Get in touch with The Better Editor of New England!
Email your questions or a description of your need to:
TheBetterEditor@hotmail.com
If you would like a sample edit, include a representative portion of the manuscript (5-10 pages) and as much detail of the project as possible and what you’re looking for.
You can also sent a text message or call:
781-330-2679
During regular business hours I make every effort to provide a same-day response. Off-hours and weekend responses might take longer. On many days, my travels can take me to locations with poor cell signal or internet service for several hours at a time, making immediate responses difficult. But I respond to every message as soon as possible.
thebettereditor 
Just came across your commentary about the possible origins of scam. Is there a possibility that it’s a variant of scum. Both have a suspicious whiff about them, and scam might have come about through a variant pronunciation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi, Jack.
Well, I suppose anything’s possible. But I would lean against this etymology simply because there’s no evidence (at least I haven’t come across any in my wanderings…your suggestion of it is the first I’ve noticed). It also seems something of a leap from scum to scam, since they don’t really overlap in use or meaning — so even a twist based on pronunciation doesn’t seem to explain it.
Thanks for stopping by and reading!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Initially I was confused because I took “lean against this etymology” to mean that you agreed with Jack, when in the actual article you seemed to think the scum/scam theory was not very strong. It wasn’t until I read on that I realized that you didn’t mean “lean against” that etymology as in “lean on,” but something more like “lean toward being against” (I know that looks ghastly, which is probably how you arrived at phrasing it the way you did instead).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great post on “ginned up” or possibly “jinned up” might really be the answer…thanks! Will subscribe to feed.
LikeLiked by 1 person