Would be simpler just to say 'if it +is+ the latter...' Anyway, I'm
perplexed as soon as tenses come into it. My mother didn't teach me tenses
on her knee, I got my modest accumulation of knowledge in that area from
schoolboy French. To be honest, it hadn't even occurred to me that 'may' is
(or might be) a verb.
So, anyway, hard-and-fast is quite different from fast and loose ;)
P
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Poetryetc: poetry and poetics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Joanna Boulter
> Sent: 24 September 2007 18:00
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 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
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >
|