judge

However the OP reads...

Which seems to make no sense.

Is it supposed to read

"And while I may not believe what you believe , I believe still."

Or

"And while I may not believe what you believe what that you believe, I believe still.

Or even more cryptically.

"And while I may not believe what you believe. What you believe, I believe still."

:Cheeky:

doctorzb

Any structure will do. There's always going to be overlap--it's hard to talk about audience without talking about the content, for example, because the content defines who I think the audience is.

Hmm, I think a set of letters are a dialogue. I don't consider the word to refer exclusively to spoken statements, but maybe it depends on the dictionary. I have referred to internet chats as dialoguess, for example--and then there's the computer term, "dialog box." To me it's just hard to imagine anyone coming out and saying this stuff (even in a fictional conversation), especially considering the structure.

If it *is* from a fictional vocal conversation, I think the style limits the types of books from which it may have come.

Chris Weimer

Which do you think and why?

judge

The first. But naturally this is wrong. Because had you made this error yourself, well, you would just admit it so as to help the process.
And, this applies to the other options I posted as well.

So either it does read correctly grammatically, ie the sentence,
makes perfect sense....

Or, the original dialogue contains this shortcoming (and one or two others methinks) , which tells us something pretty important about the dialogue and where it comes from.

Chris Weimer

Do you think I'd really? What if it's an error on another level? Explore the issue and see where it leads you. Perhaps it is authentic after all? I'm more interested in why you think it is the first option.

judge

Well, unless it was originally in the dialogue (even if it is your dialogue) I would expect you to own up if you inadvertantly wrote the words "what you believe" twice when typing it up for this thread.
Additionally if you made a copying error that was not in the original I would expect you to own up to it, yes.


An error in translation?

I assume it is authentic if by authentic you mean part of the original dialogue.




One wouldn't really know. I found it amusing to lable it a "copiers error", as writing the same three words twice accidentally is the kind of thing a copier might do when copying a text, and this is BC&H :Cheeky:

doctorzb

Hmm, I guess we could consider Chris just another set of hands in the "transmission" process of this text who may have or may have not modified it or screwed up with it.

Of course, the fact that he's alive means that we can talk to him and find out--bu he doesn't want to say. I guess for the sake of the "game" we have to consider him dead (Except when his ghost complains about our inefficiency). There's only three possibilities given the nature of typing in this forum:

-He copied and pasted electronically, and the error was in the source he used
-He made the error himself, typing from printed material
-He copied the error from printed material

I doubt #1 since no one can find it on google--but it could be a private communication. #2 I also doubt because typing an extra full three words is a weird typo. #3 if true suggests an unedited source of some kind.

-Zac

RED DAVE

Don't let this thread die!

I still think it might be a translation, maybe from a Russian poet.

RED DAVE

doctorzb

I haven't liked the translation theory, myself. Someone mentioned that anachronisms are OK in translations, "whatever makes the meaning clearer." But it obfuscates the meaning to translate into divergent styles, I think. The way I see it, you translate a text to a new language, and to a particular style of writing in that new language, and mixing several styles when there's no compelling reason to do so seems foolish.

So if it's a translation I'd call it a bad translation :-)

RED DAVE

From RED DAVE:
From doctorzb:
So, one more time, we are treated to the post-adolescent ramblings of doctorzb!

As I argued in my recent article, "The Weimer Fragment and the Case for Translation," published in the distinguished Journal of Unknown Studies, the likelihood that this intriguing piece of literature is translated from a foreign language is overwhelming. All the awkwardness, the anachronisms, the shallow philosophizing and the egotism are explained by this.

On the other hand, in his despicalbe, "Blots From the Weimer Fragment," first published in the Reader's Digest, doctorzb rambles incoherently about cutting and pasting and other bizarre topics, all based on his extrapolation from a simple scribal error in the fragment.

It has also not escaped our attention that doctorzb is a known associate of atheists, etc. I dare him to reply. I double-dare him.

RED DAVE