3 ms·
Ironically the grammar error he cites might not be an error, depending on whether Mr Franken said that IRL or in print. If it were in print, such as on a websit
by mattmaroon 17y ago
Ironically the grammar error he cites might not be an error, depending on whether Mr Franken said that IRL or in print. If it were in print, such as on a website or email, then it was not incorrect for the New York Times (which was why I missed it, because I skip the quotes when looking for errors) to have simply transcribed Franken's error. (In that case they could put the old (sic) there, but I view that as a total dick move. Leave that pretentious stuff for The New Yorker.) If they were transcribing his spoken word, then it was erroneous.
I view that as ironic because the article talks about contextual grammar checking, and there's no way a machine (or in this case even a human) could know the proper context that determines whether or not the article's author made a mistake.
- pvg 17y agoThe NYT article makes it quite clear it's an interview. It's just a simple error of spelling (not grammar, the sentence is grammatically correct) in the original article.
- hristov 17y agoFirst, as the other poster mentioned, it was an interview. Second, when the NYT quotes something that is already written with known errors, the editors are guaranteed to either fix the errors and carefully note that they had to fix the grammar or add a [SIC] because that's the kind of people editors are.
- Elepsis 17y agoMy experience has been that journalists take the liberty of fixing "makes you sound stupid" errors like that in most cases -- sometimes they'll double check, but often times they will fix that sort of word choice issue and move on. Indeed, it's the sort of thing that would likely get flagged by a copy editor who wouldn't even know the quote came from an email.