[COMPLETE] Mrs. Dymond by Thackeray Ritchi - ke
-
- Posts: 12335
- Joined: April 4th, 2016, 4:52 pm
Here are 39 and 40 redone. I will also put them in MW. It looks as if you are in control of the MW now. True?
https://librivox.org/uploads/kathrinee/mrsdymond_39_ritchie_128kb.mp3 12.79 KB
https://librivox.org/uploads/kathrinee/mrsdymond_40_ritchie_128kb.mp3 13.31 KB
13:38
14:12
Jim
https://librivox.org/uploads/kathrinee/mrsdymond_39_ritchie_128kb.mp3 12.79 KB
https://librivox.org/uploads/kathrinee/mrsdymond_40_ritchie_128kb.mp3 13.31 KB
13:38
14:12
Jim
-
- Posts: 12335
- Joined: April 4th, 2016, 4:52 pm
Here is 41:
https://librivox.org/uploads/kathrinee/mrsdymond_41_ritchie_128kb.mp3 16.91 KB
18:02
Jim
https://librivox.org/uploads/kathrinee/mrsdymond_41_ritchie_128kb.mp3 16.91 KB
18:02
Jim
https://librivox.org/uploads/kathrinee/mrsdymond_26_ritchie_128kbs.mp3 13.69 KB
14:35
https://librivox.org/uploads/kathrinee/mrsdymond_27_ritchie_128kbs.mp3
14:32
Im sorry Jim just cant seem to save the file in the MW.
Roohi
14:35
https://librivox.org/uploads/kathrinee/mrsdymond_27_ritchie_128kbs.mp3
14:32
Im sorry Jim just cant seem to save the file in the MW.
Roohi
-
- Posts: 12335
- Joined: April 4th, 2016, 4:52 pm
No problem. This works just fine. I will enter them. And I will try to listen to these this evening.
-
- Posts: 12335
- Joined: April 4th, 2016, 4:52 pm
Excellent, Roohi. Both 26 and 27 are PL OK!
-
- Posts: 12335
- Joined: April 4th, 2016, 4:52 pm
Here is 42:
https://librivox.org/uploads/kathrinee/mrsdymond_42_ritchie_128kb.mp3 12.35 KB
13:10
Jim
https://librivox.org/uploads/kathrinee/mrsdymond_42_ritchie_128kb.mp3 12.35 KB
13:10
Jim
-
- Posts: 12335
- Joined: April 4th, 2016, 4:52 pm
Here is the corrected version:
https://librivox.org/uploads/kathrinee/mrsdymond_42_ritchie_128kb.mp3 12.32 KB
13:08
Jim
Forgive the following: I once was a PL for a person and discovered something like twenty-eight mistakes in her recording, by which I mean differences from the text and her recorded version. She was a veteran, and so of course knew the proverbial ropes and proceeded, to my profound amazement, to inform me that she was surprised at the number of deviations from the original in her version, but that there was not one of those I thought were mistakes that actually needed to be "fixed." And that, she explained, was because her deviations in no way impeded the sense of the passage. And further she said that there are different kinds of readings we as PL's conduct, and her passage was to be read according to the "standard" requirements rather than the other extreme, which is the "word-perfect" method. Each project is designated in the MW with the method for proof-listening, which leads me to the mistakes you discovered in my latest submission. The "standard" reading does ask for the PL to note long pauses and significant omissions (among the other items which you can find by checking the explanation on the librivox site). I agreed with both your citations. But because the omission of "should" did not really impede the sense significantly, it made me think to mention all of the above in case you didn't know about all of this. And if you did, then accept my little drama here as nonsense and tomfoolery! Yours .
{Sorry, the indication of the type of proof-listening for the project is in the info above the MW, not in the MW as I said}
https://librivox.org/uploads/kathrinee/mrsdymond_42_ritchie_128kb.mp3 12.32 KB
13:08
Jim
Forgive the following: I once was a PL for a person and discovered something like twenty-eight mistakes in her recording, by which I mean differences from the text and her recorded version. She was a veteran, and so of course knew the proverbial ropes and proceeded, to my profound amazement, to inform me that she was surprised at the number of deviations from the original in her version, but that there was not one of those I thought were mistakes that actually needed to be "fixed." And that, she explained, was because her deviations in no way impeded the sense of the passage. And further she said that there are different kinds of readings we as PL's conduct, and her passage was to be read according to the "standard" requirements rather than the other extreme, which is the "word-perfect" method. Each project is designated in the MW with the method for proof-listening, which leads me to the mistakes you discovered in my latest submission. The "standard" reading does ask for the PL to note long pauses and significant omissions (among the other items which you can find by checking the explanation on the librivox site). I agreed with both your citations. But because the omission of "should" did not really impede the sense significantly, it made me think to mention all of the above in case you didn't know about all of this. And if you did, then accept my little drama here as nonsense and tomfoolery! Yours .
{Sorry, the indication of the type of proof-listening for the project is in the info above the MW, not in the MW as I said}