don't rely on spell-checkers!
laurence.horn at YALE.EDU
Mon May 17 01:06:56 UTC 1999
An elegant find:
At 4:33 PM -0400 5/14/99, Ron Butters wrote:
>Didn't someone just write recently, "Don't rely on spell-checkers"? In fact,
>it is worse. One has to make sure that one doesn't inadvertently correct
>something that is fine into something that is not fine. In writing to a
>student just now, I wrote,
>". . . try Victoria Fromkin and Robert Rodman, _An Introduction to
>Language_, 6th edition." My AOL spell-checker automatically corrected this to
>"". . . try Victoria Foreskin and Robert Rodman, _An Introduction to
>Language_, 6th edition."
I assume there was some sort of harmony rule in effect: AOL must have
figured their preputial reading goes more naturally with "Rodman", on
either the compositional or the Dennis-allusional reading of the latter.
(Ron, I'm assuming you won't mind the cross-posting to outil. --LH)
More information about the Ads-l