paula
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by paula on Aug 22, 2008 11:39:53 GMT
hmmmm I see it should be e. mail if I am going to stick with the e. being short for electronic. Thank you for the clarification regarding the plural. I suppose I am going to have to get used to typing e-mail then.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Palmer on Aug 22, 2008 13:21:29 GMT
For a few years I used E-Mail, then Email. I now use email having realised that it takes less key strokes to produce. So long as you are consistent in your usage, I don't really think it matters.
|
|
|
Post by Vadim on Aug 22, 2008 14:58:13 GMT
For a few years I used E-Mail, then Email. I now use email having realised that it takes less key strokes to produce. So long as you are consistent in your usage, I don't really think it matters. I too, Alan, use email, and for the same reason.
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Aug 22, 2008 21:20:17 GMT
Some years ago, Paul convinced me that it should be e-mail. I remain convinced, though I think Paul's changed his stance since then. His reasoning then was: In most English words that are prefixed by a single letter, the word is hyphenated, e.g. x-ray, u-boat, h-bomb; In most English words that begin e-consonant-vowel, the e is pronounced as in "emm", examples being "emulate", "educate", "elephant".
(Note that I've said "most" in both cases; I'm not claiming these to be inviolable rules.)
Taking those two together, the word in question should be written "e-mail", and "email" should be pronounced "emmail".
Paul will correct me immediately if the following is incorrect, but I think he changed his mind on the basis that "email" is what's usually written nowadays, and that makes it acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Aug 22, 2008 21:34:01 GMT
Paul will correct me immediately if the following is incorrect ... I left it for fourteen minutes, Twod, because I agree.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Aug 22, 2008 21:41:17 GMT
Although acceptable doesn't quite capture my position. I just accept that consensus is the only benchmark. If we each insist on doing things differently to everyone else, in language at least that leads to an Alice-in-Wonderland world where nothing is certain and people use words to mean only whatever they say they mean. If the word has become email, then that's what it has to be. I may regret it, or insist that e-mail would be more consistent with the rest of the language, but to no good end. I may as well insist that come should be pronounced comb -- maybe it should, but if I go around saying it like that, I'd be hampering communication.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Aug 22, 2008 21:42:53 GMT
(Although actually I do still use e-mail unless I'm in a hurry. I regard the correct usage as not yet settled!)
|
|
|
Post by Dr Mildr on Aug 23, 2008 10:07:35 GMT
I must have missed this debate. I too use e-mail but sadly(!) our organisational preference is email (the member of the communications team who insists on using comma splices in all published documents has given the order). As I am a great believer in consistency, I abide by the decision, but in all non-work communication I use e-mail.
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Aug 23, 2008 21:32:33 GMT
I just accept that consensus is the only benchmark. If we each insist on doing things differently to everyone else, in language at least that leads to an Alice-in-Wonderland world where nothing is certain and people use words to mean only whatever they say they mean. If the word has become email, then that's what it has to be. I may regret it, or insist that e-mail would be more consistent with the rest of the language, but to no good end. I may as well insist that come should be pronounced comb -- maybe it should, but if I go around saying it like that, I'd be hampering communication. This is, and always has been, a problem of mine. Just because the rest of the world does something incorrectly, I've never seen that as a valid reason why I should follow suit. Sad, really.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Aug 24, 2008 11:52:47 GMT
Twod, I did say "in language at least". Like you, I tend to favour the individual in many things, but I make an exception for language. An individual can do what he or she wants with language so long as she does not seek to use it to communicate with others. Once we want to use it for communication we have to agree shared meanings and the individual has to bow to consensus.
The alternative is babel, and that didn't turn out too well.
|
|