March 4, 1985
New York -- some comments and observations (and questions)
Just a few general comments on the article (and why I redid it, editing
it very lightly (mainly by trying to clarify and by rearranging sentences):
1. You switch tenses between past and present when reporting the
results of the Fordham study, and your survey. I put everything in
present tense, as this makes it more current.
2. You often do not use parallel construction. For example, on pp. 2=3,
it is not correct dramatically in the indented material to change
the construction from noun subjects to other constructions, i.e.,
higher concentration, higher proportion, among women, women
predominated. I have also adjusted for parallel construction in
all the other indented material (and have eliminated the numbers,
which I find confusing, especially since you keep repeating 1 to 5
all though the article.
Ii that same section, concentrations are "higher," but proportions
are "greater." or "'-geater." I I
3. There were a great many mispellings through the article, but I think
this was mainly because of bad proofreading.
Now to go page by page for some specifics:
Page 1: Para. 1, Sent. 2. This sentence does not make sense, either
in the Mig. Today piece, or I fear, in my rewrite. I do not know what the
"control of class reference to specific groups" is. Is this a difficulty
in the editing?
Para. 2, Sent. 1: You cannot cite something as the CCRP study,
without saying what CCRP is. The reference is correct in bibliography.
Sent. 3: INS statistics is not a proper reference.
Please cite by publication name, and include tables and pages.
Para. 3, Sent. 3: Please give pages for Urrea cite. In general,
page nos. should be given for cites, except when the whole article or book
refers to the topic you are discussing. Please check all your cites to be
sure that the page numbers are given -- you do give them for some, but not
Page 2, Para. 1, Sent. 2: Fordham Study is not a proper cite. I have
cited in first footnote as Douglas Gurak, etc., etc., but do not have the
year. You can continue to use Fordham Study if you wish (but then give a
year), but it would be better to use Gurak.
Para 4, Sent. 1: You begin to give data from what appears to
be your own case studies, but you never refer to these specifically. Please
see Note 1 for my effort to remedy this, and correct if it is not accurate.
Para. 3, Sent. 1: in listing groups of occupations, you cannot
switch from nous to verbs, or from the activity to the workers, i.e.,
if you start out with mechanics, jewelers,then it must be packers, and not
packing (this is on p. 4), and if you start out with office work, then you
cannot talk about home workers. I have changed everything to the groups of
people involved, i.e., sales personnel rather than sales; janitors rather
than cleaning, etc.
Also there is no such category that I know of in the U.S. labor
statistics as "domicilar worker." I believe the expression is "home worker,"
but you had better check it out.
Page 3, Para. 1, Sent. 2: in English, secularityy" would denote recurrence,
rather than a secular or worldly spirit. See how you like "worldliness" instead?
Page 8, para. 1, Sent. 1: "Specificity" is not a word that is common
in English, i.e., it is not a translation of "especificidad." You could use
either "special position" or "unique position."
Throughout, you alternate conjugal state and conjugal status; I think the
latter is more correct. You also consistently use "time of residence," when
I think you mean "length of residence." Time of residence would mean the era
in which residence was taken up.
Page 5, Indented material: interpolated material goes in square brackets.
Page 7, Para. 1, first line: What is a "fragmented perception"? Don't get it.
Page 11, Note 2. I don't know why she had to pay $600. Is this correct?
Note: In several places I also changed your expression, favorable sex
ratio. This is quite correct in demographic terms, but it conntes a
value judgement of "good" which we do not want to imply in any of the
cases where I have changed the wording.