Re: Elves and Ill Bethisad
From: | Muke Tever <hotblack@...> |
Date: | Thursday, November 6, 2003, 10:17 |
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 03:44:36 -0500, Tristan McLeay <zsau@...>
wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003, Muke Tever wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 17:33:43 -0500, Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>
>> wrote:
>> > Indeed. At the very least dropping the apostrophe from
>> > "y'all" would spare us from the horrible "ya'll", which I see
>> > far too often. :)
>>
>> I think the apostophro.. ... apostrophe is _supposed_ to be dropped for
>> the contraction <yall're>. (I think there's a rule in English that
>> prohibits multiple apostrophes in a word, which is why Lewis Carroll's
>> <ca'n't> looks so weird--he explains it as the <n't> is for <not>, so
>> where does the <n> from <can> go?)
>
> Well, who said the <n> isn't from <can> and the apostrophe doesn't show
> the missing < no>?
That's _his_ point.
<< Other critics have objected to certain innovations in spelling,
such as “ca’n’t”, “wo’n’t”, “traveler”. In reply, I can only
plead
my firm conviction that the popular usage is _wrong._ As to
“ca’n’t”, it will not be disputed that, in all _other_ words
ending
in “n’t”, these letters are an abbreviation of “not”; and it is
surely absurd to suppose that, in this solitary instance, “not”
is represented by " ‘t”! In fact “can’t” is the _proper_
abbreviation
for “can it”, just as “is’t” is for “is it”. Again, in “wo’n’t”,
the first apostrophe is needed, because the word “would” is here
_abridged_ into “wo”: but I hold it proper to spell “don’t” with
only one apostrophe, because the word “do” is here _complete._ >>
>> And <ya'll> isnt horrible when used properly, viz. for what ya'll do
>> when
>> building contractions with ya.
>
> Yeah, if <ya'll> is you (pl), then what's you (sing., unstressed)
> + (fut)?
That's what I said :x)
*Muke!
--
http://frath.net/
http://kohath.livejournal.com/
E jer savne zarjé mas ne (You put music in my heart
Se imné koone'f metha And with the spirit of an artist
Brissve mé kolé adâ. I will make the dreamtime)