Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
Do I think this construction is pretentious and unnecessary? Absolutely. Do I hope Martha and Grant can help explain it? Yes. Do I really think it'll go away soon? No.
I hear that all over the place, in casual conversation as well as in the media. Pundits use it all the time. Donald Rumsfeld became famous for interviewing himself.
For example. You might hear on a Sunday morning news show, "Does Obama have momentum? Yes. Can Clinton catch up? I think she can."
Why not just say, "Obama has momentum, but Clinton can catch up." So much cleaner!
So the question is ... am I weird to let this bother me so much? Also, when and how and for heaven's sake WHY did this start? It seems to me it was around sort of the mid-90s, particularly in corporate-speak settings.
Can anyone here help me? I think so.
I think the purpose of this technique (if you can call it that) is to express to the listener/viewer that you (the speaker) know that this question may be aimed at your discussion/speech/lecture/etc. and you want to save time by answering it before it is asked. But you can see how presumptious people can get with this: “Would I accept a hundred dollar bill from you? Absolutely!” I think effective speaking cuts two ways: a) people need to orate more dynamically and emotively, but b) even Max Headroom could orate more dynamically and emotively if he were so programmed. My point is, they (sc. rhetorical questions answered by the one who proposed it) should be used sparingly. But, where does one draw the line?? Honestly, I can't answer thatquestion.
[NB—When using a question the asker is going to answer, I find it less confusing if the question ends in two question marks. One for the sentence being interrogative and the other for the question being interrogative; i.e., “are you asking this question”?]
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)