Grammarians, copy editors, and English teachers . . . (and etymologists), lend me your ears

[ashling]

OK, so I'm putting to together a history exam and I am putting in a question about blacks voting, Jim Crow, etc.

I pull this question from the test bank which uses the word "disfranchisement"

Now if I was writing that myself I would have used "disenfranchisement," but I have heard both, and since it is in the McGraw Hill test bank I go ahead and leave it like it is. If its that way in the book . . .

Then I ask Ms. A to proof it and, of course, she has the same problem with it.

I explained my reasoning, but she says she would change it.

I looked up both words and each is there and also refers to the other. Of course neither definition says anything about which word was first, or which is more acceptable, etc.

So my question is, which would Jesus use?






Oh, by the way, what do you think of my bonus question. It is sort of a word a word problem:

On January 1, 1890, the famous union organizer, left Sacramento, California on a train traveling east at 10 mph. The very next day, the famous populist orator, Mary Elizabeth Lease, left Omaha, Nebraska on a train traveling west at 15 mph. They meet in Promontory Point, Utah.

What groups built the respective railroad lines over which each person traveled?

ing off the walls

[Smarmie Doofus]

1. A. I have no idea. B. I give up. C. I thought teachers were supposed to be stupid and/or lazy.

I'd like to see Arne Duncan take one of your tests.

Or that "mathematical dick", Bill Gates.

[Progressive dog]

2. I would use disfranchisement,

I'd never seen it before but it makes sense since the root of both is franchise. Jesus probably didn't speak English.
As to the train, I have no clue.

[marzipanni]

3. Hadn't heard 'disfranchisement' until you mentioned it.

The big Four: Stanford, Huntington, Crocker and Hopkins built the western part of the line.
My mom's cousin took us out to lunch at "The Big Four" Restaurant, named after them, at the Huntington Hotel in San Francisco many years ago. I don't know about the Omaha - Promontory Point railroad.

[LiberalEsto]

4. I use disENfranchisement

and I have never heard of disfranchisement.

I was an 8th grade spelling bee runner-up, an English major, a former newspaper reporter and professional writer.

[Wounded Bear]

5. I would use "disENfranchisement" myself...

It's what I've always used. Never heard the other way. But maybe it's like flammable and inflammable....mean the same thing.

Also check your redundancies there....

OK, so I'm putting to together a history exam

It is sort of a word a word problem:

You don't want to needlessly confuse the studii, so I'd check your test for that kind of thing.



And, you left off the 'famous union organizer's" name. IIRC, it was the Chinese on the westbound line and the Irish on the eastbound.

[ashling]

9. You got the bonus!

The redundancies you refer to are not on the test, but in my slightly addled explanation of the situation. (which also accounts for the bouncy dude)

There are a few questions I have to reword, however.

[RebelOne]

10. As a former copy editor, I would agree. n/t

[No Vested Interest]

6. What level of schooling is this being prepared for?

College course?
AP course?
High school?
I hope not grammar school.

Have you used either "disfranchisement" or "disenfranchisement" in your lectures or course work? If you've used one or the other, in fairness to the students, you should go with the one you used.

Re bonus question: Again I'm presuming you discussed these groups in class. (I'm going with Chinese and Irish immigrants.)

[ashling]

12. College

As I said, the book uses disfranchisement

I have obviously gone over all of these things and will touch on them again in the review

[Avalux]

7. Either word is acceptable but disenfranchisement is most common.

Both were first used in the 15th century. I'd probably err on the side of commonality, for the reader's benefit.

I like your tricky word question, but I have a question.....who is the famous union organizer?

[ashling]

13. Yeah, I accidentally cut that out

I was going to use Mother Jones.

[Xyzse]

8. Never heard of disfranchisement before

I thought it was being lazy to ad the "en" in the middle of dis and franchise.

Kinda like how some people shorten words for expedience sake. Still, if it is what was shown in the books, I'd probably go with that, after checking around the internet and dictionaries to make sure that they are one and the same.

[hopemountain]

11. use "disenfranchisement"

i have never heard the uncommon "disfranchisement" nor read it. so i would use the common and known/understood use of the "disenfranchisement".

i don't understood why an editor at mcgraw hill would use the less used 'disfranchisement' other than because they could.

[ashling]

14. I think you are right

I'll be sure and stress that in the review.

Thanks

[rug]

15. I would just use "deprived of their right to vote".

The answer to the bonus question is Chinese and Irish migrant labor.

[politicat]

16. If the question pertains to pre-14th amendment, then disenfranchise. After, disfranchise.

Using OED as the rule, the definitions are slightly different.

DisENfranchise: to deprive of civil or electoral privileges. (1893: there could be no legal act disenfranchising woman, since she was never legally enfranchised.)

Disfranchise: to deprive of the rights and privileges of a free citizen of a borough, city or country, or of some franchise previously enjoyed. 2. To deprive persons of the right of voting in parliamentary , municipal or other elections. 3. To deprive of or exclude from anything viewed as a privilege or a right.

Thus, depriving someone who has a legal right to vote via Jim Crow laws is disfranchisement; depriving someone who has a moral right to vote, but no legal protection (women, before the 19th amendment, for example) is disenfranchisement.

[cliffordu]

17. You win the innernets for today!!!!!

Nice work!

[hopemountain]

18. excellent!

thank you for clarifying the before and after ... it makes sense to me now.

[Spike89]

19. In general, defer to the writer when editing

In this case, I believe either use would be correct and because the original author gets primacy, I'd suggest leaving it as is. An editor should of course fix errors, and strive to clarify when there is a credible threat of misunderstanding (or serious loss of clarity). It certainly isn't likely that anyone reading disfranchised is going to be confused about the meaning of the passage.

That said, I've always been told I have a light "touch" editing--often by writers who aren't even aware of how many changes I made to their piece.