Comment by larrik
19 hours ago
It's an interesting idea, but I'm thrown by "a count" in "should be taken into a count by future translations"
19 hours ago
It's an interesting idea, but I'm thrown by "a count" in "should be taken into a count by future translations"
Yeah, weird to see a couple of linguistic mistakes like this in an article about linguistic mistakes. Another is the misuse of "latter-day". The article uses it to refer to an old thing that is analogous to a modern thing: "[a] latter-day 'yo!'" But "latter-day" actually describes something modern. (E.g., the "latter days" refers to the present age. See "Latter-day Saints".)
See also "latterly".
Amusingly, the source article [0] linked to in TFA does not contain the same error:
0: https://www.the-independent.com/arts-entertainment/books/new...
Is this the Beowulf translation field equivalent of incorrectly correcting someone's correct use of the their/there/they're homophones?
They should of considered that! /s
Me too, I just thought that I wouldn't trust an article on linguistics with such an error too much.
Not present in the original report at The Independent:
> “I’d like to say that the interpretation I have put forward should be taken into account by future translations,” he said.
https://www.the-independent.com/arts-entertainment/books/new...
It's possible The Independent fixed it up in an edit after The Poetry Foundation made a copy of it.