|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jul 11, 2011 13:25:06 GMT -6
Here is the latest version of the typeset book. The book is still now 375 pages. I am still working on the introduction. Anyone find any other mistakes or typos? Any other suggestions? Here |
|
|
|
Post by madanmohandas on Jul 12, 2011 11:17:47 GMT -6
Hi Nitai. I have noticed some changes that I am guessing you have made. Here is one.
7.22. you have,
If, filled with earnest faith, he seeks.......
what I had was,
Of faith as this possessed he seeks....
the kind of faith defined in and carrying over from the previous verse.
If thats your own alteration I am not sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by madanmohandas on Jul 12, 2011 11:20:50 GMT -6
Also in 7.20 I had or rather Caleb had 'Who through desire have been deprived....' rather than 'Those whom desire has deprived....
|
|
|
|
Post by madanmohandas on Jul 12, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -6
Again 8.2 the last line was, 'Thou in the hour of death art known.'
Having read the text more times than can be counted and commited much of it to memory, I do find these alterations jarring.
8.5 3rd line. 'He to my being passeth o'er....'
8.12. 'Whoso, his body gates all closed'
8'19. 'This selfsame swarm of things create' as in created. nice alliteration here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jul 12, 2011 12:24:08 GMT -6
My wife made some alterations to the text where she found the original too archaic or metrically wrong. Her rule of thumb was simplicity. If the original was potentially confusing or the word order clumsy, she altered it. I will run the cases you have cited by her and see what she thinks. I was in favor of throwing out all the thees and thous and modernizing the text completely, but since it was your discovery and you are the main editor of the text I agreed only to some of minor changes that she suggested. If it definitely changes the meaning of the text, then we will put it back as it was, but if it makes the text less clumsy then I think we will leave her altered version. Not everyone appreciates the archaic forms of the original. Is that okay?
|
|
|
|
Post by madanmohandas on Jul 12, 2011 12:46:57 GMT -6
I guess so but I will just stick to my own copy, I love the archaisims and the unusual syntax but as I grow older it seems that I'm all alone in my taste for it. I'm glad that you are publishing it for those who are not so fond of the original of Caleb.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jul 12, 2011 18:30:28 GMT -6
I guess so but I will just stick to my own copy, I love the archaisims and the unusual syntax but as I grow older it seems that I'm all alone in my taste for it. I'm glad that you are publishing it for those who are not so fond of the original of Caleb. Well, it is not all that different. It is mostly the same. I would say about 98% the same. So it is still very much Caleb. |
|
|
|
Post by madanmohandas on Jul 12, 2011 23:28:42 GMT -6
It is very different and alot more than 2% has been changed. That is your perogotive. I dont like the changes and I think my name should be removed because this is not my editing. In a way I now regret being involved with the project. I'm sure that most of your readers will be happy with it. As I mentioned before, having commited much of the text to memory the changes are glaringly apparent to me, but maybe not to others. I was already concerned about the changes I made regaring the propriety of it. I don't know(?) There is nothing wrong with what you've done, but I just feel a bit pieved  If you can imagine learning a song and then someone changes the word order it is no longer the song it was. You might as well do away with the 'thees' and 'thous' then if you don't like it or just put it into prose and every one will understand, but how would that differ from the heaps of translations already available? |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jul 13, 2011 11:59:01 GMT -6
It is very different and alot more than 2% has been changed. That is your perogotive. I dont like the changes and I think my name should be removed because this is not my editing. In a way I now regret being involved with the project. I'm sure that most of your readers will be happy with it. As I mentioned before, having commited much of the text to memory the changes are glaringly apparent to me, but maybe not to others. I was already concerned about the changes I made regaring the propriety of it. I don't know(?) There is nothing wrong with what you've done, but I just feel a bit pieved If you can imagine learning a song and then someone changes the word order it is no longer the song it was. You might as well do away with the 'thees' and 'thous' then if you don't like it or just put it into prose and every one will understand, but how would that differ from the heaps of translations already available? Well, I'm sorry madanmohanji. I don't want you to be upset or to quit the project. What we did was really minimal and is standard practice in book production. There is always an editor looking for places in the text that are confusing. Betsy, mostly just tweaked those. We are getting close to completing this book and there is no time to go over it line by line and put it back the way it was. As a compromise, I am willing to change back whatever you notice over the next week or so while I finish the introduction. How does that sound? |
|
|
|
Post by madanmohandas on Jul 13, 2011 13:51:29 GMT -6
Its ok I'm not upset (anymore). You and Betsy are much more qualified and experienced in these matters whereas I can hardly spell. I was surprised that these changes were made, but let that be.
|
|
If you can imagine learning a song and then someone changes the word order it is no longer the song it was. You might as well do away with the 'thees' and 'thous' then if you don't like it or just put it into prose and every one will understand, but how would that differ from the heaps of translations already available?