In the second paragraph of your article you use the term "renumeration." I have no doubt you meant to use the term "remuneration," just as I have no doubt of your complete comprehension of the difference between these two nouns.
It is such a common mistake that my out-of-date copy of MS Word does not pick it up. The online Oxford dictionary says it dates from the 1500s. I think we should redefine 'renumeration,' as the process of renumbering. BTW, I expect no remuneration for this suggestion.. Cackling is heard in the distance.
Nearly 50 years ago, I was fortunate to attend a lecture by Vincent Scully, eminent art historian, and Sterling professor at Yale. Since art history is the history of humanity and its cultural artifacts, its historians tend to be polymaths--Scully was no exception.
He often received standing ovations--which was the case at the lecture I attended. His audience, which over-filled the auditorium of Le Corbusier's Carpenter Center at Harvard U, were mesmerized after the one-hour lecture. Prof. Scully asked if they wanted to stay longer. His lecture went for four enthralling and memorable hours. Not many professors get asked for encores. Sadly, such intellectual genius is seldom found at today's Ivy League factories.
In the second paragraph of your article you use the term "renumeration." I have no doubt you meant to use the term "remuneration," just as I have no doubt of your complete comprehension of the difference between these two nouns.
It is such a common mistake that my out-of-date copy of MS Word does not pick it up. The online Oxford dictionary says it dates from the 1500s. I think we should redefine 'renumeration,' as the process of renumbering. BTW, I expect no remuneration for this suggestion.. Cackling is heard in the distance.
Many thanks! The spelling error has been corrected.
Nearly 50 years ago, I was fortunate to attend a lecture by Vincent Scully, eminent art historian, and Sterling professor at Yale. Since art history is the history of humanity and its cultural artifacts, its historians tend to be polymaths--Scully was no exception.
He often received standing ovations--which was the case at the lecture I attended. His audience, which over-filled the auditorium of Le Corbusier's Carpenter Center at Harvard U, were mesmerized after the one-hour lecture. Prof. Scully asked if they wanted to stay longer. His lecture went for four enthralling and memorable hours. Not many professors get asked for encores. Sadly, such intellectual genius is seldom found at today's Ivy League factories.