Confusing passage

David Stockhoff · 18 Sep 2012, 12:31 · from 2012-September.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: dstockhoff at verizon.net (David Stockhoff)
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:31:28 -0400
Subject: (urth) Confusing passage
In-Reply-To: <50584DF2.8010000 at irit.fr>
References: <SNT123-W23F1827B5107AA8A750151CF940 at phx.gbl>
	<253D78D3E75D4C27B39135879602BEF2@Rover> <50584DF2.8010000 at irit.fr>
Message-ID: <505869A0.2040304 at verizon.net>

Right---the two [sic]s are in the text. Lee didn't put them there. 
Horn's editors (Nettle?) did, because they were confused too.

On 9/18/2012 6:33 AM, Sergei SOLOVIEV wrote:
> To my mind, [sic] corresponds to both names in both cases, and 
> attracts the attention
> to the fact that the narrator knows the names Hoof and Hide, but may 
> substitute Horn
> for each almost indifferently - so the identity that is questioned is 
> rather the
> identity of the narrator. My impression was that it is stylistically 
> nicely done.
>
> Sergei Soloviev
>
> Gerry Quinn wrote:
>>
>>
>> *From:* Lee Berman <mailto:severiansola at hotmail.com>
>>
>>
>> > From On Blue's Waters, Ch. 5 section 6:
>>
>> >    Even Hoof and Horn [sic], who must just be entering young 
>> manhood now
>> >    will someday be as old as Marrow and Patera Remora.....in fifty 
>> years,
>> >    Horn and Hide [sic] may well be dead....These words, which I pen 
>> with
>> >    so little thought- or hope- or expectation- may possibly endure 
>> long
>> >    beyond that, endure for two centuries or even three...
>>
>> >
>> I am confused by this. I could guess the first [sic] is a way of
>> >
>> forshadowing that Horn's self-identity will come into question later.
>> >
>> But what about the second [sic]? Is Hide's identity also to come into
>> >
>> question? Or does the second [sic] also refer to Horn in the clause?
>>
>> I say typo.  It makes no sense as written, and the names are easily 
>> confusable.  Reading the passage, I didn?t notice it, so it?s not 
>> implausible that author and proof-readers didn?t either.
>>
>> - Gerry Quinn
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Urth Mailing List
>> To post, write urth at urth.net
>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net