Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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@...>
> 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! -- 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)