 |
 |
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 > > >> > > > > >