Peter Montgomery wrote:
> If you want the whole, complete
> story, jot by tittle, you'll have to read something
> like McLuhan's THE GUTENBERG GALAXY, where it is all
> spelled out and traced out. Obviously any summary is
> vulnerable to the pickers of nits, so pick away.
> Find inaccuracies where you will.
> Be my guest. When the whirlwind blows through, I hope
> you have something to grab ont to.
You know, but want to pretend otherwise, that getting the facts
wrong and then drawing conclusions from them is not a matter of having
nits. (I don't care about your nits. I've never picked at anyone's
typos or unformed ideas.) As a member of this community I feel, though,
some responsibility for pointing out the inaccuracies. Sometimes it is
fun; sometimes a chore. I do check my facts before writing. I count on
others to do the same when they encounter inaccuracies.
Once again. You wrote yesterday:
> Standarised spelling
> came about because of the needs of the print medium for
> consistency, to reduce the work needed for the production
> of the printed page on a mass scale (the printer was the
> first mass production machine). Instead of assembling
> pages letter by letter, compositors could assemble them
> word by word. The standardising of print words led to
> the standardising of spelling for all writing, hence the
When I challenged you on the setting by word you replied
> As for the forms of type, going all the way from single character to
> the late use of cliches and stereotypes
> (those words are used there in their technical print meaning) you may
> wish to consult a pre-computer type-setter, if you can find one.
You know, of course, that a stereotype was a cast of the forme for a
page-- type set piece by piece. It didn't replace setting by letters.
Its use was limited. And, as you note today ("the late use"), even had
stereotyping been a technique to compose by word, it came well into the
hand-press period, and would not have had an early effect on spelling.
Printing did, though it was by letter. Why are the facts so damaging
to your argument that they have to be distorted?
I've had no difficulty finding pre-computer type-setters (the people and
the machines they work with).