Hey, Mr P, are all these typos?
complicate + argument
complicate + relationship
complicate + handbook/manual
complicate + website navigation
complicate + mobile/cell functions
complicate + political policy
On the contrary. See the second part of the sentence: “it isn’t unreasonable to point out that M. himself belongs to that happy band.”
On the contrary. Not “should have”: “would have”.
A writer who decided to revive “complicate” would be aware that the ordinary reader would assume it was a typo. So he would naturally mark it in some way; probably with inverted commas.
MrP
We’ve had your rather spurious explanation of why you “suggested” that I wasn’t a non-native speaker. Now, are we going to get your explanation of why you think I’m a man?
And can we expect the “I think you’re white” comments soon?
Well, we’re back to the unmodalised assertions. Mr P becomes Mr [color=blue]C. [color=blue]Categorical statements will flow.
I would have though that
All writers should/have to, “if they want other readers to understand potentially ambiguous terms,” “mark them in some way – either with an explanation, or a “sic”, or inverted commas.”
I would say that good writers do that and poor writers don’t. Is Mr P saying that the writer of the text which was “full of typos” is a good writer?
Here’s an interesting 19th century example:
Immortality triumphant: The Existence of a God and Human Immortality. By John Bovee Dods. pg 29
I think “complicated” would express a different idea there. If used, it would have negative semantic prosody*, IMO.
In the same book:
“The body is, in all its complicate parts, but a natural result of mind itself.” pg 28
More on pg 41.
Which part of
strikes you as unmodalised?
MrP
On the general point, though “good writers” may take care to draw the reader’s attention to unusual usages, not all writers who draw the reader’s attention to unusual usages are “good”.
On the particular point, which typo-ridden text do you mean? There have been so many.
MrP