Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
Have been rereading Treasure Island for the first time in many years. Written in the late 19th century, some of the phrasing is a bit outdated. But I've noticed that RLS seems to make up a lot of contractions. Here's just one example from Ch.13:
"Sir," said the captain, "if I risk another order, the whole ship'll come about our ears by the run.
That parsed just fine to me. Knew exactly what he meant. I use those type of "contractions" in every day speech all the time, but virtually never in writing (since I don't write fiction). Most of my writing is technical, so I generally avoid contractions.
There's many lists of "official" English contractions online, and most are in agreement. Here's just one.
The style guides seem to say that an RLS-style contraction is fine for informal writing, emails, texts, etc. But that the choice ultimately comes down to the tone you want to convey to your readers. What I'm wondering is if this might be a good idea for technical (STEM) material targeted for children. In an attempt to reduce the readability scores for my blog, I've started to use more "regular" contractions to sound more colloquial and draw them in. I wince though, when considering writing a sentence like "The Sun'll last for at least a few more billion years."
Opinions solicited, thanks.
I note that the example you gave from RLS was in a quote and not unlike the 'everyday speech' you use 'all the time'.
So, my conclusion is, "Use it in dialog if that is what your character might say, but keep it out of technical/blog writing."
BTW, Microsoft WORD will also give several readability statistics. Use the regular contractions if you like, but shorter sentences and smaller words also help readability scores.
I'm working my way through Origins of the Specious and Patricia T. O'Connor says that several centuries ago, there were a LOT of contractions used, that they were frowned at by Mrs Grundy at the very end of the 19th century, but since WWII, they've been coming back in droves.
I don't use ain't in formal writing, because I prefer not to be thought illiterate by ignorant fools, but I amn't going to ignore its usefulness in casual writing. I find it uncomfortable to write doubly contracted phrases, such as I wouldn't've done that in print, although it's quite common in oral English. That pretty much agrees with O'Connor, although she allows many things I prefer to abstain from.
Patricia T. O'Conner is a former editor at The New York Times Book Review. I bought the book on September 27, when it was marked down to 99c, and if I'd known then how good it is, I'd have posted a recommendation. It's $13.99 now. If you are willing to tolerate a hardback, there are used copies on Amazon (library returns) for 1c plus $3.99 shipping.
One practical utility of contraction is to shift the emphasis elsewhere- to where you really want it to be.
So there is a marked difference between these 2 statements
The whole ship'll come about
The whole ship will come about
The 1st statement says don't look so hard at will, look at come. I think it is the better of the 2 for that.
No doubt in speech, that is the main motivation behind contraction, not to mention that the uncontracted form can even cause a stilted effect.
First day of Sophomore English in high school, the young (and hot) woman teaching the class started off by saying "I love you" six different ways, emphasizing each of the three words, both as a question and a statement, resulting in six different meanings.
I don't know about the girls in class, but she sure was the topic of conversation at lunch among the guys. I've seen "Let's eat Grandma/Let's eat, Grandma" with "punctuation saves lives" quite frequently in the last few months, but I think the example from half a century ago was far more demonstrative. I suppose the "Grandma" example was contrived by a woman?
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)