[HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Amusingly appropriate typo

[P. Alexis Nguyen]

Carol:
> As a copyeditor and sometime proofreader, I'd like to point out that
> even proofreaders sometimes read the intended meaning rather than
> what's actually in print on the proof sheet, especially in long works
> when the eyes and brain are tired at the end of the day. But in a
> short article, especially the first line, there's no excuse. At least
> four people--the reporter, the copyeditor, the typesetter, and the
> proofreader, would have seen that article (unless online editions of
> newspapers bypass some of those steps).

Ali:
Believe me, as a proofreader and sometime copyeditor, I do understand
what you mean.  Like I said, it was "some defense," not anything too
fantastic.  Besides, the "qualty" is definitely something that
should've been caught by Word (or any word processing program that has
a spell check function)


Geoff:
> On a different topic which arose from a previous post, I must ask a
> question as a possibly dense UK ex-teacher. I have often seen
> references to "Subject 101". What precisely is a subject with this
> title?

Ali:
Admittedly, I have no idea where this started since when I was at
university (not many years ago), 101 was definitely not what it stands
for in the normal English vernacular.  However, this "Subject 101"
thing basically denotes an intro course - e.g., English 101 is
Introduction to English, History 101 is Intro to History.  This is
sometimes shortened into (at least speech-wise) "English 1" or
"History 1" or similar.

My question is whether this is idiomatic usage, a colloquialism, or
what?  I think it's idiomatic, but I think I shall also go see if the
free OED (sadly, not being in college means not getting free usage of
the online OED) or Wikipedia can tell me anything.

~Ali, whose Finance 101 class was definitely not Intro to Finance or
any sort of intro course