![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
O saeclum insapiens et infacetum!
I gather that editors don't edit anymore, but I thought that proof editors proofed. Evidently not. Rivers of London contained a couple of garbled sentences, but nothing like this howler from Jane and the Madness of Lord Byron. A clergyman is speaking:
...it is the death won without glory, the obscure and insignificant ending, that is most valued in the eyes of the Creator. We should not set ourselves up as rivals, I am sure, of that consummate sacrifice at Calgary.Whether it was Spell Check or the proof reader that didn't know the word 'Calvary' I won't guess, but I observe that Firefox's spell checker does, and insists on a capital c.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
My best guess: Calgary was an uncaught typo on the author's part, and the proofreader didn't have enough knowledge of either Christianity or Canadian geography to intuit that something was not write.
(My first exposure to 'Calvary', aside from it being the name of about half the Baptist churches around Raleigh, was reading Equus in twelfth grade. It did not help the Calvary-Cavalry confusion.)
no subject
no subject
No one with a Catholic childhood can not know what Calvary is. Though I still have to think for a moment to distinguish it from cavalry. And that's a subvocalizer talking.
no subject
no subject