Hi, Alexander!  Recently you wrote in a message to All:   
      
   ak>  http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/30205410   
   ak>  -----Beginning of the citation-----   
   ak>  "Around three percent of the Swiss secretly eat cat or   
   ak>  dog," said Tomi Tomek, founder and president of animal   
   ak>  protection group SOS Chats Noiraigue."   
   ak>  ----- The end of the citation -----   
      
   ak>  Should a reporter replay the errors of the person he   
   ak>  interviewed?   
      
      
             In a direct quotation like the above, yes.  If the reporter believes   
   the other person has made an error in spelling or grammar s/he can indicate as   
   much by adding "[sic]".  Recently I noticed in a free weekly newspaper:   
      
        People sometimes get stranded on the water in a dingy [sic] or a canoe.   
      
             This is the topic sentence of a story about how an Australian couple   
   used inflatable dolls to keep afloat when some unspecified watercraft met with   
   an accident.  I think the author probably meant "dinghy"... and if the rest of   
   the story weren't equally garbled it might be very amusing.  But I use "[sic]"   
   to indicate I'm copying exactly what I saw & the error isn't my fault....  ;-)   
      
      
      
   ak>  Or we can write "cat and dog" without any article?   
      
      
             If you think about the history of the English language, why not?  We   
   eat "beef" & "mutton" (e.g.) because the Norman French who invaded old Blighty   
   in 1066 used +/- the same terms.  WRT these animals "on the hoof", however, we   
   have kept +/- the vocabulary which their Anglo-Saxon food suppliers & domestic   
   servants would have used.  I guess the Norman French weren't particularly fond   
   of eating "cat" & "dog" because I see no such class distinction there....  :-)   
      
      
      
      
   --- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+   
    * Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)