M ampersand D Duck Read

[Mark Kohut]

Here's something to think on (maybe): the Ampersand symbol has been largely lost
to history as the future has unfolded from 1789,  in title use, book
cataloguing, title copyrighting, etc.

Gone. Not yet but soon a Dodo?

A small but meaningful loss in History? Another one?



On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 11:03 AM, alice malice <alicewmalice at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l