I've never heard of or seen that contraction Dan.  They're as in 'they are' is common.  Yours though I would write out in full.

Contractions serve.  If they don't, don't use them.

As a wonderful teacher of mine says:  clarity over creativity.

Memphis Trace wrote:

...the music of the sentence...

Ha! Wonderful description of a writer's gift to the reader.

Thank you, Memphis. I'm integrating your words into my definition of what a gifted writer is all about. Indeed, what I must strive to achieve in my writing.

Write well and prosper,

Bob

Last edited by R A Keen (02-11-2011 04:21:11)

'There’re' is not so handy for Pirate and salty old sea dog dialogue though. I fear potential confusion with 'thar' of  '... she blows.'  or  '... lie the bones of Flinching Jimmy Bilge-Rat; met Davy Jones with a hornpipe up his bunghole. Arrr!'

Last edited by Dillidge Carver (02-11-2011 05:33:13)

Great help from everyone, thank you.

Venator wrote:

whatever defect it is I have causes me not to read fantasy books or foreign books with a bunch of hard for me to pronounce names ... I was exercised every time I came to a name that I didn't know how to pronounce, or didn't know if I was pronouncing it the way the author 'heard' it when he wrote it

I'm sure you're right, but it's always puzzled me how people are perfectly (or at least reasonably, in that they wouldn't shun a book with names such as these) happy with names such as:

Cholmondeley, Dalziel or Belvoir, which are very seldom correctly pronounced in a way that would make sense to anyone not already familiar with them.

Equally even common names may have two or more variants, eg such as Davies may be pronounced as either dave - ees or as dave - is, Smythe may be pronounced as smith or smithe but not knowing which applies in any specific instance wouldn't cause many people to falter.

I know I'm right that I I was exercised every time I came to a name that I didn't know how to pronounce. I also know that I'm right that I didn't know if I was pronouncing it the way the author 'heard' it when he wrote it.

I'm perfectly (or at least reasonably, in that [i] wouldn't shun a book with names such as these) happy with... names like you cite, because I pretty much know how to pronounce all the names in a comfortable way at the first siting. Once I've gotten a comfortable pronunciation for me, I no longer STOP to try to figure out a comfortable way to say it, and I really don't worry that the author may have mispronounced Davies as in your second pronunciation. If I heard the pronunciation the author meant, I'd say, I'll buy that the guy's from some isolated village in the UK and be glad that I met him. Same with Smythe.

Others may be even more obsessive about this and try to point out the preferred pronunciation.

You shouldn't be puzzled that folks like me shun books with hard to pronounce names like one finds in books from the Middle East, or India, or in fantasy books. Most of the names are not only offputting and ugly as hell, but also unpronounceable.

If I wanted to sell books to these folks written in English, I'd name my male characters Billy Bob and my female characters Millie Sue if I wanted to have the names be both ugly and and readable.

Memphis

Last edited by Memphis Trace (02-12-2011 08:28:48)

Venator wrote:

Yeah, fair enouigh, I'm not saying you're wrong to take the approach you do, I just struggle slightly to see that there is much fantasy (though there is some) where you have names stranger than found in most US or UK telephone directories. Indeed, most fantasy I've read seems to use simply old-fashioned European names. But unlike you, I've never really bothered trying to poronounce a name I wasn't certain about in my head. When faced with  Chalchiuhticue or Mictlantecuhlti or any of the other of the rather wonderful names that confront the reader of The Conquest of Mexico, I simply recognise and move on.  Japanese names do, for some reason, cause me vastly more difficulty when many are encountered in quick succession, but I that's not to do with how to pronounce them (which I'm sure I'd be doing wrong anyway), just something about them is hard for me to take in.

Pretty much had decided I wasn't wrong, at least given my limitations - I'm the guy whose lips move when I come to a STOP sign, pretty much unable to move on until I pronounce it. I really admire folks who are able to take it in with a glance and keep on keeping on.

I'd bust into hives if I encountered Chalchiuhticue or Mictlantecuhlti. If the book were otherwise compelling, I read faster to get to the end to cure my hives.

In Shantaram, Roberts committed an even worse writing sin: He put in some Maharashtri dialogue, which is even uglier to this English reader's eye than his ugly Indian names. If the book hadn't otherwise been so compelling for me, I'd have put it down right then. However, Roberts generally immediately asked my absolution by translating the Maharshtri dialogue into English which meant my reading was only mildly slowed. On occasion, he committed the mortal sin of NOT translating it, I guess expecting me to remember it from a few pages before. I'll discuss that with him when we get to Hell.

I have never figured for my whole reading life those English speaking writers who write in English, but feel compelled to include snippets of French or some other ugly language in their writing. Any time I raise the question with them, they always say something stupid like, "Well, those are the sounds that were uttered." I do make generous exception for  French or other unintelligible grunts uttered during foreplay and actual sex scenes.

The mistaken things writers will do to honor verisimilitude and show their asses to readers...

Memphis Trace

Last edited by Memphis Trace (02-12-2011 09:42:49)

Venator wrote:

I don't mind the odd word or phrase in foreign. Like I never really object to an author using an English word I don't know. In general I can catch the gist from the context. What I cannot abide is a translation of the foreign words given immediately after in the text when a footnote would be perfectly sufficient. Also there are times, and I'm thinking specifically of the Flashman novels here (though Kimpling did it too), when to have a character not use a foreign word at times when speaking English would be very out of place. I don't think anyone could mistake the meaning of:

You put some juldee in it Or I'll marrow you this minute

when addressed to an Indian bhisti. Could they?

I mind, mightily, the odd word or phrase in foreign. Why? Give me a legitimate reason, either for the artistry or the efficiency of the writing. Verisimilitude ain't a reason.

I don't particularly object to an English word I don't know as long as I can ALWAYS catch the gist from context. My objection may be as minor as going quickly to an online dictionary to get the meaning (a thing that is a hundred times handier when reading a book on Kindle or on the computer) than the hard copy.

Artfully, done I like a translation of foreign words given immediately after the text. I never would abide a footnote because it is bad manners to make me go to the end of the page, chapter, or book to find it.

I have no idea what You put some juldee in it Or I'll marrow you this minute means, not do I like for an author to make me feel ignorant for not knowing it.

What is an Indian bhisti?

Memphis

Venator wrote:

Would you also object to slang such as 'sling the bat'?

About baseball? It wouldn't slow me down, because I know the term well. However, if I were writing for a UK market, or some place where they use wickets or some such, I'd hope my British workshop friends would tell me that it would slow them down. Once I found I was making my target readers do the work I should be doing, I'd try real hard to artistically use the term without causing the reader to have to slow down for my oversight. I try real hard to write reading not writing.

Memphis Trace.

Venator wrote:

It's actually slang for 'speak the language'. I'm fascinated by this sort of thing (what people like and dislike about writing), so I'm not trying to catch you out or anything.

But would obscure English words like struthian or yare be okay? In appropriate context of course.

I'm guessing things like rapscallion and vittles, not in common usage nowadays, would be okay. So I wonder why contemporaneous foreign expressions that really formed part of the English language of the time would not.

Wigwam?

Venator,

I'd love to be caught out. I'm happy to learn a different (and better) slang meaning for sling the bat AND if I'd encountered it in a context I didn't understand, I'd have googled it (another huge advantage to reading on computer over on paper), but I'd have admired the hell out of the artistry of the writer if he was able to not cause me to have to look up something I didn't know the meaning of. His job is clarity and efficiency. My job is to pay him for his efforts and to admire his artistry, not have him send me to an appendix to find out what he's talking about.

If I encountered struthian or yare I'd google them and try to figure a way the writer SHOULD have saved me that inconvenience. I love being taught at least as much as I love learning on my own. I consider such a writer to be unmannerly, unprofessional, unartistic, and lazy.

I love vittles (It's actually spelled victuals and pronounced vittles). Go figure. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/victuals I plan to write a story someday that will go into great length to explain this. Artistically.

Rapscallion was in 'fairly' common usage in my younger days and I'd recognize it and like it. Other people who pay money for books may not have such a high opinion of a dandy rascal who'd go out of his way without making the meaning more than obvious.

It requires care, hard work, and good manners to write a good story. It all starts with picking words and sounds that make readers feel smart not ignorant.

I know there are plenty of folks who enjoy the miasma of fantasy novels and novels with a lot of French words in them. Like I say, in sex scenes, I understand both grunting in English and grunting in French.

Memphis

Last edited by Memphis Trace (02-12-2011 13:21:10)

Venator wrote:

But surely for some people rapscallion and vittles (which is a variant of victuals much used by C19 authors on both sides of the Atlantic, I'm not certain that it's not sufficiently well established to count as a variant spelling) are as obscure as, say, ethereal or indeed yare. But in most cases I think people catch the meaning from the context.

Memphis: What you say is absolutely right, no doubt. I expect readers who pay money for books in which they find language that flummoxes them to stop buying books by such unmannerly authors. Readers with lesser command of the language than I have are currently staying away in droves from those kinds of books. When I encounter it once, I balance what I learn with what I'm taught. When I have to do all the writing and all the reading, I want my money back. If that mule kicks me once, it's the mule's fault; when that mule kicks me twice, it's my fault.

Why though should wigwam be fair game and not bhisti? at what point do we stop learning new words through reading and expect writers to conform to our vocabulary rather than to extend it?

Memphis: Sorry I forgot to address the wigwam thing before.  Is bhisti some sort of Indian tepee? Wigwam is better for me because I know what it means. If I encountered bhisti in an English language book, it had damn well better be in a context I can understand it's a teepee. Or I will look it up and hold a grudge against the writer. Why should I both pay him my money and have to write his story. Got to be a damn good artistic reason and verisimilitude ain't an artisic reason, it's a copout, a lazy writer's excuse for not doing his job.

I love being taught new words through reading, I like learning new words  through reading about half as much. I don't need some jackleg writer to make me go to the dictionary to find out what he learnt in vocabulary 101.

Writers are supposed to write, readers read. As Elmore Leonard says, "When you revise, take out everything that seems like writing." Elmore has readers across the spectrum of word buffs. Is there any wonder? And I don't much like his stuff, but he knows his job.

I've actually heard writers say with a straight face that they like to make their readers work hard to get their message, read it over several times. Good luck with that. It may be the reason nobody's buying books anymore. I say, "Pffffftttt, what you mean is YOU'RE over your head and waiting for someone to find some meaning in your piffle." Writing's a hard job if reading is to be made easy. ANYBODY can write something that can't be understood. 

Would a Mexican referring to someone as senor or a Frenchman addressing someone as monsieur be too galling? Is adios less acceptable than au revoir, or perhaps deja vu because the latter have wormed their way into English?

Memphis: Maybe. I'd have to see it on the paper with any other foreign words on the page. I'd love to find a way to avoid using any word that any reader who paid for a book I wrote had to look up. EXCEPT in the case where using such words makes some meaningful contribution to the worth of the story. As I said, verisimilitude ain't an artistic gesture. A writer has to consider the reader with EVERY word he picks, because you can bet the reader will consider the writer with EVERY word the writer picks which the reader has to look up or gloss over. Too many words glossed over becomes a doorstop.

If writing weren't such a hard thing to do, most good writers would have given up long ago.

Memphis

Last edited by Memphis Trace (02-12-2011 14:40:00)