corrected” it to copy editor. I wanted to send them back and tell them to fix it, but I needed the cards in a hurry so I accepted them anyway. :^/ I’ve since had them re-printed with copyeditor spelled the way I wanted it!
Oh, thank you for this.
I wrote an article earlier this year, and they changed my job description from “copyeditor” to “copy editor” in the author bio. I’m still a bit bemused by that. (And also about their decision to change my perfectly-good gender-neutral pronouns to gender-specific ones.)
Well, I must state my own preference for two words. What you and I edit is indeed “copy,”in sense 4a: “matter to be set especially for printing.” But of course, getting two copy[ ]editors to agree on style isn’t so easy.
I do prefer “airlock”as one word, though…
Sure, Robert. But manuscripts are still never referred to that way.
I make this (until now, purely mental) distinction: copy editor for somebody who works in journalism or advertising, copyeditor for somebody who copyedits books. A copy editor might work for a copy chief but a copyeditor would probably answer to a production editor or production manager.
Yes, I know that this isn’t how the two versions are defined in any dictionary, and I can’t say if any authority has made the exact same distinction, but on discussion lists, that’s the way the two versions tend to be used.
I’m studying copyediting right now. (And I love when you talk about this stuff in your blog. I recommended it to the whole class.)(/shameless buttering-up) I found this issue from the very start, when the textbooks said “copyeditor” is acceptable, but the instructors always use “copy editor.” It made me wonder if I truly had a choice, and if I might appear mistaken when I use “copyeditor.” I prefer it. It has a cleaner look. I tend to be stubborn about things like this, if I believe in them, so your comments about what this says to a potential client were helpful and gave me things to think about.
Thanks.
(The next battles are in support of the singular “they” and preservation of the serial comma.)
As I’ve been finding out professionally — after making a switch from journalism to book editing/ production — there are many language/style distinctions that separate fields that produce copy ready to be printed, whether it’s “copyeditor,” which seems common to book publishing, or “copy editor,” which seems common to journalism, newspapers in particular, or whether to use or not to use serial commas. I wonder why such distinctions have been made. Such distinctions must have a long history.
Hrmn… having edited copy (newspaper) I find it interesting that I never had any problem with either spelling, and probably pingeonholed it as a difference between those who worked on papers, and those who were working on non-newpaper/letter product.