I honestly don't know the answer to the first one, as this is the type of sentence that gives me hives.
The proper way (or, more correctly, the way that I would handle it) would be to rewrite the sentence to read:
If I may ask, what was the conclusion?
That way, you're giving the answer-er the option to answer the permission aspect of the question first, before the substantive aspect. Because otherwise, it's an intrusion: tell me the substance, if it is OK tacked on as an afterthought.
Yeah, if it had been in anything formal, I would've recast. It was in IM with eal that I typed the sentence, and then I didn't know how to punctuate it.
Yes, I wonder about punctuation in casual IM conversations. Yes, I know I'm a freak. :-)
We should talk about contractions sometime. I'm being plagued by an urge to shorten everything lately: I don't think I've written a pronoun without a 'd in days.
Is this terminal? Is it a sign of insecurity -- that I'm ashamed of my words and hence want to present them in the smallest space available?
What are the rules for coining new contractions? I think we should be able to engineer new pairings, as long as they're understandable, but some rather unfeeling editors at the Newspaper are taking the ridiculous position that if the word is not in the dictionary, they're not putting it in print.
When I posited that Shakespear made up words all the time and no one bitched at him, Steve the wondrous editor was quick to point out:
A) I don't know, actually, that no one never ragged on the bard for making up words.
(Do we know this? Conversely, do you know this?)
B) I may, in fact, not be shakespear -- nor even shakespearian in my prose.
(To which I say, Fie!)
And thirdly, I am slightly totally manic, and your prompt just gave me a whole gosh-danged story, darn you. I hope you're glued to the edge of your seat in anticipation.
We should talk about contractions sometime. I'm being plagued by an urge to shorten everything lately: I don't think I've written a pronoun without a 'd in days.
I'm fond of contractions (see there? I just used one), for the most part. They can be overused, I think, and I'm not sure I'm all for the multiple-contractions-in-one-word (as in, "I shouldn't've mentioned it." It's fine in speech; I think it looks odd in writing.)
Is this terminal? Is it a sign of insecurity -- that I'm ashamed of my words and hence want to present them in the smallest space available?
I've heard of terminal D (http://www.massport.com/logan/insid_termi_d.html), but I've never heard of terminal 'd. :-)
What are the rules for coining new contractions? I think we should be able to engineer new pairings, as long as they're understandable, but some rather unfeeling editors at the Newspaper are taking the ridiculous position that if the word is not in the dictionary, they're not putting it in print.
I coin new words regularly; I say it's one of the rights granted with a degree in Linguistics (though everyone's welcome to coin new words all they want).
When I posited that Shakespear made up words all the time and no one bitched at him, Steve the wondrous editor was quick to point out:
A) I don't know, actually, that no one never ragged on the bard for making up words.
(Do we know this? Conversely, do you know this?)
I really don't know if Shakespeare was given tsuris for coining new words. I do recommend Coined by Shakespeare (http://www.amazon.com/Coined-Shakespeare-Words-Meanings-Penned/dp/0877793530/sr=8-1/qid=1163692403/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-8439771-6329626?ie=UTF8&s=books), however.
And now I have a mental image of Marlowe ragging on Shakespeare for "assassination."
Ooh, look what I found: a partial list (http://shakespeare.about.com/library/weekly/aa042400a.htm) of Shakespeare's coinages. Of course, there are words that are attributed to Shakespeare that he didn't coin as much as reintroduce into regular usage.
::shakes spear::
B) I may, in fact, not be shakespear -- nor even shakespearian in my prose.
(To which I say, Fie!)
Fie! Feh, even! :-) (and thus, this icon)
mabfan and I went to a performance of "Julius Caesar" at which one of the actors was portraying, before the start of the play, the Bard himself. Apparently, anyone can be Shakespeare, should they wish.
And thirdly, I am slightly totally manic, and your prompt just gave me a whole gosh-danged story, darn you. I hope you're glued to the edge of your seat in anticipation.
Oh, yes, indeed I am. Glued for certain (or maybe that's just the stuff they're using to install the new carpet in my office). I look forward to seeing what you come up with from that prompt.
oh Nomi! I love you. I've punctuated text messages from my cell phone. And been rebuked bythe beloved for writing long messages as a result. I WILL NOT C U L8er. No! No! NO! I want semi colons.
I feel as if it's plainly the second option. The if I may ask is just a parenthetical comment, not really affecting the statement entire.
What gives me fits are the quotations-that-aren't. What was the point, he wondered -- I have no idea what to put at the end of that! Which is why I would rewrite. (That particular example would be easy to rewrite; I feel as though I know of a better, tougher example, but it doesn't come readily to mind. The idea is the question followed by an essential non-questioning element rather than a parenthetical or conditional element.)
This is completely unrelated, but how do you feel about the Southern tendency to say "might could" and "might should"? As in, "I might should go to the store today."
Personally, it gives me the willies, but I don't know if that's because I'm a Yankee or because it's JUST PLAIN WRONG. :)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-11-16 03:16 pm (UTC)The proper way (or, more correctly, the way that I would handle it) would be to rewrite the sentence to read:
If I may ask, what was the conclusion?
That way, you're giving the answer-er the option to answer the permission aspect of the question first, before the substantive aspect. Because otherwise, it's an intrusion: tell me the substance, if it is OK tacked on as an afterthought.
Or am I reading way, way, way too much into this?
Anyway, the second question is, of course, Narf.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-16 03:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-16 03:28 pm (UTC)Yes, I wonder about punctuation in casual IM conversations. Yes, I know I'm a freak. :-)
no subject
Date: 2006-11-16 03:39 pm (UTC)Is this terminal? Is it a sign of insecurity -- that I'm ashamed of my words and hence want to present them in the smallest space available?
What are the rules for coining new contractions? I think we should be able to engineer new pairings, as long as they're understandable, but some rather unfeeling editors at the Newspaper are taking the ridiculous position that if the word is not in the dictionary, they're not putting it in print.
When I posited that Shakespear made up words all the time and no one bitched at him, Steve the wondrous editor was quick to point out:
A) I don't know, actually, that no one never ragged on the bard for making up words.
(Do we know this? Conversely, do you know this?)
B) I may, in fact, not be shakespear -- nor even shakespearian in my prose.
(To which I say, Fie!)
And thirdly, I am slightly totally manic, and your prompt just gave me a whole gosh-danged story, darn you. I hope you're glued to the edge of your seat in anticipation.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-16 04:00 pm (UTC)I'm fond of contractions (see there? I just used one), for the most part. They can be overused, I think, and I'm not sure I'm all for the multiple-contractions-in-one-word (as in, "I shouldn't've mentioned it." It's fine in speech; I think it looks odd in writing.)
Is this terminal? Is it a sign of insecurity -- that I'm ashamed of my words and hence want to present them in the smallest space available?
I've heard of terminal D (http://www.massport.com/logan/insid_termi_d.html), but I've never heard of terminal 'd. :-)
What are the rules for coining new contractions? I think we should be able to engineer new pairings, as long as they're understandable, but some rather unfeeling editors at the Newspaper are taking the ridiculous position that if the word is not in the dictionary, they're not putting it in print.
I coin new words regularly; I say it's one of the rights granted with a degree in Linguistics (though everyone's welcome to coin new words all they want).
When I posited that Shakespear made up words all the time and no one bitched at him, Steve the wondrous editor was quick to point out:
A) I don't know, actually, that no one never ragged on the bard for making up words.
(Do we know this? Conversely, do you know this?)
I really don't know if Shakespeare was given tsuris for coining new words. I do recommend Coined by Shakespeare (http://www.amazon.com/Coined-Shakespeare-Words-Meanings-Penned/dp/0877793530/sr=8-1/qid=1163692403/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-8439771-6329626?ie=UTF8&s=books), however.
And now I have a mental image of Marlowe ragging on Shakespeare for "assassination."
Ooh, look what I found: a partial list (http://shakespeare.about.com/library/weekly/aa042400a.htm) of Shakespeare's coinages. Of course, there are words that are attributed to Shakespeare that he didn't coin as much as reintroduce into regular usage.
::shakes spear::
B) I may, in fact, not be shakespear -- nor even shakespearian in my prose.
(To which I say, Fie!)
Fie! Feh, even! :-) (and thus, this icon)
And thirdly, I am slightly totally manic, and your prompt just gave me a whole gosh-danged story, darn you. I hope you're glued to the edge of your seat in anticipation.
Oh, yes, indeed I am. Glued for certain (or maybe that's just the stuff they're using to install the new carpet in my office). I look forward to seeing what you come up with from that prompt.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-16 05:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-16 05:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-16 08:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-16 09:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-16 04:01 pm (UTC)What gives me fits are the quotations-that-aren't. What was the point, he wondered -- I have no idea what to put at the end of that! Which is why I would rewrite. (That particular example would be easy to rewrite; I feel as though I know of a better, tougher example, but it doesn't come readily to mind. The idea is the question followed by an essential non-questioning element rather than a parenthetical or conditional element.)
no subject
Date: 2006-11-16 09:17 pm (UTC)Personally, it gives me the willies, but I don't know if that's because I'm a Yankee or because it's JUST PLAIN WRONG. :)