Is it unreasonable to drop a book because of a grammar mistake? I just think a translator capable of this cannot be trusted to write decent prose.
>>8168069
Absolutely not. There has to be a minimum standard somewhere and grammar is as good a baseline as any.
>>8168069
It's unreasonable to create a thread on 4chan about it.
>>8168069
That isn't even one of those mistakes you make when you have a lot going on in your mind or have to rewrite a sentence many times, that's just plain stupid tbqh. Unless that's the only translation out there I would drop it.
>>8168069
the following sentence suggests this is a first person narrative - "he said we wanted it that way"
is "you'd of" a mistake that the character speaking would be likely to make?
if so then this is completely ok. human beings do not speak in perfect grammar.
also, it's not necessary to be completely anal about every little thing
>>8168114
This. I don't know how you could have arrived at any other conclusion, OP.
>>8168455
By being a pleb, obviously.
>prescriptivism
surest way to spot 110-120 iq turboplebs
>>8168981
>iq
Found the real turbopleb.
>>8168981
This is one of the strangest insults(?) I've seen on 4chan in my 13 years of visiting this site.
>>8169019
>my mommy says the tests don't matter i'm still her smart little boy
Maybe it's intentional?
>>8168069
There's no mistake there...
>>8169031
being so insecure you need to hide behind a test score to feel better is just sad, anon.
It could be either a. intentional, or b. an issue converting the novel to ebook format
>>8169078
or c. pleb translator. be honest
>>8169076
What did you get anon, below 120?
I feel sorry for you, man
>>8169029
welcome to /lit/
>>8168981
>hurr if you believe in grammar you're a prescriptivist
>all usage is valid hurr durr I'm a fucking retard
>>8169198
>"You'd 've" and "You'd of" are phonetically identical
maybe in the backwaters of buttfuck alabama or wherever you live
>>8169204
I'm serious. Where is the mistake? Please point it out for me.
>>8169114
140, but I don't go around stroking my dick because of an utterly pointless score.
You are truly pathetic to even try to insult me suggesting I would care about it. I'd tell you to go kys, but I'm sure you are punishing yourself plenty by being this autistic.
>>8169409
How did that internet iq test go, are you also some 16 types personality?
>>8169264
They are identical in RP, you dumbfuck.
>>8168069
keep reading, senpai. pedro paramo is a masterpiece regardless of revision/grammar mistake in translation
>>8169385
I sincerely hope you are trolling, and not this fucking retarded.
The expression "would of" is not a grammatical expression in English.
>>8169496
they qute clearly are not
and there's no need to be quite so aggressive, you inbred mutant turd burglar
'Would of' is a mistake but I can't understand why op is chimping out so hard itt. It looks like genre shit anyways so picking the book up was a bigger mistake than any grammar issues we're discussing.
This thread made me realize how little of a shit I give about 'proper' grammar.
>>8170581
Anyone unfortunate enough to read your syntax will certainly have gleaned that information long ago.
What you take for snobbery is something that you literally don't have to contend with at your 10wpm sub vocalizing level.
The difference between 'have' and 'of' means nothing! Let's mix them up in other places too!
Of you heard have grammar? Of a good day ;)
I'm ofing difficulty understanding you.
London district of not historically incorporate the city have London proper, which still of a separate governing body and election system.
Wonderful
>>8169259
>>hurr if you believe in grammar you're a prescriptivist
you literally are.
i agree, characters in books have to speak with perfect grammar and have to never lie
>>8169198
>"You'd 've" and "You'd of" are phonetically identical
More of a reason to be nice to the translator, its a simple mistake too make.
