14.0582 teleprompto?

From: by way of Willard McCarty (willard@lists.village.Virginia.EDU)
Date: 01/09/01

  • Next message: by way of Willard McCarty: "14.0580 conferences, seminar, sessions"

                   Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 14, No. 582.
           Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
             Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 11:22:10 +0000
             From: "David L. Gants" <dgants@english.uga.edu>
             Subject: A Teleprompto?
       >> From: "Jim Marchand" <marchand@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
                            A New Kind of Error?
    As a humanistic philologist, I spend a great deal of time listening
    and watching for `errors', such as the recent use of _livid_ to
    mean, not purple, but `quite angry', or such things as the
    hyperurbanism `between you and I' (and others of the kind).  Each
    new invention brings with it its own types, as the stylus and the
    clay, the chisel and the stone, the brush and the papyrus, the pen
    and the parchment, etc. brought us the scribal error, the
    typewriter the typo.  We had the mixup of the idiot boards in one
    of Reagan's speeches (bothered him not at all).  Each of these
    required special skills on the part of the philologer, and we have
    books on how to recover the original.  Now comes a new invention:
    the teleprompter (and the see-through teleprompter).  Those who
    watched both conventions, with speakers changing their positions to
    accomodate cameras and teleprompters know what I mean.  In one of
    his speeches Bush referred to people `filing out their forms'.
    Here, one cannot be sure whether this was his error or that of the
    teleprompter typist.  Just this morning, I heard a senator speak of
    `Britian's role', and I feel sure that must have been the
    teleprompter, since I know of no one who says Britian for Britain
    (spelling is a whole nother thing).  Those who watched the Supreme
    Court recently on TV and saw how badly the court reporter spelled
    can be sure that teleprompter typists are likely to do so also.
    Thus, there may spring up a new task for the philologist.  I am
    sure that in the future we will see people claiming that World War
    III was started by a misreading of a teleprompter by some great
    official, just as that everyone knows that World War II was started
    by the mistranslation of a Japanese word. Perhaps awareness will
    mitigate (I saw that recently, too) against this.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 01/09/01 EST