DJA wrote:
Ralph Shumaker wrote:
DJA wrote:
Ralph Shumaker wrote:
I think that most even moderately literate people have certain
expectations not only of how words are spelled, but also of how they
*look*. Much of the way we recognized words is based on the word's
shape and size. Changing not only a word's spelling, but also its
size and shape is like randomly placing real looking, but
nonfunctional cars in the middle of the freeway.
Yeah, so let's get rid of words like "sans" when the word "without" is
perfectly good enough and much more commonly used. For that matter,
we don't really need "sic" or "viz" or (long list snipt for brevity).
Such words belong in the Department of Redundancy Department.
That seems to be a bit specious. Why stop there, let's just spell
*everything* phonetically! Seriously, nobody is suggesting replacing all
small words with their longer, or harder to type/spell/remember
synonyms. But a moderately literate person should have some expectations
as to how words are commonly spelled.
It's about communication. Spelling and grammar rules exist so as to give
everyone a consistent written means of communicating with each other.
Practical changes in spelling will evolve naturally along with the
spoken language (or a given dialect).
"Practical changes in spelling will evolve naturally ..."? Generally
speaking, not without considerable numbers of the masses pushing for it.
By the time the reader sees the word, he's already run over and past
it, and still wondering "What the hell was that!" when, disoriented,
he has to stop, back up, and take a second look.
If you're running over things because you can't avoid them, then you
are driving too fast for the conditions of the road *or* you are
tailgaiting. You should know this. :-)
Well, maybe a bad analogy on my part. But I didn't say "Things", I
specifically said "Cars". One has a reasonable expectation that, upon
seeing something on the road that looks like a car, it should /act/ like
a car and not like an incredibly decorated refrigerator carton (Scion
B's and Pontiac Aztecs notwithstanding).
So, cars that are wrecked and not moving are fair game I take it?
I agree that the analogy wasn't that good. I think it's more like in
the 70s when the American automobile was still the standard. Then all
of a sudden there started appearing compact cars on the road. They were
not sitting in the middle of the road. In fact they were smaller,
accelerated quicker, and maneuvered quicker. They were more responsive
in a smaller package. They were considered by many to be an eyesore and
quite inferior, not having anywhere near the power. They were
considered a fad and that it wouldn't last.
I think this is a more accurate analogy except that the most vocal of
the consumers are more resistant to the sleeker more responsive models
that are considered eyesores. And the most vocal group succeed in large
part in shaming the rest in avoiding changing over.
[snap]
I consider "tho" to be an improvement over "though". But I also see
it as something in common enough use to be not too awfully far from
adoption.
We obviously have vastly different reading lists.
By "not too awfully far", I mean I think it might be possible to see it
within my lifetime.
But I use punctuation a tad more strictly than what is standard. I
dislike seeing the period (or question mark or exclamation point)
which is part of a quotation being put outside the ending quote mark
just because the writer is too lazy to put his own punctuation there.
I say, "This is not so hard to do!".
I've done that both ways, but I think the formal rules for quotation
assumes the trailing '"' is an understood terminator for the enclosed
phrase. Adding ? or ! inside quoted text serves to indicate expression
rather than sentence termination. That's how I do it anyway.
I may be wrong, but fortunately, I find an insignificant number of
people are smart enough to notice.
If the quote that I'm quoting had the question mark, I think the quote
should keep it. If I'm asking a question, I'll put a second question
mark (otherwise a period or exclamation point) outside the quote because
that one belongs to *my* sentence. (It's consistent nesting.) It is my
choice and I'm unwilling to budge unless I see good cause. I don't care
whether or not anyone considers it an eyesore. I just won't go pushing
anyone else to adopt it. Take it or leave it.
--
Ralph
--
It is a damn poor mind indeed which can't think of at least two ways to
spell any word.
--Andrew Jackson
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
