I'm still not following you. Contractions should have nothing to do really with adding "highlight" words in to describe the voice or tone. If the decision was between using a contraction or being wordy, I would use the contraction, but as I said, I'm not following. The decision shouldn't be between those two choices. Each of those elements should have their own decisions to make: Do I want a contraction here or not? Do I want to describe the tone of voice here or not? Definitely not: if I don't use a contraction, I need to describe the tone of voice. I may be describing that voice every time something is spoken in that case. So, am I misunderstanding what you mean?
No you are not. That is exactly what I meant so you have understood. I also understand your points very well. I much prefer describing what I mean everytime then use the contractions, is what I will chose to do in my writing. Descritptions play an important role in the imagination and the reader's mind. For me I would rather read descritptions then look at contractions. I am a visual reader and therefore any punctuation, accents, dots or contractions will distract me straight away.
A pronunciation question SCHOOL then SCHOLL? one is: SKOOL the other is SHAWL. Are there any other words that switch pronunciation as soon as on letter is taken out and another added at the end?
Any _punctuation_? So you'd prefer that your books have no commas, no periods, no quotation marks? You'd find that easier to read?
yes exactly that. I find dots, hyphens, contractions, distract me from the flow of reading. That is what I am like. I don't know about exclamtions and question marks. I have yet to think about it, but yes usually any kind of 'accents' gets in my way. Instead of an exclamation mark I would use more descriptive words like this: He shouted get out to warn her of the danger. Instead of ''get out''!!! he said to warn her of the danger. for the question mark: He asked her what she liked and she replied red blue and yellow. instead of: 'what do you like'? he asked her. This is me. This how I would prefer to read a story. Of course you are different to me. Readers come in all shape and sizes tastes and preferences. I call it ''easy on the eye' which is reading stories free from punctuations that may weigh down the flow of reading. I am a visual reader.
This is direct speech. I mean it is a question answer type of reading. As soon as I start reading long text I tend to switch off if there are too much punctuations. All my poems are free from pucntuations but many have said they could not read them, so I put punctuation to them although it does not come naturally to me. I still write them unpunctuated then add punctuation if and when asked. It is what is what readers are used to. i don't mind the odd full stop and comma but that I have to do if forum members are to respond to me so I punctuate.
Ok so I didn't misunderstand you (though I still don't understand how or why). Like I said, contractions are not the other side, not the opposite, for descriptions. Just because you use/don't use contractions, it doesn't mean that your descriptions are failing. One really has nothing to do with the other. If your descriptions are failing, it's because your descriptions are failing! Saying "If I do not use a contraction, I do not need to put that description in" should mean "If I do use a contraction, I do not need to put that description in" as far as description is concerned. To do otherwise ... basically, it's like comparing apples to lettuce (because oranges are a fruit), which still have a few similarities like we eat them and they grow from the earth, but they are different in most ways that matter. To put it another way...Dictionary.com: Contraction noun A shortened form of a word or group of words, with the omitted letters often replace in written English by an apostrophe, as e'er for ever, isn't for is not, dep't for department.
I have an avertion if you like to apostrophes that just appear outof the blue. For example I do not understand why a word like PARLIEMENT is mispelt PARL'EMENT. The problem I am having is that since when the removing of a letter, in this case an I, is replaced by an apostrophe? Why not L? or E? I do not understand how is this done? Does that mean I can take a next word, any, for ELEMENTARY then do ELEME'TARY. The question I have is this: What is the purpose of contracting a word such as PARLIEMENT to PARL'EMENT or dep't for department ? The pronunciation is exactly the same contracted or not. It is not and it isn't here the proununciation is different.
Too much/Too little/Not enough/ A lot do you stumble across these like I do? There is too much bread on this table she said There is a lot of bread on this table. There is not enough time. or There is little time?
Verbs that are the same but mean two different things: To lose and to win To lose and to find It makes difficult to write something like this to an opening of a story He was walking and thinking that he had well and truly lost it. How does one know what: truly lost it is refering to?
Without further context, one doesn't. The most likely guess would be that he has lost his composure, but context could change that. Try reading William Empson's Seven Types of Ambiguity.
Thank you I have had a read and I got a bit meddled up because whilst I have always understood the word: AMBIGEOUS as Not Clear Here it says: I usually say it is ambigeous as in vague.
the word is 'ambigUous' and that definition is correct... it does not mean merely 'not clear' or 'vague'... also, 'meddled' and 'muddled' [which is what i assume you meant] are two very different things... look them up...
