----- Original Message -----
From: J Matthew Pearson <pearson@...>
> J Matthew Pearson wrote:
>
> > Sally Caves wrote:
> >
> > > Thank you, Matt, for a wonderful review of
> > > the segment! How nice of you! How nice of
> > > all of you to write in. Matt, please remind me
> > > of the "New Times" piece on Elvish that you've
> > > recently done. Did you inform me about this?
> > > Where can I/we read this?
> > I'm sorry to hear about all the omissions in the NPR interview, but as
you
> > yourself said, it's hard to boil down 30 minutes to 6 minutes,
especially
> > with music and 'sound effects' added. I'm also sorry that your
> > professional affiliation was omitted--that's a Bad Thing. But at least
the
> > stuff they chose to include was mostly factual. I will forever be known
to
> > the "New Times" readership as Mark Pearson! :-)
I read and saw that! It's a neat article anyway, though, and shows both you
and your colleague to be level-headed, intellectual professionals, not the
"dreamers" Yaguello calls conlangers. But I can't find the correction that
you
speak of below:
>
> Oops. I just rechecked the "New Times" site (it *is*
>
http://www.newtimesla.com, by the way) and discovered that, weeks after
> original article, they finally printed the correction about my name--along
with
> some other letters which you might find interesting. It's clear that
there are
> many many more conlangers and conlanging fans out there than are
represented on
> this list...
Okay, this I haven't gotten to. I, too, have received some letters from
people
who said they were closet conlangers, or who had children who were doing
this.
> Of course, even in my printed correction, all is not right: They
completely
> rephrased the text of my email, making it sound as though I'm blaming the
> author of the article for getting my name wrong.
But of course the author of your article got your name wrong! Who else
would have... you? "Yes, my name is Mark Pearson. Did I say Mark?
I meant Matt." Just in asking them to correct it you are ascribing blame
in their minds, because they are guilty!
> I never made any such
> accusation, but instead speculated that the mistake could have crept in
either
> in the writing process *or* in the editorial process. Interesting how the
> editors removed themselves from blame with a little judicious snipping.
Ah,
> the perils of the media... :-)
And the paranoias. Good show, Matt!
Sally Caves
scaves@frontiernet.net
http://www.frontiernet.net/~scaves/teonaht.html