1.0mm to 1.5mm and back again

[ban-all-sheds]

I would also add that I made the point that you are not a person who commonly does this (and the person who does commonly do it inevitably responded ).

Well - the only person who responded was me.

I feel like asking you to provide evidence to support your allegation, but I know it would be futile, as you seem to have joined the club of people who think that it is perfectly OK to criticise me without having any factual grounds, to, in effect, blame me for their own inventions when they find they have invented something which they do not like.

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

Which typo would that be?

Just read the last sentence of your quotation very slowly and carefully and you should spot it.

 

[JohnW2]

Just read the last sentence of your quotation very slowly and carefully and you should spot it.

Indeed. It's a bit like the "Paris in the the spring" thing. It is really quite hard not to read what words one thinks should be there - that's certainly what happened the first few times I read BAS's signature.

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

All these three loyalties should be observed, but there in no doubt of the order in which they stand under any healthy manifestation of democracy.'

There is no mistake:
You could read it thus:

that [the loyalties are] there (in other words, in the position they are) in no doubt of the order in which they stand?

 

[JohnW2]

You could read it thus: that [the loyalties are] there (in other words, in the position they are) in no doubt of the order in which they stand?

"... there in no doubt ..." still seems to make no grammatical sense. As has been said, I imagine it's just a simple one-character typo, such as we all do (in my case quite frequently!").

Kind Regards, John

 

[securespark]

Look it up on-line.
Whenever you see it, it is the same. If it was a typo, you would think that there would be different versions of the quote available.

 

[JohnW2]

Look it up on-line.

I have

Whenever you see it, it is the same. If it was a typo, you would think that there would be different versions of the quote available.

Since it makes no grammatical sense, I feel sure that it must be a mistake in "the original" - either what Churchill actually said (in error) or a typo in the way it was recorded at the time - and everyone else has simply 'coped and pasted' the erroneous words ever since.

It's not that unusual. I remember when I was at school, our Chemistry teacher brought to our attention an alleged "chemical reaction" (which didn't actually happen) which had been erroneously published in one textbook 50 or so years earlier. By the 60s, virtually every chemistry textbook had 'coped and pasted', verbatim, this non-existent reaction into their pages!

Kind Regards, John

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

Not really, people just copy and paste. [slightly delayed response to securespark]

 

[EddieM]

it would be therein surely?

 

[JohnW2]

it would be therein surely?

Even that would sound very wrong (at least, to me), and I very much doubt that it would be grammatically correct.

On the other hand, it would make total sense (and presumably would be grammatically correct) if one simply changed "in" to "is".

Kind Regards, John

 

[EddieM]

Even that would sound very wrong (at least, to me), and I very much doubt that it would be grammatically correct.

On the other hand, it would make total sense (and presumably would be grammatically correct) if one simply changed "in" to "is".

Kind Regards, John

I agree. Still again, this has gone way off topic.

 

[JohnW2]

I agree. Still again, this has gone way off topic.

Indeed, although not 'off topic' in relation to the tangential sub-topic which you seem to have started

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

"... there in no doubt ..." still seems to make no grammatical sense. As has been said, I imagine it's just a simple one-character typo, such as we all do (in my case quite frequently!").

Or in this case copy & paste.

Indeed. It's a bit like the "Paris in the the spring" thing. It is really quite hard not to read what words one thinks should be there - that's certainly what happened the first few times I read BAS's signature.

That's why, with the most egregious examples of unpunctuated text we get, I often invite the writer to print it off and have a friend read it out loud to him, exactly as it is written.

That still won't avoid all of the "predictive reading" problems, but it is a lot better than reading one's own writing.

Proofreading is not as trivial a task as many think it is.

 

[EddieM]

Indeed, although not 'off topic' in relation to the tangential sub-topic which you seem to have started

Kind Regards, John

TBF I can't really argue with that.