Eli Anne Eiesland reports from Oslo:
I was accessing the Handbook of Morphology (edited by you and Andrew Spencer), in its electronic version on NetLibrary, and found a bizarre misprint. The thumbnail image of the book says “handbook of mythology”.
Oh dear. I hope this isn’t an accusation that Andy and I made up the data in the Handbook.
(I hadn’t realized that the volume was available on-line. But, apparently, only through a library that’s affiliated with NetLibrary.)
April 18, 2009 at 4:51 pm |
Heh. I blogged it too: http://lingvisme.blogspot.com/2009/04/handbook-of-what-now.html
April 19, 2009 at 12:38 am |
Perhaps because you’ve been known to deal with Strunk&White?
April 19, 2009 at 1:51 am |
I’ve read some syntax papers that seemed like the authors just made up their data. Or collected grammaticality judgments by asking informants while showing them cue cards.
April 19, 2009 at 4:35 pm |
I’m guessing that Jens Fiederer’s comment — “Perhaps because you’ve been known to deal with Strunk&White?” — is a tentative answer to the unasked question, “Why should morphology have been turned into mythology?”
April 19, 2009 at 5:17 pm |
Perhaps it is an egg freckle (http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=9506), a silicism generated by OCR + dictionary lookup.
April 19, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
To Kem Luther: my first idea. But take a look at the actual photo on Eli Anne Eiesland’s blog (linked to above).