M ampersand D Duck Read

[alice malice]

Mike wrote:
> For me, aesthetics. Pure and simple. Sometimes an ampersand is just an
> ampersand. Unsatisfying to you close readers, but there you have it.

The symbol is pretty. And it suggests a story set long ago if not so
very far away.
So a good argument for the aesthetic use of the symbol.

With the handheld communication device, now a tool in the hands of our
young as they learn to write, the symbol is in common use when
texting. Symbols, letters of alphabets and so forth do not correspond
with sounds. Nor would we want this to be the case. They approximate
the mental lexicon of phonemes and with other stuff, call this other
stuff " rules", to avoid linguistic jargon, and given a particular
context, the writer provides a symbolic framework upon with the reader
builds meaning. So, what you made up here (below) is wrong.


> Here, I will make something up.
> When reading there is a certain tendency to translate the text into
> language. In a way,  our brains hear the words that we are reading. You see
> 'and' and hear 'and'. Which might indicate a definite distinction between
> the linked terms. But with a symbol, you first have to translate the symbol
> into a word, then hear it. I would suggest that the ampersand is heard more
> of an 'n' than a 'and'. This elision blurs the distinction between the two
> terms. Mark hinted at that by suggesting that Melanie and Jackson are two
> separate entities. The 'and' in the dedication. If, as I suggest, the
> ampersand is heard as 'n', it connects the terms in a more intimate way, not
> so distinct.
> To summarize, Mason and Dixon are two distinct individuals, while Mason &
> Dixon are much closer and linked in more permanent way. There is not one
> without the other.
> Hey, there is a graduate thesis here. "The Ampersand and the Dissolution of
> Interpersonal Boundaries in the Writings of TRP". Or not.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
>
> On 1/4/2015 6:30 AM, Mark Kohut wrote:
>
> Mike, any notions re 'What gives?'
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 6:00 AM, Mike <beider19 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Also it is not "For Melanie & For Jackson".
> What gives?
>
>
> On 1/4/2015 4:44 AM, Mark Kohut wrote:
>
> What meaningful differences exist if not "Mason and Dixon"?
>
> Dedication: " For Melanie and for Jackson" ...not " for Melanie and
> Jackson".....Pynchon's precision singles each out, the separate individuals
> that they are.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> *********************************
>            Just for fun
> http://beider19.home.comcast.net
> *********************************
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l