Very true . Ha - well I certainly could be wrong - it wouldn't be the first time, definitely not the last. I should not have corrected you, so apologies for that. In my dictionary, proofreader is one word, and there are no red lines when I do it as such on the computer, but we might both be right. It could be a matter of style choice. In publishing, one of the copy editor's first tasks is to create a "style sheet", in which conformity is introduced, because there is often more than one acceptable way of doing / spelling something: judgement or judgement, 12 or twelve, sulphur or sulfur, practice or practise, serial comma or not, proof reader or proofreader?
Sometimes words evolve or maybe that's the wrong word because that implies going from the simple to the complex, perhaps I should say words can change. This may include spelling and in some cases (as in this instance) when the word is formed from two words. Proof reader probably did start out as two words (this explains autocorrect). It might have gone to proof-reader before eventually becoming simplified as one word - proofreader. Tommy you are not wrong in the strict sense of the word. It's more a matter of convention than anything else. If you want, spell it proof reader or even proof-reader since you are in the UK. I doubt the grammar police will hunt you down and do horrible things to you like Torquemada (the first Grand Inquisitor of Spain) did during the 15th century.
Now if this was French and we were in France....well...I don't know. Those Frenchies are quite persnickety when it comes to language. They might send in their enforcers from the Académie française. Just joking of course.
Which reminds me of Hastings in the Affair the Victoria Ball when he dresses up like the Scarlet Pimpernel...
We seek him here, we seek him there,
Those Frenchies seek him everywhere.
What a great episode. I love Poirot going as himself because he, Hercule Poirot is a famous person/character so there is no need for him to go as someone else.
Perhaps Conan Doyle had an early automatic spell checker, which explains why Holmes visited with those "llamas" in Tibet during his self-imposed exile under the guise of a Scandinavian explorer.
I think the spelling of....Llama... was simply a mistake on the part of Conan Doyle in story of The Adventure of the Empty House. Maybe he read somewhere the two legged variety was spelled llama. In Word both lama and llama are accepted without complaint from the program. Still it's funny to visualize Holmes having a conversation with a llama (despite being native to South America, don't think they're in Tibet), as opposed to the holy figure called the Lama...shouldn't Holmes have addressed the head monk as the Dalai Lama though...not simply the Lama....
Anubis you had every right to Crrect me, I am sorry my post sounded rude, it wasn't meant to be like that but I do come across rude sometimes when I was meaning to be funny so sorry.
Hey, no worries - I didn't take it as being rude. And I have read enough of your posts to know that you are a polite person. I have had that experience - I try to be funny and I come across sounding like a jackass. Cheers,
Getting back to the original topic - Murder in Mesopotamia - I have a question. In my (paper) copy, the dedication is "to my many archaeological friends in Iraq and Syria". I seem to remember, in a copy I had before (which fell apart) that the dedication was "to the Wooleys" or "to Leonard and Katherine Wooley". Does anybody else have or remember a copy with that dedication? If the original dedication was really to the Wooleys, It's rather amusing, since the victim was a portrait of Katherine Wooley.
Comments