conuly

Well, you do get Mam rather than Mum oop north in England, and in Ireland.

From:

conuly

Yup - and that's an entirely different word, right? Akin to mum and mom and, uh, mama?

From:

Yup. If you say it instead of "Madam" or "ma'am", it doesn't fit at all.

From:

What's this from?

From:

conuly

Nothing in particular. I'm just sick of seeing it on LJ.

From:

Aha.

From:

"Shan't" should also be written sha'n't as that is a contraction of shall not. Frankly though, sha'n't just looks bloody ugly, so I sha'n't do that much ; )

From:

conuly

And bo's'n, for boatswain.

From:

There you go, insisting on a logical spelling. By all rights it should be "sha'n't," if English were logical, but it's not. The American Heritage says it's "shan't"; I don't have access to the OED Online from home (only from work) so I can't check its recommendation from here.

Do you also insist on writing "w(o)'n't"?

From:

Eh? I am not insisting upon anything. Merely pointing a peculiarity out. If I remember correctly what I read shan't is actually an older spelling and sha'n't is a slightly more recent spelling but it has always been more rare. Quite possibly because it is more ungainly. Then again, as a person that is in a sense only a visitor with the English tongue, I have always found all those aphostrophed contractions rather ungainly. I like it far better to write each word in full, I find that it makes for a more handsome text. Still, Swedish (another language that is not my own) has even more ungainly way of contracting words in writing. For instance to contract the placename Uppsala one would write U:a. I think it looks worse, and is less comprehensible as well.

From:

I like it far better to write each word in full, I find that it makes for a more handsome text.

Indeed, and that's why it's not recommended in formal writing. ;-)

From:

To clarify, I mean contractions aren't recommended in formal writing; it's preferred to write out the full words. Until things like email and the Internet, I'd probably never written can't/won't/don't etc. at all, except when we were studying contractions in elementary school. They were never allowed in essays or papers or anything. I might have used them writing in my diary or something, but that's about it.

From:

conuly

Still, Swedish (another language that is not my own) has even more ungainly way of contracting words in writing. For instance to contract the placename Uppsala one would write U:a.

But you can't say that, right? A contraction is a shortening you can say. Otherwise, it's just an abbreviation. In English, we might go "Upp." for the same thing, which is even uglier.

From:

And in formal titles, it's "Madam" without an E. As in "Madam Speaker." Or "Madam Interpreter." Or "Madam President," if it comes to that.

From:

Well, you do get Mam rather than Mum oop north in England, and in Ireland.

From:

conuly

Yup - and that's an entirely different word, right? Akin to mum and mom and, uh, mama?

From:

Yup. If you say it instead of "Madam" or "ma'am", it doesn't fit at all.

From:

What's this from?

From:

conuly

Nothing in particular. I'm just sick of seeing it on LJ.

From:

Aha.

From:

"Shan't" should also be written sha'n't as that is a contraction of shall not. Frankly though, sha'n't just looks bloody ugly, so I sha'n't do that much ; )

From:

conuly

And bo's'n, for boatswain.

From:

There you go, insisting on a logical spelling. By all rights it should be "sha'n't," if English were logical, but it's not. The American Heritage says it's "shan't"; I don't have access to the OED Online from home (only from work) so I can't check its recommendation from here.

Do you also insist on writing "w(o)'n't"?

From:

Eh? I am not insisting upon anything. Merely pointing a peculiarity out. If I remember correctly what I read shan't is actually an older spelling and sha'n't is a slightly more recent spelling but it has always been more rare. Quite possibly because it is more ungainly. Then again, as a person that is in a sense only a visitor with the English tongue, I have always found all those aphostrophed contractions rather ungainly. I like it far better to write each word in full, I find that it makes for a more handsome text. Still, Swedish (another language that is not my own) has even more ungainly way of contracting words in writing. For instance to contract the placename Uppsala one would write U:a. I think it looks worse, and is less comprehensible as well.

From:

I like it far better to write each word in full, I find that it makes for a more handsome text.

Indeed, and that's why it's not recommended in formal writing. ;-)

From:

To clarify, I mean contractions aren't recommended in formal writing; it's preferred to write out the full words. Until things like email and the Internet, I'd probably never written can't/won't/don't etc. at all, except when we were studying contractions in elementary school. They were never allowed in essays or papers or anything. I might have used them writing in my diary or something, but that's about it.

From:

conuly

Still, Swedish (another language that is not my own) has even more ungainly way of contracting words in writing. For instance to contract the placename Uppsala one would write U:a.

But you can't say that, right? A contraction is a shortening you can say. Otherwise, it's just an abbreviation. In English, we might go "Upp." for the same thing, which is even uglier.

From: