Kasper, if you're studying English from the outside, so to speak, you very
probably know quite a bit more than many English people. It used to be well
taught in schools, but that is rarely so these days. I myself had an
inspired teacher, who used to invent comic detective stories which she
serialised for us to parse and analyse -- never did children so look forward
to homework! And that's where I learned that paired clauses balance their
tenses. It's a narrative thing.
And you're right, 'may' isn't rustic, not in the normal verbal sense. What
Fowler is meaning in Peter's quote is the term 'maybe', shortened from 'it
may be (so)'. It sounds like 'mebbe', and I think it's still in use further
south, but it's certainly used all the time up here in the north-east of
England.
The local usage that really intrigues me is 'youse mebbes' (pronounced
mebbees). It clearly means some sort of take on 'you might', singular or
plural, and makes perfect sense in its own terms when you hear it, and yet
after 18 years I still haven't managed to work out exactly how to define the
usage. It might even have northern European roots, because there've been
exchanges and invasions going on for centuries, enriching language and
culture amongst other more violent effects.
joanna
----- Original Message -----
From: "kasper salonen" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: rip hyphens
> perhaps y'all mean semantic?
>
> personally I never use 'may' as in "You may come in now" or "Yes you
> may have a slice of mango"; and for the other modal variety I always
> use 'might'. that permission marker use of 'may' is seriously
> antiquated IMO (how could 'may' be rustic?). 'can' works just as well,
> the only context that the distinction is of any importance is in
> semantics, which is mostly a waste of time, at least if we're looking
> at actual discourse patterns and not prescriptive grammarbabble.
>
> I dunno, I'm up to my neck in basic structures of english. pragmatics
> is looking a lot more appealing right now.
>
> it should be borne in mind that I'm a first-year linguistics student, so
>
> KS
>
> On 24/09/2007, Peter Cudmore <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 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
>> > >> >
>> > >
>>
|