| Author |
Message |
Mark Brader
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:36 am
Post subject: Re: About that "too" |
|
|
Bob Cunningham was quoted as writing:
| Quote: | I, too, once worked in a
place where I punched a clock to the nearest 0.1 hour
|
Jim Lawton asks:
| Quote: | What sort of clock would select 6 minutes over five for punching
purposes?
|
Obviously, one designed to work in decimal fractions of an hour.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "These days UNIX isn't very UNIX-like"
msb@vex.net -- Doug Gwyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:44 am
Post subject: Re: About that "too" |
|
|
On 09 Oct 2005, Mark Brader wrote
| Quote: | Bob Cunningham was quoted as writing:
I, too, once worked in a
place where I punched a clock to the nearest 0.1 hour
Jim Lawton asks:
What sort of clock would select 6 minutes over five for punching
purposes?
Obviously, one designed to work in decimal fractions of an hour.
|
Sliding sideways, the conventional display of the number of balls
playaed in an over in cricket (consisting of 6 valid balls) uses a dot
that comes across as a decimal point, but which isn't used as one.
"25.3 overs" is used to show "25 overs and 3 of the 6 balls of the next
over", rather than the decimal measurement of that position (which
would be "25.5 overs".
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Cunningham
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:38 am
Post subject: Re: About that "too" |
|
|
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 10:35:47 -0700, "Skitt"
<skitt99@comcast.net> said:
[...]
| Quote: | I agree, but as I mentioned before, there's a far better
way to write that sentence. There's also nothing wrong
with using commas to avoid ambiguity. That was mentioned
in the CMoS piece I quoted earlier. It's just that in
many cases (not all) there's no reason to put commas next
to or around a "too".
|
When the "too" is parenthetical, as it was in my statement
that touched off this thread, that's reason enough for me to
use some suitable bracketing, whether it's dashes, commas,
parentheses; or to put the "too" in a footnote.
In "I, too, worked in a place", the "too" is parenthetical,
so it's right to enclose it using one of the bracketing
conventions.
The situation becomes a little more interesting when we
replace "too" by "also". Note the ambiguity in "I also
worked in a place like that". It can mean I am another one
who worked in a place like that, or it can mean that in
addition to listening to music or reading a book in a place
like that, I also worked. But in "I, also, worked in a
place like that", it seems more clear that in addition to
someone else working in a place like that, I did, too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Cunningham
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:47 am
Post subject: Re: About that "too" |
|
|
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 11:25:28 -0700, "Skitt"
<skitt99@comcast.net> said:
| Quote: | Mike Lyle wrote:
Skitt wrote:
Mike Lyle wrote:
Bob Cunningham wrote:
[...]
If I reed something like "I too worked at a place like
that", the "too" will prepare me for something to be
modified by the adverb "too". After I see that the word
following "too" can't be properly modified by the adverb
"too", I have to spend a few milliseconds to realize that
"too" is not an adverb in this case. Proper punctuation of
the parenthetical remark avoids that false scent.
As, indeed, with the string "I too often jump to conclusions".
I agree, but as I mentioned before, there's a far better way to write
that sentence.[...]
A matter of taste in this case, of course. But if there's a long bit
qualifying "conclusions", it would be very clumsy to put the
parenthetic "too" at the end. "Jones often jumped to conclusions
which, in the light of mature consideration, he found to be quite
unjustified, too."
Ever consider dropping the "too" and using an "also" between "he" and
"found" in that case? Easy fix. There's more than one way to skin a cat,
you know.
|
As I've indicated in another posting, "Jones also jumped to
conclusions" can mean that in addition to crawling to
conclusions, he also jumped to them. Or it could mean that
in addition to jumping to other things, he also jumped to
conclusions.
But "Jones, also, jumped to conclusions" comes closer to
clearly expressing the probably intended thought as it would
be unambiguously expressed in speech, where intonation and
stress make a huge difference that's unavailable in writing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skitt
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 5:01 am
Post subject: Re: About that "too" |
|
|
Bob Cunningham wrote:
| Quote: | "Skitt" said:
[...]
I agree, but as I mentioned before, there's a far better
way to write that sentence. There's also nothing wrong
with using commas to avoid ambiguity. That was mentioned
in the CMoS piece I quoted earlier. It's just that in
many cases (not all) there's no reason to put commas next
to or around a "too".
When the "too" is parenthetical, as it was in my statement
that touched off this thread, that's reason enough for me to
use some suitable bracketing, whether it's dashes, commas,
parentheses; or to put the "too" in a footnote.
In "I, too, worked in a place", the "too" is parenthetical,
so it's right to enclose it using one of the bracketing
conventions.
The situation becomes a little more interesting when we
replace "too" by "also". Note the ambiguity in "I also
worked in a place like that". It can mean I am another one
who worked in a place like that, or it can mean that in
addition to listening to music or reading a book in a place
like that, I also worked. But in "I, also, worked in a
place like that", it seems more clear that in addition to
someone else working in a place like that, I did, too.
|
Take it up with the CMoS people. All I'm doing is justifying the way I have
been writing and am going to continue to write. Your last comma, the one
between your "did" and "too", is entirely unnecessary. It does not clarify,
it does not disambiguate, and it is not used to indicate a pause there. In
other words, it has no purpose. That "too" is closely related to the "I
did" part and should not be separated from it.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Cunningham
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 5:12 am
Post subject: Re: About that "too" |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 18:13:14 GMT, Jim Lawton
<usenet1@jimlawton.TAKEOUTinfo> said:
[...]
| Quote: | What sort of clock would select 6 minutes over five for
punching purposes?
|
One whose punching mechanism had been designed to disregard
minutes and advance its punching time in increments of 0.1
hour.
I can imagine that it would be more complicated for the
mechanism to count minutes and advance the punching time
every so many minutes, than to have a wheel geared to rotate
ten times per hour and trigger the punching time on each
revolution. To get the complete punching time, the clock
would only have to combine the value of the hour and the
value of the tenths counter.
The clock could, of course, be designed to punch to the
nearest minute, but I can see where that would impose an
extra burden on payroll clerks who didn't want to be
bothered with that degree of precision.
Also, if a payroll clerk were given a time worked in hours
and minutes, in order to compute the amount due, the clerk
would have to convert the minutes to some decimal fraction
of an hour in order to multiply it by the hourly rate.
(Nowadays a computer would do all of that, but I'm thinking
about the 1950s, before we "went IBM".) It's obviously more
efficient to hand the clerk the converted value to begin
with.
| Quote: | I was hauled over the coals in 1964 for "persistent
lateness" - I'd accumulated 15 minutes of "lates" in 3
months.
|
My boss once showed me a memo from his boss that said
something like
Now that <name withheld> is no longer with us,
I guess Bob Cunningham will be the one who
most often punches in a tenth or so late. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skitt
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 5:38 am
Post subject: Re: About that "too" |
|
|
Bob Cunningham wrote:
| Quote: | "Skitt" said:
Mike Lyle wrote:
Skitt wrote:
Mike Lyle wrote:
Bob Cunningham wrote:
If I reed something like "I too worked at a place like
that", the "too" will prepare me for something to be
modified by the adverb "too". After I see that the word
following "too" can't be properly modified by the adverb
"too", I have to spend a few milliseconds to realize that
"too" is not an adverb in this case. Proper punctuation of
the parenthetical remark avoids that false scent.
As, indeed, with the string "I too often jump to conclusions".
I agree, but as I mentioned before, there's a far better way to
write that sentence.[...]
A matter of taste in this case, of course. But if there's a long bit
qualifying "conclusions", it would be very clumsy to put the
parenthetic "too" at the end. "Jones often jumped to conclusions
which, in the light of mature consideration, he found to be quite
unjustified, too."
Ever consider dropping the "too" and using an "also" between "he" and
"found" in that case? Easy fix. There's more than one way to skin
a cat, you know.
As I've indicated in another posting, "Jones also jumped to
conclusions" can mean that in addition to crawling to
conclusions, he also jumped to them. Or it could mean that
in addition to jumping to other things, he also jumped to
conclusions.
|
I know, and that's a reason not to write sentences such as that one.
| Quote: | But "Jones, also, jumped to conclusions" comes closer to
clearly expressing the probably intended thought as it would
be unambiguously expressed in speech, where intonation and
stress make a huge difference that's unavailable in writing.
|
Still, that's a poor way to write it. "Jones too jumped to conclusions" is
unambiguous and clearly indicates that Jones was another person jumping to
conclusions. "Jones also jumped to conclusions" would usually mean that,
among other things Jones did, he jumped to conclusions. Whether at other
times he crawled to them remains unclear.
As you say, when speaking, we use variable intonation and stress placement,
but when writing, we have more time, allowing us to express our thoughts
more elegantly and more clearly. Using a different word selection or
sentence structure could be the best answer.
Don't get me wrong -- I am not promoting the idea that everybody should
write like I do. I am merely stating that what I do with regard to
sometimes omitting commas next to or around a "too" is not wrong, and that
my style, when I haven't screwed it up, is supported by The Chicago Manual
of Style. I am quite happy with that, even if some people disgree with both
me and the manual.
See how I am?
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skitt
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:10 am
Post subject: Re: About that "too" |
|
|
Bob Cunningham wrote:
| Quote: | Jim Lawton said:
I was hauled over the coals in 1964 for "persistent
lateness" - I'd accumulated 15 minutes of "lates" in 3
months.
My boss once showed me a memo from his boss that said
something like
Now that <name withheld> is no longer with us,
I guess Bob Cunningham will be the one who
most often punches in a tenth or so late.
|
There was a time in my early career when my supervisor was of the sort that
had an attendance chart in his little cubicle. Every day, for each of his
underlings, he marked on that chart the number of minutes that had elapsed
between the official start of the working day and the time that an employee
actually appeared at his desk. He just stood there, at the entrance to his
cubicle, and stared out at the vast expanse of desks. Absolutely amazing.
I used to drive him crazy, as, to get to the office area, I had to walk
through the shop area, and that could never be done quickly, as all of the
vehicle engineers would stop me to find out various details about their
tasks for that day (I was an Engineering Planner then). In other words, I
was already working well before I showed up at my desk. This was totally
unacceptable to the supervisor, as it screwed up his tracking system. Oh
well, we all have our problems. He, may he rest in peace, was a weird one,
but he was not the only one. This was a very long time ago ...
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Cunningham
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:13 am
Post subject: Re: About that "too" |
|
|
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 16:01:52 -0700, "Skitt"
<skitt99@comcast.net> said:
| Quote: | Bob Cunningham wrote:
"Skitt" said:
[...]
I agree, but as I mentioned before, there's a far better
way to write that sentence. There's also nothing wrong
with using commas to avoid ambiguity. That was mentioned
in the CMoS piece I quoted earlier. It's just that in
many cases (not all) there's no reason to put commas next
to or around a "too".
When the "too" is parenthetical, as it was in my statement
that touched off this thread, that's reason enough for me to
use some suitable bracketing, whether it's dashes, commas,
parentheses; or to put the "too" in a footnote.
In "I, too, worked in a place", the "too" is parenthetical,
so it's right to enclose it using one of the bracketing
conventions.
The situation becomes a little more interesting when we
replace "too" by "also". Note the ambiguity in "I also
worked in a place like that". It can mean I am another one
who worked in a place like that, or it can mean that in
addition to listening to music or reading a book in a place
like that, I also worked. But in "I, also, worked in a
place like that", it seems more clear that in addition to
someone else working in a place like that, I did, too.
Take it up with the CMoS people.
|
I have great respect for the _Chicago Manual of Style_, but
when they seem to disagree with my preferences, I have other
sources where I often find agreement.
I have looked in the _CMOS_ (14th Edition). The most
comforting remark about commas I find there (in section
5.29) is
There are a few rules governing [the comma's] use
that have become almost obligatory. Aside from
these, the use of the comma is mainly a matter of
good judgment, with ease of reading the end in
view.
(I would be inclined to rephrase that to show that it's not
the "end in view" that's being read.)
I would feel better about your invocation of the _CMOS_ if
you had referenced a section of the manual itself. You
referenced a Web site where some person who, even though he
probably worked for the University of Chicago Press, was
quite possibly writing his own opinion without benefit of
editorial review.
I've read somewhat hurriedly through the "Comma" portion of
the _CMOS_ without finding any section that relates directly
to the question at hand. They have a lot to say about
commas with parenthetical remarks, but they don't give any
examples that I saw that pertain directly to the
parenthetical "too". If someone wants to cite a pertinent
section that I've missed, I would appreciate it.
I tried to look at the URL you gave to understand the nature
of the site better, but I got a "not found".
| Quote: | All I'm doing is justifying the way I have been writing and
am going to continue to write.
|
Your phrasing "all I'm doing" seems strange. I thought you
were doing more than that. I thought you were trying to
show that a reliable authority clearly opposed using commas
around a parenthetical "too". Maybe you didn't really mean
to say "all I'm doing".
| Quote: | Your last comma, the one between your "did" and "too", is
entirely unnecessary. It does not clarify, it does not
disambiguate, and it is not used to indicate a pause there.
In other words, it has no purpose.
|
It reflects the intonation in speech that would show the
"too" is parenthetical. If you want to suggest a speech
pattern consisting of equal stress and intonation on "did"
and "too" and not a sign of a pause between them, then the
omission of the comma could be okay. But I wouldn't expect
to hear anyone say it that way. I would expect at least a
rising intonation on "too" and probably a barely perceptible
pause after "did". Those are the speech inflections that
would show the "too" is parenthetical and the comma is
appropriate.
| Quote: | That "too" is closely related to the "I did" part and
should not be separated from it.
|
Most parenthetical remarks are closely related to the
content of the sentence in which they appear. Like
My sister, the one with red hair, reads books.
"The one with red hair" is closely related to "sister", but
it's clearly parenthetical.
The "too" in "I did, too" is parenthetical. In my speech
its parenthetical nature would be clear from my intonation
and stress. Because it's parenthetical, it's best to
precede it with a comma. Maybe in your speech the
parenthesis would not be evident.
By the way, we could probably find at Google Groups an old
posting by Donna in which she said in effect that the comma
in "I did, too" is the way people used to do it, but it's no
longer in style. That may be true, but even it is, I like
the old style better, and I'll continue to sue it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Cunningham
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:26 am
Post subject: Re: About that "too" |
|
|
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 16:38:42 -0700, "Skitt"
<skitt99@comcast.net> said:
p...[
| Quote: | Don't get me wrong -- I am not promoting the idea that everybody should
write like I do. I am merely stating that what I do with regard to
sometimes omitting commas next to or around a "too" is not wrong, and that
my style, when I haven't screwed it up, is supported by The Chicago Manual
of Style.
|
But, again, in this case you didn't quote the _Chicago
Manual of Style_. You quoted what somebody said at a Web
site, and it seems doubtful that his or her remarks were as
carefully reviewed as they would have been if they had
appeared in the manual itself.
| Quote: | I am quite happy with that, even if some people disgree
with both me and the manual.
|
I would accept more readily something that appears in the
manual itself rather than a possibly idiosyncratic remark,
albeit one made by a representative of the University of
Chicago Press, that appears at a Web site and may or may not
have been subjected to editorial review. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skitt
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:40 am
Post subject: Re: About that "too" |
|
|
Bob Cunningham wrote:
| Quote: | "Skitt" said:
Bob Cunningham wrote:
"Skitt" said:
I agree, but as I mentioned before, there's a far better
way to write that sentence. There's also nothing wrong
with using commas to avoid ambiguity. That was mentioned
in the CMoS piece I quoted earlier. It's just that in
many cases (not all) there's no reason to put commas next
to or around a "too".
When the "too" is parenthetical, as it was in my statement
that touched off this thread, that's reason enough for me to
use some suitable bracketing, whether it's dashes, commas,
parentheses; or to put the "too" in a footnote.
In "I, too, worked in a place", the "too" is parenthetical,
so it's right to enclose it using one of the bracketing
conventions.
The situation becomes a little more interesting when we
replace "too" by "also". Note the ambiguity in "I also
worked in a place like that". It can mean I am another one
who worked in a place like that, or it can mean that in
addition to listening to music or reading a book in a place
like that, I also worked. But in "I, also, worked in a
place like that", it seems more clear that in addition to
someone else working in a place like that, I did, too.
Take it up with the CMoS people.
I have great respect for the _Chicago Manual of Style_, but
when they seem to disagree with my preferences, I have other
sources where I often find agreement.
I have looked in the _CMOS_ (14th Edition). The most
comforting remark about commas I find there (in section
5.29) is
There are a few rules governing [the comma's] use
that have become almost obligatory. Aside from
these, the use of the comma is mainly a matter of
good judgment, with ease of reading the end in
view.
(I would be inclined to rephrase that to show that it's not
the "end in view" that's being read.)
I would feel better about your invocation of the _CMOS_ if
you had referenced a section of the manual itself. You
referenced a Web site where some person who, even though he
probably worked for the University of Chicago Press, was
quite possibly writing his own opinion without benefit of
editorial review.
|
I'm sorry. I don't have the manual. What I did was the best I could do.
| Quote: | I've read somewhat hurriedly through the "Comma" portion of
the _CMOS_ without finding any section that relates directly
to the question at hand. They have a lot to say about
commas with parenthetical remarks, but they don't give any
examples that I saw that pertain directly to the
parenthetical "too". If someone wants to cite a pertinent
section that I've missed, I would appreciate it.
I tried to look at the URL you gave to understand the nature
of the site better, but I got a "not found".
|
It looks to me like the site is run by the staff of the manual, attempting
to elaborate on material published in the manual.
| Quote: | All I'm doing is justifying the way I have been writing and
am going to continue to write.
Your phrasing "all I'm doing" seems strange. I thought you
were doing more than that. I thought you were trying to
show that a reliable authority clearly opposed using commas
around a parenthetical "too". Maybe you didn't really mean
to say "all I'm doing".
|
Well, yes -- that is the "justifying" part. That's what I'm doing.
| Quote: | Your last comma, the one between your "did" and "too", is
entirely unnecessary. It does not clarify, it does not
disambiguate, and it is not used to indicate a pause there.
In other words, it has no purpose.
It reflects the intonation in speech that would show the
"too" is parenthetical. If you want to suggest a speech
pattern consisting of equal stress and intonation on "did"
and "too" and not a sign of a pause between them, then the
omission of the comma could be okay. But I wouldn't expect
to hear anyone say it that way.
|
I say it that way.
| Quote: | I would expect at least a
rising intonation on "too" and probably a barely perceptible
pause after "did".
|
Naah, there's a falling intonation (as there is at the end of most
sentences, except in "up-talk"). There's also no pause before the "too"
when I say that sentence.
| Quote: | Those are the speech inflections that
would show the "too" is parenthetical and the comma is
appropriate.
|
They would, if they were there (for me). They ain't.
| Quote: | That "too" is closely related to the "I did" part and
should not be separated from it.
Most parenthetical remarks are closely related to the
content of the sentence in which they appear. Like
My sister, the one with red hair, reads books.
"The one with red hair" is closely related to "sister", but
it's clearly parenthetical.
|
I agree.
| Quote: | The "too" in "I did, too" is parenthetical.
|
I disagree. It is definitely meant to add to the "I did".
| Quote: | In my speech
its parenthetical nature would be clear from my intonation
and stress. Because it's parenthetical, it's best to
precede it with a comma. Maybe in your speech the
parenthesis would not be evident.
|
You're right about how it is in my speech. Maybe that's why we disagree
about the comma.
| Quote: | By the way, we could probably find at Google Groups an old
posting by Donna in which she said in effect that the comma
in "I did, too" is the way people used to do it, but it's no
longer in style. That may be true, but even it is, I like
the old style better, and I'll continue to sue it.
|
Sue it? Bob, I'm relieved that you have the same problem that I have --
that of often inverting letter order in words. Anyway, a faint smile
flitted across my face upon seeing that.
--
Skitt
Things keep happening that no one can explain.
- Sally Brown (Peanuts). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skitt
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:46 am
Post subject: Re: About that "too" |
|
|
Bob Cunningham wrote:
| Quote: | "Skitt" said:
Don't get me wrong -- I am not promoting the idea that everybody
should write like I do. I am merely stating that what I do with
regard to sometimes omitting commas next to or around a "too" is not
wrong, and that my style, when I haven't screwed it up, is supported
by The Chicago Manual of Style.
But, again, in this case you didn't quote the _Chicago
Manual of Style_. You quoted what somebody said at a Web
site, and it seems doubtful that his or her remarks were as
carefully reviewed as they would have been if they had
appeared in the manual itself.
|
Here's what is on that Web site:
Even at nearly 1,000 pages, The Chicago Manual of Style can't cover
every detail. In this forum we interpret the Manual's
recommendations and uncoil its intricacies.
It also has stuff like:
Last updated 09:06:08 on Monday, October 3, 2005
© 2005 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.
I believe that the site is run by the same people who write and maintain the
manual. I could be wrong.
| Quote: | I am quite happy with that, even if some people disgree
with both me and the manual.
I would accept more readily something that appears in the
manual itself rather than a possibly idiosyncratic remark,
albeit one made by a representative of the University of
Chicago Press, that appears at a Web site and may or may not
have been subjected to editorial review.
|
As "they" said above, even at nearly 1,000 pages, ...
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Cunningham
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 3:34 am
Post subject: _Chicago Manual of Style_ Web site [was: Re: About that "too |
|
|
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 17:46:39 -0700, "Skitt"
<skitt99@comcast.net> said:
[...]
| Quote: | [about a Web site with a FAQ for the Chicago Manual of Style]
Here's what is on that Web site:
Even at nearly 1,000 pages, The Chicago Manual of Style can't cover
every detail. In this forum we interpret the Manual's
recommendations and uncoil its intricacies.
|
I eventually got to the Web site (by truncating the URL you
gave us so that it went to the FAQ home page). After
looking at the format and the general tone of it, I'm ready
to trust it about as much as I trust the manual itself.
I want to thank you for telling us about that site. It's
certainly worthwhile to know about. I don't see it at
Donna's Intro B; I think it would be an excellent addition
there.
( It's at
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/cmosfaq/ .)
By the way, I've just now discovered that the URL you gave
us works, but only if I lose the colon you tacked onto the
end of it. I can copy and paste the URL without the colon,
but if I just click on it in your posting, which is what I
like to do, it returns a "Not found" because the colon makes
it an invalid URL. With a space before and after a URL,
clicking works. Most other precatenated or postcatenated
characters keep the URL from being clickable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laura F. Spira
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 3:40 am
Post subject: Re: _Chicago Manual of Style_ Web site [was: Re: About that |
|
|
Bob Cunningham wrote:
| Quote: |
I want to thank you for telling us about that site.
|
This always strikes me as a very odd construction which seems
predominantly Leftpondian. What does "I want to thank you" add that is
not conveyed by a simple "Thank you" or even "Thank you very much"?
Somehow, I seem to hear a "but" which would be followed by a reason for
*not* giving thanks.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Cunningham
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 4:08 am
Post subject: Why "I want to thank"? [Re: _Chicago Manual of Style_ Web s |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 22:40:20 +0100, "Laura F. Spira"
<laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> said:
| Quote: | Bob Cunningham wrote:
I want to thank you for telling us about that site.
This always strikes me as a very odd construction which seems
predominantly Leftpondian. What does "I want to thank you" add that is
not conveyed by a simple "Thank you" or even "Thank you very much"?
Somehow, I seem to hear a "but" which would be followed by a reason for
*not* giving thanks.
|
I agree it seems strange when I think more about it. It's a
sort of phrasing I've heard a lot, so I guess I just fell
into it without thinking much about it.
Why do speakers say something like
I want to extend my thanks to all of you who are
assembled here
when they could just say
Thanks, guys
?
Maybe a little piled-on verbiage makes the thanks sound more
important and more -- uh* -- thankful. The fusillade of
words may be sorta like accompanying the thanks with a drum
roll.
* Nonrhotic speakers may want to read my "uh" as "er". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in