| Author |
Message |
Spockie
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 10:31 pm
Post subject: "You are special to me; honey" |
|
|
"You are special to me; honey"
This is not necessary correct because honey and me are close to each other.
It is better to have "You are special to me. Honey." ?
What about "There is not much I could do anymore, honey"
That honey is modifying anymore; thus, that is incorrect too.
Therefore, honey should be separated with a period or a simicolon?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 10:35 pm
Post subject: Re: "You are special to me; honey" |
|
|
Spockie wrote:
| Quote: | "You are special to me; honey"
This is not necessary correct because honey and me are close to
each
other.
It is better to have "You are special to me. Honey." ?
What about "There is not much I could do anymore, honey"
That honey is modifying anymore; thus, that is incorrect too.
Therefore, honey should be separated with a period or a simicolon?
|
Neither, Spockie. "Honey" is the person addressed, so use a comma,
friend.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pat Durkin
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 11:49 pm
Post subject: Re: "You are special to me; honey" |
|
|
"Spockie" <spockie@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Xns96BD6108933E0spockieverizonnet@199.45.49.11...
| Quote: | "You are special to me; honey"
This is not necessary correct because honey and me are close to each
other.
It is better to have "You are special to me. Honey." ?
What about "There is not much I could do anymore, honey"
That honey is modifying anymore; thus, that is incorrect too.
Therefore, honey should be separated with a period or a simicolon?
|
Mike is correct. The comma is the way to go.
In addition, your thinking that "honey" modifies "anymore" in your last
example is strange. "Honey" is a name or title used in direct address, and
should be set off (surrounded . . .unless it is located at the end of the
sentence) by commas. It is not a part of the sentence, and doesn't "modify"
anything.
So, in your last example, you punctuated correctly. In direct address,
names, titles and terms of endearment or scorn, etc. are set off from the
sentence proper.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Phillipson
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 12:03 am
Post subject: Re: "You are special to me; honey" |
|
|
"Spockie" <spockie@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Xns96BD6108933E0spockieverizonnet@199.45.49.11...
| Quote: | What about "There is not much I could do anymore, honey"
That honey is modifying anymore; thus, that is incorrect too.
|
Anymore is not an accepted English word. It is an error for
any more (two words.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Flynn
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 12:26 am
Post subject: Re: "You are special to me; honey" |
|
|
Mike Lyle wrote:
| Quote: | Spockie wrote:
"You are special to me; honey"
This is not necessary correct because honey and me are close to
each other.
It is better to have "You are special to me. Honey." ?
What about "There is not much I could do anymore, honey"
That honey is modifying anymore; thus, that is incorrect too.
Therefore, honey should be separated with a period or a simicolon?
Neither, Spockie. "Honey" is the person addressed, so use a comma,
friend.
|
Agreement.
But out of interest and for comparison, you might like to watch the
'dialogue cards' carefully in the great Chaplin film, _City Lights_.
I can't recall exactly when, but there is definitely a vocative
noun phrase set off with a semi-colon among them, as in the first
sentence of the OP's message.
--
johnF
"Moreover, when in heat, cows are commonly tormented by erotic images
and act out the sexual act with such evidence as to simulate the
position of the male."
-- _The Origins and Nature of Language_. Giorgio Fano (1962) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mUs1Ka
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 12:35 am
Post subject: Re: "You are special to me; honey" |
|
|
Spockie wrote:
| Quote: | "You are special to me; honey"
This is not necessary correct because honey and me are close to each
other.
It is better to have "You are special to me. Honey." ?
What about "There is not much I could do anymore, honey"
That honey is modifying anymore; thus, that is incorrect too.
Therefore, honey should be separated with a period or a simicolon?
|
No, with a honey/wax separator.
--
Ray. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Odysseus
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 7:00 am
Post subject: Re: "You are special to me; honey" |
|
|
Don Phillipson wrote:
| Quote: |
"Spockie" <spockie@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Xns96BD6108933E0spockieverizonnet@199.45.49.11...
What about "There is not much I could do anymore, honey"
That honey is modifying anymore; thus, that is incorrect too.
Anymore is not an accepted English word. It is an error for
any more (two words.)
|
I would never use it myself, but it seems quite unexceptionable in
AmE. In certain regions or dialects it's used in positive sentences
-- something you'd rarely, if ever, hear from a Canadian or a Brit --
meaning "now" or "these days".
--
Odysseus |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Uhurie
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 2:52 pm
Post subject: Re: "You are special to me; honey" |
|
|
Spockie wrote:
| Quote: | "You are special to me; honey"
~ |
I always had a thing about you, sugarplum! :-D
Uhurie |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 6:25 pm
Post subject: Re: "You are special to me; honey" |
|
|
Spockie wrote:
| Quote: | This is not necessary correct because honey and me are close to each other.
|
"honey and I"
GFH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2005 3:16 pm
Post subject: Re: "You are special to me; honey" |
|
|
georgeh@ankerstein.org wrote:
| Quote: | Spockie wrote:
This is not necessary correct because honey and me are close to each other.
"honey and I"
~ |
That's a complicated one! - it was "honey and I" when I was at school,
but it *may* be "honey and me", now! :-S
Nick |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
meirman
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 28, 2005 10:57 pm
Post subject: Re: "You are special to me; honey" |
|
|
In alt.english.usage on 27 Aug 2005 02:16:16 -0700 "Nick"
<pacifico@btopenworld.com> posted:
| Quote: |
georgeh@ankerstein.org wrote:
Spockie wrote:
This is not necessary correct because honey and me are close to each other.
"honey and I"
~
That's a complicated one! - it was "honey and I" when I was at school,
but it *may* be "honey and me", now! :-S
|
No. It's still Honey and I. Either there are now more people who say
it wrong, or we now let them on radio and tv. A partial solution
would be to stop letting them on radio and tv.
s/ meirman
Posting from alt.english.usage
--
My English in this reply is colloquial, and may not always use full sentences.
For gosh sakes, when you ask a question, say what sort of English you are asking about.
When you give an answer, say in what part of the world you think your answer is valid.
If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Town NW of Pittsburgh Pa. 0 to 10 years | Brooklyn 12 years
Indianapolis 7 years | Now in
Chicago 6 years | Baltimore 22 years |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2005 2:59 pm
Post subject: Re: "You are special to me; honey" |
|
|
meirman wrote:
| Quote: | In alt.english.usage on 27 Aug 2005 02:16:16 -0700 "Nick"
pacifico@btopenworld.com> posted:
georgeh@ankerstein.org wrote:
Spockie wrote:
This is not necessary correct because honey and me are close to each other.
"honey and I"
~
That's a complicated one! - it was "honey and I" when I was at school,
but it *may* be "honey and me", now! :-S
No. It's still Honey and I. Either there are now more people who say
it wrong, or we now let them on radio and tv. A partial solution
would be to stop letting them on radio and tv.
--
My English in this reply is colloquial,
~ |
I'm sure erudite professor-types have espoused "...and I" on British TV
in the past, but I'm with you!
"Colloquial" tag is a *good* idea! :-)
Nick |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2005 3:01 pm
Post subject: Re: "You are special to me; honey" |
|
|
Nick wrote:
| Quote: | meirman wrote:
In alt.english.usage on 27 Aug 2005 02:16:16 -0700 "Nick"
pacifico@btopenworld.com> posted:
georgeh@ankerstein.org wrote:
Spockie wrote:
This is not necessary correct because honey and me are close to each other.
"honey and I"
~
That's a complicated one! - it was "honey and I" when I was at school,
but it *may* be "honey and me", now! :-S
No. It's still Honey and I. Either there are now more people who say
it wrong, or we now let them on radio and tv. A partial solution
would be to stop letting them on radio and tv.
--
My English in this reply is colloquial,
~
I'm sure erudite professor-types have espoused "...and I" on British TV
in the past, but I'm with you!
~ |
TYPO - should have read "...and ME" - one has to be *so* careful!
Nick |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
meirman
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 4:46 am
Post subject: Re: "You are special to me; honey" |
|
|
In alt.english.usage on 30 Aug 2005 02:01:49 -0700 "Nick"
<pacifico@btopenworld.com> posted:
| Quote: |
Nick wrote:
meirman wrote:
In alt.english.usage on 27 Aug 2005 02:16:16 -0700 "Nick"
pacifico@btopenworld.com> posted:
georgeh@ankerstein.org wrote:
Spockie wrote:
This is not necessary correct because honey and me are close to each other.
"honey and I"
~
That's a complicated one! - it was "honey and I" when I was at school,
but it *may* be "honey and me", now! :-S
No. It's still Honey and I. Either there are now more people who say
it wrong, or we now let them on radio and tv. A partial solution
would be to stop letting them on radio and tv.
--
My English in this reply is colloquial,
~
I'm sure erudite professor-types have espoused "...and I" on British TV
in the past, but I'm with you!
~
TYPO - should have read "...and ME" - one has to be *so* careful!
|
That's right. One might be correct when he means to be wrong.
I made a mistake once. In 1989, I intended to give an example of
something wrong, but I accidentally gave an example of something
right.
s/ meirman
Posting from alt.english.usage
--
My English in this reply is colloquial, and may not always use full sentences.
For gosh sakes, when you ask a question, say what sort of English you are asking about.
When you give an answer, say in what part of the world you think your answer is valid.
If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Town NW of Pittsburgh Pa. 0 to 10 years | Brooklyn 12 years
Indianapolis 7 years | Now in
Chicago 6 years | Baltimore 22 years |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 3:01 pm
Post subject: Re: "You are special to me; honey" |
|
|
meirman wrote:
| Quote: | In alt.english.usage on 30 Aug 2005 02:01:49 -0700 "Nick"
pacifico@btopenworld.com> posted:
Nick wrote:
meirman wrote:
In alt.english.usage on 27 Aug 2005 02:16:16 -0700 "Nick"
pacifico@btopenworld.com> posted:
georgeh@ankerstein.org wrote:
Spockie wrote:
This is not necessary correct because honey and me are close to each other.
"honey and I"
~
That's a complicated one! - it was "honey and I" when I was at school,
but it *may* be "honey and me", now! :-S
No. It's still Honey and I. Either there are now more people who say
it wrong, or we now let them on radio and tv. A partial solution
would be to stop letting them on radio and tv.
--
My English in this reply is colloquial,
~
I'm sure erudite professor-types have espoused "...and I" on British TV
in the past, but I'm with you!
~
TYPO - should have read "...and ME" - one has to be *so* careful!
That's right. One might be correct when he means to be wrong.
I made a mistake once. In 1989, I intended to give an example of
something wrong, but I accidentally gave an example of something
right.
~ |
1989!? - say! that's good going! :-)
Nick |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in