Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [GTh] Re: Correspondence with Stephen Patterson

Expand Messages
  • Michael Grondin
    Thanks, Andrew. I needed that - for more than one reason. Among other things, I was beginning to feel that I was talking to myself on the list, since no one
    Message 1 of 4 , May 16, 2008
      Thanks, Andrew. I needed that - for more than one reason.
      Among other things, I was beginning to feel that I was talking
      to myself on the list, since no one was responding. Re the
      Patterson correspondence, I am in awe of people who have
      reputable published works, but you're right about the obsequious
      tone in spots. I cringed when I re-read it. In other spots, though,
      my criticism seems very intense. Needs balance, I think.

      As to refining their translations, I don't think that's likely to happen.
      Their last translations are now over 10 years old, and I doubt
      if either one of them is going to revisit Thomas. That's part of the
      problem of writing to them - that it's old news to them now. I think
      the most likely impact my letters might have is that the two instances
      of 'man' that I found in TCG might be replaced by 'person' in the
      projected new edition that Patterson referred to. It'd be ironic if that's
      what happens. (Patterson said that he had forwarded my notes on to
      Bob Miller, the editor of TCG.) I didn't get the impression that Miller's
      revision is a wholly new SV, but if it is, or if I hear of any such thing,
      I'll do everything I can to make my views known.

      Mike G.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.