[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Richardoestesia vs. Ricardoestesia (again)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>

>   If you have a more in-depth reasoning, I would like to read it. However,

Sometimes things are simple and don't require in-depth reasoning. :-)

> <IMHO it's obvious that the h is "an inadvertent error, [...]>
>   This is not actually true, [...] ... the machine
> must have been given an instruction to record "Richar-" ... human error
> doesn't work, I think....

Now we're splitting words... taxonomy has got far. OK, the lector
deliberately, not inadvertently, gave the instruction to replace "Ricar-"
with "Richar-", but he inadvertently forgot to ask the authors if it was
really their intent not put an h in there, respectively he (er, or she)
inadvertently didn't get the idea that the h-less version could be intended
and correct. Is that fine? :-)