Rant on research; was, Re: [Sca-cooks] Re: Coffyns

[Bill Fisher]

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 21:56:11 -0500, Phil Troy / G. Tacitus Adamantius
<adamantius.magister at verizon.net> wrote:
> Also sprach Bill Fisher:
>
> Yep; she goes to a lot of trouble to present a readable Latin text,
> so if you have any questions about why she presents the English text
> as she does, you can check it against the Latin, even if the Latin is
> a concordance/synthesis of several manuscripts (Scully does this,
> too).

Yeah, been looking for a Scully copy too.

> But my point was that it's hard to argue this as a bad thing, even if
> don't choose or need to rely on it, it's good to have. Not having
> access to it doesn't make an English-only version bad, but having it
> is probably better than not having it, in that it limits your options
> to a lesser extent.
> 
> Adamantius

Yeah, definitely.  It puts you at least one step closer.  Even when I can't
read the language, I prefer to have the original text so if I choose to 
research something that makes no sense in english, I can.

But on the other hand, I can't fault the secondary sources either but I 
keep in mind when I am reading them, and hope they have a biblio 
that is at least in my reach in some form or another.


Cadoc

-- 

"The 'Net is a waste of time, and that's exactly what's right about it" -
                                    - William Gibson