Subject
Fw: Fw: Martin Gardner
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Boyd (FOA ENG)" <b.boyd@auckland.ac.nz>
>
> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (67
lines) ------------------
> This lifelong Gardner fan agrees with the reasoning and also winces,but as
> the great Johnson himself once wrote, "chto delat'?" We can't be sure.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: D. Barton Johnson [mailto:chtodel@cox.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, 3 February 2004 2:48 p.m.
> To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> Subject: Fw: Fw: Martin Gardner
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <nitrogen14@australia.edu>
> >
> > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (52
> lines) ------------------
> > To my mind, it would undercut the joke of calling a real author an
> > 'invented philosopher' if VN had intentionally mispelled that man's real
> > name. It also would seem odd to credit an actual book (The Ambidextrous
> > Universe) and attribute it to an intentionally wrong name. This lifelong
> > Gardner fan winces at seeing his name misspelt in ADA.
> >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Brian Boyd (FOA ENG)" <b.boyd@auckland.ac.nz>
> > >To: "'D. Barton Johnson '" <chtodel@cox.net>
> > >Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 1:27 AM
> > >Subject: RE: Martin Gardner
> > >
> > >
> > >> "Gardiner" is what VN wrote and is probably his absent-minded error
(he
> > >made
> > >> them easily with proper names) but since that's uncertain it was
> > >impossible
> > >> to correct.
> > >>
> > >> Possible errors in careful writers ARE hard to handle. Was the
Editor's
> > >> "intensional" a typo for "intentional" or a pun on the philosopher's
> > >> "intensional"? Should we correct?
> > >>
> > >> BB
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: D. Barton Johnson
> > >> To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> > >> Sent: 2/2/2004 5:32 PM
> > >> Subject: Fw: Martin Gardner
> > >>
> > >> EDRESPONSE. The Library of America edition which is regarded as
> > >> definitive
> > >> retained the "Gardiner" form so it is apparently intensional
although
> > >> Martin spells his name Gardner.
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: <nitrogen14@australia.edu>
> > >> > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (7
> > >> lines) -------------------
> > >> > The reference to Martin Gardner in Part Four of Ada, in
> > >> > my 1960's penguin edition at least, refers to him as 'Martin
> > >> Gardiner'.
> > >> >
> > >> > Is that a misprint? Or intentional?
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
From: "Brian Boyd (FOA ENG)" <b.boyd@auckland.ac.nz>
>
> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (67
lines) ------------------
> This lifelong Gardner fan agrees with the reasoning and also winces,but as
> the great Johnson himself once wrote, "chto delat'?" We can't be sure.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: D. Barton Johnson [mailto:chtodel@cox.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, 3 February 2004 2:48 p.m.
> To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> Subject: Fw: Fw: Martin Gardner
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <nitrogen14@australia.edu>
> >
> > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (52
> lines) ------------------
> > To my mind, it would undercut the joke of calling a real author an
> > 'invented philosopher' if VN had intentionally mispelled that man's real
> > name. It also would seem odd to credit an actual book (The Ambidextrous
> > Universe) and attribute it to an intentionally wrong name. This lifelong
> > Gardner fan winces at seeing his name misspelt in ADA.
> >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Brian Boyd (FOA ENG)" <b.boyd@auckland.ac.nz>
> > >To: "'D. Barton Johnson '" <chtodel@cox.net>
> > >Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 1:27 AM
> > >Subject: RE: Martin Gardner
> > >
> > >
> > >> "Gardiner" is what VN wrote and is probably his absent-minded error
(he
> > >made
> > >> them easily with proper names) but since that's uncertain it was
> > >impossible
> > >> to correct.
> > >>
> > >> Possible errors in careful writers ARE hard to handle. Was the
Editor's
> > >> "intensional" a typo for "intentional" or a pun on the philosopher's
> > >> "intensional"? Should we correct?
> > >>
> > >> BB
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: D. Barton Johnson
> > >> To: NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU
> > >> Sent: 2/2/2004 5:32 PM
> > >> Subject: Fw: Martin Gardner
> > >>
> > >> EDRESPONSE. The Library of America edition which is regarded as
> > >> definitive
> > >> retained the "Gardiner" form so it is apparently intensional
although
> > >> Martin spells his name Gardner.
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: <nitrogen14@australia.edu>
> > >> > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (7
> > >> lines) -------------------
> > >> > The reference to Martin Gardner in Part Four of Ada, in
> > >> > my 1960's penguin edition at least, refers to him as 'Martin
> > >> Gardiner'.
> > >> >
> > >> > Is that a misprint? Or intentional?
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >