[lit-ideas] Re: Your transcription of The Letter
- From: Robert Paul <robert.paul@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 18:56:14 -0700
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Paul" <robert.paul@xxxxxxxx>
> To: "John Watson" <NotForEmail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 1:07 PM
> Subject: Your transcription of The Letter
>
>
>> Dear John,
>>
>> I now have all of your emails—although how would I really
>> know?—including your version of the text, which Linda did open for me
>> after all. However, she printed it out and I'm working from a hard copy
>> not from a text on the screen that I could edit.
>>
>> Anyway, here are my corrections and comments on your transcription.
>> I've blown the jpeg up until the letters are about five inches high
>> but nothing helps me with that first line. We both seem stumped by it.
>>
>> I think that I'm right in most places where you're uncertain, e.g.
>> 'modal syllogisTIC.' (There is such a thing as A's modal syllogistic.)
>>
>>
>> Let me know how these comments strike you.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Bob
>> ------------------------------------------
>>
>> line 3: The word you have in parens. is ‘dialectical.’
>>
>> line 6: No parens. around ‘ed’.
>>
>> 3rd par: ‘translation of a work of mine into German came to naught
>> because’
>>
>> next line: ‘inconsistEnt’
>>
>> last line: Word in parens. is ‘take.’
>>
>> 4th par: First line is: ‘There is a wrong move that may be christened
>> the Fallacy Fallacy.’
>>
>> line 4: I think that ‘suspected’ is right on orthographical if not
>> grammatical grounds. I also think that ‘deceived’ is a better fit than
>> ‘dismissed,’ because (a) suspecting someone of being dismissed doesn’t
>> make much sense in this context, and (b) there’s only one dot above
>> the word, whereas ‘dismissed’ should have two while ‘deceived’ needs
>> just one. But I can't be absolutely sure; this is one of the problem
>> words.
>>
>> line 5: ‘above. In ‘History of a Fallacy’ I do not think any of the
>> authors I cited had had a defence as I describe in the other paper.’
>>
>> 6th par. ‘There is also [[[my reply]]], a [[[?]]] Fallacy Fallacy, in
>> which an author seeks to rehabilitate a clearly fallacious form by
>> citing valid arguments of that form or even merely arguments of that
>> form that have a true conclusion and true premises. I’ve come across
>> this in discussions of Aristotle’s modal syllogistic.’
>>
>> NB: I see you have both italicized and underlined 'insisted' (after
>> 'translator'); but there should be only underlining: underlining, in
>> the old days,' was a way of writing italics, e.g. on typewriters, or
>> of merely emphasizing something in actual writing. You're transcribing
>> what PG actually wrote and there are no actual italics in the ms.;
>> if it were printed in his collected letters there'd be none either.
>> (There are other words underscored in the ms. that aren't underscored
>> in your text; my email does a bad job of underlining, although I tried
>> to do it in the version I sent you.)
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
