Monday, April 03, 2006
Misunderstood and misleadingly edited non-inclusive French NP in The Nation
But no [inclusive NP] interpretation was plausible for BHL’s original French version of the crucial sentence:
Pourquoi, depuis Susan Sontag, n’entend-on pas davantage les clercs sur le sujet?
An interlinear gloss:
pourquoi depuis Susan Sontag n’entend on pas davantage les clercs sur le sujet
why since Susan Sontag NEG hear one NEG more the scholars on the subject
And the same is true of the original (unedited) English translation, which is idiomatic but close to the original:
Why haven’t we heard from more scholars, post-Susan Sontag, on the subject?
[eventual edited version, with possible reading as inclusive NP:]
Why haven’t we heard from more intellectuals like Susan Sontag—or even Gore Vidal and Tony Kushner (with whom I disagree on most other grounds) on this vexed and vital issue?
‘On Language’ 3/29: Irrespective of common use, ‘irregardless’ draws ire
Ire reaches new heights over word pronunciations
‘On Language‘
Chicago Tribune
March 29, 2006
By Nathan Bierma
temp.link/perm.preview
...
Q. I know that the word “irregardless” is in the dictionary, but I am not sure if it ever has a correct application.
—Edward Kepuraitis, Frankfort, Ill.
A. The four major dictionaries I checked all include and define “irregardless,” but they all label it as “non-standard” and note that the preferred word in Standard English is “regardless.” Most dictionaries and usage guides say this word originated nearly 100 years ago, presumably as a blend of the words “irrespective” (which is accepted in Standard English) and “regardless.” Some note that “irregardless” is vehemently condemned by users of Standard English, and advise that it’s easy to avoid their wrath by simply saying “regardless” instead.