It's an interesting idea, but I'm thrown by "a count" in "should be taken into a count by future translations"

▲ cvoss 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah, weird to see a couple of linguistic mistakes like this in an article about linguistic mistakes. Another is the misuse of "latter-day". The article uses it to refer to an old thing that is analogous to a modern thing: "[a] latter-day 'yo!'" But "latter-day" actually describes something modern. (E.g., the "latter days" refers to the present age. See "Latter-day Saints".)

	▲	selimthegrim 17 hours ago \| parent [-]
		See also "latterly".

▲ jihadjihad 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Amusingly, the source article [0] linked to in TFA does not contain the same error:

  > “I’d like to say that the interpretation I have put forward should be taken into account by future translations,” he said.

0: https://www.the-independent.com/arts-entertainment/books/new...

▲

pc86 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Is this the Beowulf translation field equivalent of incorrectly correcting someone's correct use of the their/there/they're homophones?

	▲	steve1977 18 hours ago \| parent [-]
		They should of considered that! /s

▲ steve1977 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Me too, I just thought that I wouldn't trust an article on linguistics with such an error too much.

▲ Jtsummers 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Not present in the original report at The Independent:

> “I’d like to say that the interpretation I have put forward should be taken into account by future translations,” he said.

https://www.the-independent.com/arts-entertainment/books/new...

It's possible The Independent fixed it up in an edit after The Poetry Foundation made a copy of it.