[WikiEN-l] Excessive units converstion?

Fri Nov 3 20:36:49 UTC 2006

> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Excessive units converstion?
> I very much believe that quotes should be respected, but there are  
> still
> places where judgement should be exercised.  I have no problem with
> correcting obvious typos, as long as there is no question about it.
> This can also depend on the nature of the work.  If a person is highly
> literary the obvious typo may not be a typo at all.  US/UK spelling
> differences are not typos.  Malapropisms are not typos.  Typos that  
> lead
> to a grammatical but off beat result, like a reference to an "immoral
> soul" when "immortal soul" is likely intended should not be altered.
>
> In some cases though, particularly in factual writing, we don't  
> need to
> make a writer look like an idiot when it serves no purpose.  The
> following from an article called "The Post Offices of Bracken County,
> Kentucky" is one where I would make the corrections:  "The Genmantown
> post office was established on the Mason Cbunty side of the line on
> December 8, 1817 with Ludwell Owings (?) as postmaster."  The town
> should be "Germantown", as the rest of the context will establish; I
> also know that in reading some sans-serif typefaces in particular the
> distinction between the "rm" and "nm" combinations is not always  
> clear.
> The totally meaningless "Cbunty" should also be changed.  On the other
> hand the date format should not be altered, and the question mark
> expressing the author's uncertainty should be retained.

I have _great_ reservations about changing directi quotations for any  
reason. I take your point, but even in the case you mention, it  
requires a certain degree of expert judgement to "correct" an  
"obvious" typo, and the danger is that the correction leaves no  
obvious trace. I think it's better to place the correction in a  
footnote.

Someone once told me that in analyzing old texts, it is an  
established principle that if there are two versions and one makes  
sense and one doesn't, it is the one that doesn't that is likely to  
be accurate, because the coherent version is usually the result of a  
later editor trying to "correct" the passage.

To your examples, I'd add that when Lewis Carroll spells the words  
_can't_, _won't_, and _shan't_ as _ca'n't_, _wo'n't_ and "sha'n't,"  
respectively, they are not typos... and when George Bernard Shaw  
spells the same words as _cant_, _wont_, and _shant_ they are not  
typos, either.