I had read Tim Parks’s NYRB complaint about “an edit that transforms my English prose into American”; it was nicely written and brought up some valid issues (“But where I had written mamma and papà, the edit had transformed to ‘mamma’ and ‘pappa'”), but for me it basically fell into the “authors sure hate to be edited” file, and when he said “On sending in my observations on the proofs, my commissioning editor turns out to be more than ready to negotiate,” I said “Well, there you are, then,” and moved on. But frequent commenter Paul (thanks, Paul!) sent it to me with the observation that it was “one of those times when the added comments made its web version more interesting,” and sure enough, they do. I particularly liked a comment by linguist Thomas Wier, who I hope is this Thomas Wier (a Kartvelianist at the Free University of Tbilisi!); he starts off by saying “Speaking as a linguist who takes empirical evidence of language use very seriously, some of these problems are clearly just an editor’s whim”—alas, speaking as an editor, I have to acknowledge that editors exercise their whims all too frequently—and ends with “The bottom line is that more editors would do well with a course in introductory linguistics” (hear, hear!), in between sharing some interesting thoughts on got vs. gotten.