[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Richardoestesia vs. Ricardoestesia (again)
David Marjanovic (email@example.com) wrote:
<Er... in case anyone wants to read my opinion on this...>
If you have a more in-depth reasoning, I would like to read it. However,
<IMHO it's obvious that the h is "an inadvertent error, such as a [...]
copyist's or printer's error", namely an editor's or lector's error. And
so away with the h, and HP Dinogeorge's First Revision is de jure not a
First Revision because there are not 2 potentially correct spellings in
the original paper, and there was much rejoicing. Where is the problem
This is not actually true, an inadverdent printer's error might be
indicated best by every other name spelled wrong, or one name spelled
differently, with the one name being the "wrong" name. In this case, the
name that George reports Sloan said was the proper name was the odd-man
out. This does not permit the "printer's error" to be a strong argument.
Maybe so, but spell-checkers even at that time were not incapable of
figuring out the difference between "Richar-" and "Ricar-" ... the machine
must have been given an instruction to record "Richar-" ... human error
doesn't work, I think....
Jaime A. Headden
Little steps are often the hardest to take. We are too used to making leaps
in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do. We should all
learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better