I am just wrapping up the proofreading part of my latest transcription project (this one I will give to the Gutenberg-project): the crime novel Mysterium Arcae Boulé by Burton E. Stevenson as translated by Arcadius Avellanus. I tried to weed out typos where clearly discernible as such (and not some variant spelling). I have one or two questions left, however. The first one is this:
Burton E. Stevenson wrote:"I knew that madame also..."
She stopped again. I walked over to the window and stood staring at the wooden shutter, strangely moved.
"Well, why not?" she demanded fiercely, and I felt that she was addressing my turned back. "Why not? Shall a woman not be loved? Shall a woman endure what madame endured..."
Arcadius Avellanus wrote:"Novi scilicet Heram quoque ..."
Iterum substitit. Interim ego ad fenestram perambulavi, ibique, valde commotus, forum ligneum spectans steti.
"Eccur non?" quaesivit aspere, ego autem scire putabam eam revera tergum meum alloqui. "Eccur non? Numquid amere mulieri nefas est? Num mulieri tolerandum est quod Hera toleravit? ..."
I keep wondering: is amere correct or a typo? It is a "correct" Latin word as such (alternative 2nd person singular present passive subjunctive), but I would have expected amari with nefas. But two typos in a single word seems suspicious. amare might be an impersonal statement (like "one would..."). What do you think?