Interesting, I had (sic) because it is what Boyd had when he sent me the quote years ago, I'm not sure why I removed it at some point. Corrected it now to [sic], although it might be that ken actually did write '(sic)' himself?
Ah, the mysteries of quoting combined with the wonders of the English language :) uriel On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Kris Maglione<maglion...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 03:18:53PM +0200, Uriel wrote: >> >> Thanks for the correction, but I think that was a spelling mistake on >> purpose, I will add (sic). > > It should be [sic] when you're modifying a quote, (sic) when you're > clarifying your own writing. > > -- > Kris Maglione > > I think conventional languages are for the birds. They're just > extensions of the von Neumann computer, and they keep our noses in the > dirt of dealing with individual words and computing addresses, and > doing all kinds of silly things like that, things that we've picked up > from programming for computers; we've built them into programming > languages; we've built them into Fortran; we've built them in PL/1; > we've built them into almost every language. > --John Backus > > >
