Yeah, well, serves me right -- got myself in a twist with being too careful.
Meant to say, "Even if you're thinking of 'may' as being conditional rather
than present here ...". I checked it over before sending, and missed this
completely until it came up in my inbox. As I said, serves me right.
joanna, apologetically
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joanna Boulter" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: rip hyphens
> 'Were' in this case is the +past+ subjunctive, here used to express
> hypothetical condition. Therefore it needs to be taken up by the +past+
> tense, 'might'. You might want to be a bit less formal in this example and
> say 'if it *was* the latter', and that'd be perfectly ok, especially in
> speech, but you would still need to follow it with a verb in the past
> tense. 'May' is incorrect simply because it's present tense. Even if
> you're thinking of 'may' as being present rather than conditional here,
> you'll still need the +past+ conditional, which like the *imperfect* tense
> used above is (guess what?) 'might'.
>
> I think that's the correct explanation. If anyone can pin the thing down
> tighter I'll be glad to know. I get a bit bogged down sometimes between
> subjunctives and gerunds in English, because the truth is I do it by ear.
>
> Hey, that's probably why I can't do arithmetic!
>
> joanna
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Cudmore" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 2:57 PM
> Subject: Re: rip hyphens
>
>
>> Oops. I had no idea that there was a syntactic distinction to be made
>> between might and may. Instinctively, I reached for Fowler, the
>> stentorian
>> patron saint of pedants; however, he has nothing to say on the matter --
>> not
>> under those heads, anyway. 'Maybe', he notes, became "the recognized
>> rustic
>> or provincial substitute for 'perhaps'." So maybe 'may' is the rustic
>> version of 'might'.
>>
>> Can you explain the syntactic basis for one being correct and the other
>> not?
>>
>> P
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Poetryetc: poetry and poetics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>>> Behalf Of Joanna Boulter
>>> Sent: 24 September 2007 13:57
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: rip hyphens
>>>
>>> I was all set to pitch in here and say that 'if it *were*' should be
>>> followed by and completed by 'the hyphens *might* be unnecessary' *Not*
>>> 'may'. This is an error of syntax which is becoming almost universally
>>> prevalent, and which irritates the hell out of me. (Nearly as bad as
>>> 'for
>>> you and I'!) And then you disarm me by saying you're not a good
>> grammarian,
>>> and I feel really mean.
>>>
>>> But I'm for ever amazed at how very many highly educated people
>> consistently
>>> get both of these wrong. I admit to being a pedant on this front. It's
>>> probably to compensate for the fact that I can't do arithmetic, which I
>>> am
>>> sure you can. (And yet if I applied myself, I probably could learn to do
>> so,
>>> even at this late stage.)
>>>
>>> And you will all of course have noticed that in spite of the disclaimer
>>> in
>>> my first paragraph, I've said what I wanted to say anyway.
>>>
>>> joanna
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Peter Cudmore" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 1:25 PM
>>> Subject: Re: rip hyphens
>>>
>>>
>>> > Hey, it really works! I can get my thesis down to 100,000 words after
>> all!
>>> >
>>> > I hadn't thought about it before, but the fast in hard-and-fast must
>>> > be
>> as
>>> > in robust, unmoving rather than speedy or quick; if it were the latter
>>> > then
>>> > the hyphens may be unnecessary. The point is really more to do with
>>> > thinking
>>> > carefully about what one writes -- which of course we all do,
>> hereabouts.
>>> > I'm not a good grammarian, so the convenience of the 'no hyphen unless
>>> > really necessary' rule suits me.
>>> >
>>> > P
>>> >
>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>> >> From: Poetryetc: poetry and poetics [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> On
>>> >> Behalf Of Joanna Boulter
>>> >> Sent: 24 September 2007 12:24
>>> >> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> >> Subject: Re: rip hyphens
>>> >>
>>> >> I've just had occasion to use the term punch-drunk, and realised that
>>> >> neither punchdrunk nor punch drunk seemed to be what I meant.So, is
>>> >> it
>>> >> possible to make a hard-and-fast ruling? Which would not be the same
>>> >> as
>> a
>>> >> hard and fast one, nor yet as hardandfast.
>>> >>
>>> >> Doesn't word-count have something to do with it? So much text these
>> days
>>> >> seems to be reckoned by number of words, and totals can be adjusted
>>> >> by
>>> >> inserting or taking out hyphens. I've done it myself, when it
>>> >> wouldn't
>>> > make
>>> >> me feel compromised -- as indeed writing 'cooperate' (ouch!) does.
>>> >>
>>> >> joanna
>>> >>
>>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>>> >> From: "Peter Cudmore" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> >> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> >> Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 3:47 PM
>>> >> Subject: Re: rip hyphens
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> > I've long been a minimal hyphenator. I still wince every time I
>>> >> > type
>>> >> > 'cooperate', but I just grit my teeth and get on with it.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Anyway, noting in passing that the New York Times' comment pages
>>> >> > are
>>> > once
>>> >> > more free (no more premium content), I noticed this today:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/opinion/23margolick.html?ref=opinion>
>>> >> >
>>> >> > The Day Louis Armstrong Made Noise
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Mr. Lubenow stuck initially to his editor's script, asking Mr.
>>> >> > Armstrong
>>> >> > to
>>> >> > name his favorite musician. (Bing Crosby, it turned out.) But soon
>>> >> > he
>>> >> > brought up Little Rock, and he could not believe what he heard.
>>> >> > "It's
>>> >> > getting almost so bad a colored man hasn't got any country," a
>> furious
>>> > Mr.
>>> >> > Armstrong told him. President Eisenhower, he charged, was "two
>> faced,"
>>> > and
>>> >> > had "no guts." For Governor Faubus, he used a double-barreled
>>> >> > hyphenated
>>> >> > expletive, utterly unfit for print.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I wondered, just for a moment whether it was the hyphen that made
>>> >> > it
>>> > unfit
>>> >> > to print.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > P
>>> >> >
>>> >
>>
|