Difference between revisions of "Talk:Errata"
BlakeStacey (Talk | contribs) |
(Are we being duped?) |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | ==All those "doubling" errors== | ||
| + | |||
| + | What with a heavy theme of doubling, twinning, double refraction, &c., I am wondering if all these weird "double" mistakes *are* mistakes. I can understand spelling typos and inconsistencies, but it's hard to imagine how words would be doubled like that (eg "be be" "when when"). Sure, they may be harmless typos, but the Paranoid in me is beginning to hear a faint "gotcha"... | ||
| + | |||
| + | May I suggest we state such a caveat at the beginning of the Errata page, so as to cover this possibility? | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:WikiAdmin|WikiAdmin]] 09:22, 8 December 2006 (PST) | ||
| + | |||
There's a "that" which should be "than", as well as a missing quotation mark, somewhere in the first 800 pages, but I was too foolish to note where I found them. Don't I feel like a schmuck. [[User:BlakeStacey|BlakeStacey]] 16:42, 2 December 2006 (PST) | There's a "that" which should be "than", as well as a missing quotation mark, somewhere in the first 800 pages, but I was too foolish to note where I found them. Don't I feel like a schmuck. [[User:BlakeStacey|BlakeStacey]] 16:42, 2 December 2006 (PST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Updates == | ||
| + | |||
| + | How do you think I feel mistyping the line for an error right in front of me? | ||
| + | |||
| + | (Thanks for the catch, Bleakhaus!) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I have all sympathy for Penguin (as long as they correct 'em.) This must have been a bear to proof, and perfection is not given to mortals... [[User:monte.davis|monte.davis]] 04:25, 3 December 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :We are, after all, doing Penguin's work for free. :-/ [[User:BlakeStacey|BlakeStacey]] 07:52, 4 December 2006 (PST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I'm not sure the most recent additions to the errata list (four dots instead of three) can be counted as 'proper' errors. The ellipsis has always been one of Pynchon's favorite rhetorical devices, and the way I see it, the number of dots simply signifies how large the ellipsis is meant to be. Gravity's Rainbow is full of ellipses with both three and four dots, and this shouldn't be considered an error, IMO. Unless anyone objects, I'll remove the four/three dots-entries in a day or two. [[User:Torerye|Torerye]] 01:39, 6 December 2006 (PST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I agree abt removing the three/four dot corrections. An ellipsis is always three periods. In standard American usage (unlike British), a terminal period is <i>added to</i> the ellipsis if the ellipsis occurs at the end of the sentence, whereas it will stand alone, three periods, when occurring <i>within</i> a sentence. Some good examples of this are on page 47, lines 12 and 14, and again on lines 18 and 19. Four periods (at the end of a sentence), three periods (within the sentence). In British usage, on the other hand, the ellipsis always stands alone, regardless of its placement in a sentence. So the British editions of ATD would always show "..." and never "....".... [[User:Zutphen|Zutphen]] 08:48, 6 December 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Thanks for this clarification! I'll remove the three/four dot corrections right away, since the case seems clear enough. [[User:Torerye|Torerye]] 05:53, 6 December 2006 (PST) | ||
Latest revision as of 10:22, 8 December 2006
All those "doubling" errors
What with a heavy theme of doubling, twinning, double refraction, &c., I am wondering if all these weird "double" mistakes *are* mistakes. I can understand spelling typos and inconsistencies, but it's hard to imagine how words would be doubled like that (eg "be be" "when when"). Sure, they may be harmless typos, but the Paranoid in me is beginning to hear a faint "gotcha"...
May I suggest we state such a caveat at the beginning of the Errata page, so as to cover this possibility?
WikiAdmin 09:22, 8 December 2006 (PST)
There's a "that" which should be "than", as well as a missing quotation mark, somewhere in the first 800 pages, but I was too foolish to note where I found them. Don't I feel like a schmuck. BlakeStacey 16:42, 2 December 2006 (PST)
Updates
How do you think I feel mistyping the line for an error right in front of me?
(Thanks for the catch, Bleakhaus!)
I have all sympathy for Penguin (as long as they correct 'em.) This must have been a bear to proof, and perfection is not given to mortals... monte.davis 04:25, 3 December 2006 (EST)
- We are, after all, doing Penguin's work for free. :-/ BlakeStacey 07:52, 4 December 2006 (PST)
I'm not sure the most recent additions to the errata list (four dots instead of three) can be counted as 'proper' errors. The ellipsis has always been one of Pynchon's favorite rhetorical devices, and the way I see it, the number of dots simply signifies how large the ellipsis is meant to be. Gravity's Rainbow is full of ellipses with both three and four dots, and this shouldn't be considered an error, IMO. Unless anyone objects, I'll remove the four/three dots-entries in a day or two. Torerye 01:39, 6 December 2006 (PST)
I agree abt removing the three/four dot corrections. An ellipsis is always three periods. In standard American usage (unlike British), a terminal period is added to the ellipsis if the ellipsis occurs at the end of the sentence, whereas it will stand alone, three periods, when occurring within a sentence. Some good examples of this are on page 47, lines 12 and 14, and again on lines 18 and 19. Four periods (at the end of a sentence), three periods (within the sentence). In British usage, on the other hand, the ellipsis always stands alone, regardless of its placement in a sentence. So the British editions of ATD would always show "..." and never "....".... Zutphen 08:48, 6 December 2006 (EST)
Thanks for this clarification! I'll remove the three/four dot corrections right away, since the case seems clear enough. Torerye 05:53, 6 December 2006 (PST)
