|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:14 pm
No, but contractions aren't improper. They are a perfectly accepted group of terms to simplify speech. Also, ignoring the debate that 'Shakespear' could have in fact been royalty, 'tis is actually featured in the marriam webster dictionary. Thusly is however, as far as my knowledge, completely made up.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:51 pm
Ndoki No, but contractions aren't improper. They are a perfectly accepted group of terms to simplify speech. Also, ignoring the debate that 'Shakespear' could have in fact been royalty, 'tis is actually featured in the marriam webster dictionary. Thusly is however, as far as my knowledge, completely made up. thus·ly (thsl) adv. Usage Problem. Thus. Usage Note: Thusly was introduced in the 19th century as an alternative to thus in sentences such as Hold it thus or He put it thus. It appears to have first been used by humorists, who may have been echoing the speech of poorly educated people straining to sound stylish. The word has subsequently gained some currency in educated usage, but it is still often regarded as incorrect. A large majority of the Usage Panel found it unacceptable in an earlier survey. In formal writing thus can still be used as in the examples above; in other styles this way, like this, and other such expressions are more natural. --American Heritage Dictionary
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 8:52 pm
unfortunately, I speak like your average american teen. D: just throw in a touch of intelligence and class.
I'm trying to speak slower; I speak so fast that people don't understand me! D:
I remember reading somewhere that correcting another person's english is very rude; so try to resist the urge! gonk (talk about difficult!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 9:22 pm
[ Chewable Antacid ] Ndoki No, but contractions aren't improper. They are a perfectly accepted group of terms to simplify speech. Also, ignoring the debate that 'Shakespear' could have in fact been royalty, 'tis is actually featured in the marriam webster dictionary. Thusly is however, as far as my knowledge, completely made up. thus·ly (thsl) adv. Usage Problem. Thus. Usage Note: Thusly was introduced in the 19th century as an alternative to thus in sentences such as Hold it thus or He put it thus. It appears to have first been used by humorists, who may have been echoing the speech of poorly educated people straining to sound stylish. The word has subsequently gained some currency in educated usage, but it is still often regarded as incorrect. A large majority of the Usage Panel found it unacceptable in an earlier survey. In formal writing thus can still be used as in the examples above; in other styles this way, like this, and other such expressions are more natural. --American Heritage Dictionary So humorists made it up and it's still mostly regarded as incorrect. Well now I know so. Thanks. ^_^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 1:13 am
Ndoki [ Chewable Antacid ] Ndoki No, but contractions aren't improper. They are a perfectly accepted group of terms to simplify speech. Also, ignoring the debate that 'Shakespear' could have in fact been royalty, 'tis is actually featured in the marriam webster dictionary. Thusly is however, as far as my knowledge, completely made up. thus·ly (thsl) adv. Usage Problem. Thus. Usage Note: Thusly was introduced in the 19th century as an alternative to thus in sentences such as Hold it thus or He put it thus. It appears to have first been used by humorists, who may have been echoing the speech of poorly educated people straining to sound stylish. The word has subsequently gained some currency in educated usage, but it is still often regarded as incorrect. A large majority of the Usage Panel found it unacceptable in an earlier survey. In formal writing thus can still be used as in the examples above; in other styles this way, like this, and other such expressions are more natural. --American Heritage Dictionary So humorists made it up and it's still mostly regarded as incorrect. Well now I know so. Thanks. ^_^ What that basically means is - you cannot use it in formal examinations. Otherwise it's as valid as any other word, because our language is made up of non-existant colloquialism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 12:47 pm
Darky-Hitori What that basically means is - you cannot use it in formal examinations. Otherwise it's as valid as any other word, because our language is made up of non-existant colloquialism. Yes, I never once disagreed on that point in terms of the word 'thusly' and the post mostly just backed up what I said and that's what I was pointing out. The word 'tis however I see no reason it cannot be used in a formal manner. Contractions are perfectly acceptable parts of the english language so long as they are already decided upon beforehand, which are the ones generally found in the dictionary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:54 pm
[yea i dont really talk lolita.. i have good grammer but i swear like a sailor so i think that kinda cancels out the pretty-ness sweatdrop ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 12:37 pm
Ndoki Darky-Hitori What that basically means is - you cannot use it in formal examinations. Otherwise it's as valid as any other word, because our language is made up of non-existant colloquialism. Yes, I never once disagreed on that point in terms of the word 'thusly' and the post mostly just backed up what I said and that's what I was pointing out. The word 'tis however I see no reason it cannot be used in a formal manner. Contractions are perfectly acceptable parts of the english language so long as they are already decided upon beforehand, which are the ones generally found in the dictionary.
Also, I think you mentioned 'tis being Shakespearean? Well, yes, he did use it, but I would hardly think he did so because it sounded "cool." All of his plays are poetic, and at most times had some sort of meter to them--I would have to guess that one sylabol was needed to keep the meter constant, and so "it is" couldn't be used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 1:12 pm
[ Chewable Antacid ] Actually, in all regards to formality, such as writing formally, or speaking so, you should refrain from using any contractions at all. In fact, it is a complete faux pas to put a contraction into anything you plan on referring to as formal. But indeed, for casual conversation, 'tis, whereas I find it quite a bit gawdy, is acceptable.
Also, I think you mentioned 'tis being Shakespearean? Well, yes, he did use it, but I would hardly think he did so because it sounded "cool." All of his plays are poetic, and at most times had some sort of meter to them--I would have to guess that one sylabol was needed to keep the meter constant, and so "it is" couldn't be used. It wasn't the "cool" factor I was referring to actually, considering I'm sure there wasn't such thing during that time. It was that he was an incredibly famous poet who was known for being a master at word. If 'tis is good enough for him to use formally it's good enough for me. Also I'd find it hard to believe that a man with such skill would have to 'tone down' some words just to make them fit in a poem. Actually opening my book at any random spot I can find numerous contractions that aren't in any poem, but a more regular prose wherein such changes in syllables wouldn't be required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:38 pm
Ndoki [ Chewable Antacid ] Actually, in all regards to formality, such as writing formally, or speaking so, you should refrain from using any contractions at all. In fact, it is a complete faux pas to put a contraction into anything you plan on referring to as formal. But indeed, for casual conversation, 'tis, whereas I find it quite a bit gawdy, is acceptable.
Also, I think you mentioned 'tis being Shakespearean? Well, yes, he did use it, but I would hardly think he did so because it sounded "cool." All of his plays are poetic, and at most times had some sort of meter to them--I would have to guess that one sylabol was needed to keep the meter constant, and so "it is" couldn't be used. It wasn't the "cool" factor I was referring to actually, considering I'm sure there wasn't such thing during that time. It was that he was an incredibly famous poet who was known for being a master at word. If 'tis is good enough for him to use formally it's good enough for me. Also I'd find it hard to believe that a man with such skill would have to 'tone down' some words just to make them fit in a poem. Actually opening my book at any random spot I can find numerous contractions that aren't in any poem, but a more regular prose wherein such changes in syllables wouldn't be required.
Even in speech, almost every time a character poke more than one line, it was quite often in some sort of meter. If 'tis was found anywhere else in a one-liner, it was probably because after seeing the word so often, it is might have seemed slightly odd. I'm not competely well versed in all of his plays, so I'm not certain if he indeed has written it is at any one point.
Moreover, Shakespear did not write formally. He wrote peotry. The terms are not interchangable. In fact, there was nothing hardly formal about the way he wrote, it was just more elaborate than the way most anyother person spoke and/or wrote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 12:09 am
Then I guess that all boils down to what 'formally' is. I have read instances where college professors perfer papers written in a less 'strict' manner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 5:29 pm
Not if your in any type of honours program--even high school teachers perfer papers written in Formal Standard English, which is, as stated, standardized. If you went to high school Engish, it really should have been taught to you, unless the school was in same way flawed. I'm pretty sure most college English departments (particularly in America) assume their students know it. sad
(I wish there was a way for me to state that were it comes across as less rude, because I'm not tyring to be.)
Moreover, I'm not saying you can't use 'tis should you so desire, I'm just saying don't call it a formal speak or paper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 5:50 pm
Yes I took english in school and we did take many formal writing lessons, but never do I recall hearing such thing about contractions. Also try as I might I can't find anything set in stone anywhere about such things. All I have seen about 'formal' writing is a matter of opinion, and an opinion that seems to differ from one person to the next.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 04, 2006 5:49 pm
I don't speak much in lolita. sweatdrop Generally I speak when spoken to, but it's very much a personal preference. I think of lolitas as victorian dolls, and usually those don't speak. but if you ask me a question, i'll answer. 3nodding heart
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:56 pm
Wait...I just thought of this...haha it never occured to me when I posted before...but isn't lolita ... from the Rococo era of France? So...shouldn't speaking lolita mean...speaking...French o.o Well..I don't think I'd mind either way...I do know a bit of conversational French...and it's fun using French words XD hehehe... Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
![[ Chewable Antacid ]'s avatar](https://a1cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/e9/d1/331fd9f85d1e9_flip.png?t=1239742033_6.00_11)
