Finger Quoting
DOYLE60
two fingers on each hand a few times. In Britain, do they twinkle just one
finger on each hand? Pondering...
Matt
Michael Hamm
> When a speaker wishes to indicate the use of quotation marks, he often
> twinkles two fingers on each hand a few times.
Does he? You make it sound to me like the fingers are moved
independently. I've always seen them go up and down (or just down) in
unison. They start nearly extended and are bent, then possibly unbent
again, and then perhaps the process is repeated once.
Michael Hamm Since mid-September of 2003,
AM, Math, Wash. U. St. Louis I've been erasing too much UBE.
msh...@math.wustl.edu Of a reply, then, if you have been cheated,
http://math.wustl.edu/~msh210/ Likely your mail's by mistake been deleted.
masakim
"Michael Hamm" wrote:
> On 10 Dec 2003 14:18:49 GMT, Matt wrote, in part:
> > When a speaker wishes to indicate the use of quotation marks, he often
> > twinkles two fingers on each hand a few times.
>
> Does he? You make it sound to me like the fingers are moved
> independently. I've always seen them go up and down (or just down) in
> unison. They start nearly extended and are bent, then possibly unbent
> again, and then perhaps the process is repeated once.
>
The term _air quotes_ has been recorded in print since the late eightieth,
but the gesture itself, used as an accompaniment to speech, is likely to be
much older. The gesture is formed by holding the fingers up in the air,
notionally around the word or phrase being simultaneously expressed. The
fingers are curled in the shape of quotation marks: use of middle finger
with the forefinger perhaps represents double quotation marks, while use of
the forefinger alone may represent single quotation marks.
From _The Oxford Dictionary of New Words_ (1998)
The NBC host Matt Lauer asks a guest, "What do people in Great Britain think
about this journalist, or *quote-unquote*, journalist?" Or Representative
Bill Thomas of California tells a television interviewer, "There are other
ways to get tax relief, not just within, *quote-unquote*, the president's
plan." These usages of verbalized punctuation are sometimes accompanied by
"air quotes," a visual signal of wiggling two fingers on each hand
(recalling to some geezers the victory sign of a departed president).
(William Safire, "On Language, " _New York Time Magazine_, July 8, 2001)
Regards,
masakim
david56
>
> "Michael Hamm" wrote:
>
> > On 10 Dec 2003 14:18:49 GMT, Matt wrote, in part:
> > > When a speaker wishes to indicate the use of quotation marks, he often
> > > twinkles two fingers on each hand a few times.
> >
> > Does he? You make it sound to me like the fingers are moved
> > independently. I've always seen them go up and down (or just down) in
> > unison. They start nearly extended and are bent, then possibly unbent
> > again, and then perhaps the process is repeated once.
> >
>
> The term _air quotes_ has been recorded in print since the late eightieth,
> but the gesture itself, used as an accompaniment to speech, is likely to be
> much older. The gesture is formed by holding the fingers up in the air,
> notionally around the word or phrase being simultaneously expressed. The
> fingers are curled in the shape of quotation marks: use of middle finger
> with the forefinger perhaps represents double quotation marks, while use of
> the forefinger alone may represent single quotation marks.
I clearly remember seeing it used by another pupil to describe what
he'd seen written on the blackboard describing our lunch at school.
It said:
Cakes with "cream"
This cannot be later than 1974, probably a couple of years earlier.
--
David
=====
Stewart Gordon
little black dots on a white screen, and they fell thus:
> When a speaker wishes to indicate the use of quotation marks, he often twinkles
> two fingers on each hand a few times. In Britain, do they twinkle just one
> finger on each hand? Pondering...
Not that I know of.
William G. Stewart and Jeremy Paxman both tend to just say "quote". But
the "unquote" at the end tends to be omitted altogether....
Stewart.
--
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the
unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment. Please keep
replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
GenJerDan
> The NBC host Matt Lauer asks a guest, "What do people in Great
> Britain think about this journalist, or *quote-unquote*, journalist?"
Unquote? Shouldn't that be ENDquote?
If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.
-Diebold internal memo
DOYLE60
>the forefinger alone may represent single quotation marks.
>
>From _The Oxford Dictionary of New Words_ (1998)
I have never seen anyone signal the single quotes. Has anyone?
Matt
Michael Hamm
wrote, in part:
> > The NBC host Matt Lauer asks a guest, "What do people in Great
> > Britain think about this journalist, or *quote-unquote*, journalist?"
>
> Unquote? Shouldn't that be ENDquote?
Who are you, Nero Wolfe?
Skitt
> GenJerDan wrote, in part:
[responding to the following:]
>>> The NBC host Matt Lauer asks a guest, "What do people in Great
>>> Britain think about this journalist, or *quote-unquote*,
>>> journalist?"
>>
>> Unquote? Shouldn't that be ENDquote?
>
> Who are you, Nero Wolfe?
Hmm. I would have written "Who are you? Nero Wolfe?"
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
Matti Lamprhey
> Michael Hamm wrote:
> > GenJerDan wrote, in part:
> [responding to the following:]
>
> >>> The NBC host Matt Lauer asks a guest, "What do people in Great
> >>> Britain think about this journalist, or *quote-unquote*,
> >>> journalist?"
> >>
> >> Unquote? Shouldn't that be ENDquote?
> >
> > Who are you, Nero Wolfe?
>
> Hmm. I would have written "Who are you? Nero Wolfe?"
The difference lies in whether or not you want to imply that you had the
name in mind when you started asking the question.
Matti
Skitt
True. I made the more natural (to me) assumption that he was not addressing
Nero.
masakim
"GenJerDan" wrote:
> masakim wrote:
> > The NBC host Matt Lauer asks a guest, "What do people in Great
> > Britain think about this journalist, or *quote-unquote*, journalist?"
>
> Unquote? Shouldn't that be ENDquote?
>
Quote ... unquote _spoken_ used at the beginning and end of a word or phrase
that someone else has said or written, to emphasize that you are repeating
it exactly
From _Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English_ (2003)
Ronald Reagan popularized that device in his speeches in the 80's, deriding
"*quote-unquote* tax reforms." But copy editors soon began adopting a
variant: *quote-endquote*, hyphenated and with the *un* changed to *end* and
sometimes placed after the quoted term. Georgia's Democratic senator, Zell
Miller, was quoted in The New York Times a month ago saying, "I was hurt and
mad at some longtime friends, *quote-endquote*, who had been so loud and
harsh and vehement in their criticism about my doing the tax cut and
Ashcroft."
Some users are going all the way to *quotes* before the quotation, leaving
out the *un* or *end* and relying on speech inflection to indicate the
quotation's end. This won't work in print. As my editor says, *quotes*, it's
confusing and I'd better not do it and at this point you don't know whether
I'm quoting him or me.
My solution: for plain quotation with no sneer intended, go back to "he
said, *quote*, those were the days, *unquote*." Specifically for casting
aspersion -- heaping ridicule on what follows -- it's O.K. in informal use
to write or say "what some pluralizing people like to call *quote-unquote*
aspersions."
--William Safire, "On Language, " _New York Time Magazine_, July 8, 2001
Regards,
masakim
Evan Kirshenbaum
> "Michael Hamm" wrote:
>
> > On 10 Dec 2003 14:18:49 GMT, Matt wrote, in part:
> > > When a speaker wishes to indicate the use of quotation marks, he
> > > often twinkles two fingers on each hand a few times.
> >
> > Does he? You make it sound to me like the fingers are moved
> > independently. I've always seen them go up and down (or just
> > down) in unison. They start nearly extended and are bent, then
> > possibly unbent again, and then perhaps the process is repeated
> > once.
> >
[quoting]
> The term _air quotes_ has been recorded in print since the late
> eightieth,
Oy?
I wish I could remember which of my professors used to tell about
lecturing somewhere in Europe and having one of his students finally
ask him "Why do you keep making bunny ears with your fingers?"
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |To express oneself
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |In seventeen syllables
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Is very diffic
| Tony Finch
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
GenJerDan
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:47:34 +0100, GenJerDan <Rev...@genjerdan.com>
> wrote, in part:
>>> The NBC host Matt Lauer asks a guest, "What do people in Great
>>> Britain think about this journalist, or *quote-unquote*,
>>> journalist?"
>>
>> Unquote? Shouldn't that be ENDquote?
>
> Who are you, Nero Wolfe?
All my orchids died. :^(
Still the ideas unfolded in their perfect array
Only hinting at what lay beyond them
Hidden behind all the logic one finds without truth
GenJerDan
> --William Safire, "On Language, " _New York Time Magazine_, July 8,
> 2001
Oh, sure. Throw Bill Safire in my face, why don't you.
You know of course, that the Tasmanians,
who never committed adultery,
are now extinct.
- W. Somerset Maugham
Ray Heindl
Interpreting "Who are you, Nero Wolfe?" as addressing Mr. Wolfe[1]
doesn't seem terribly natural to me. The difference is in which word
is stressed; asking if someone thinks he's Wolfe would require
stressing the "you", whereas in addressing Wolfe I would stress the
"are".
But if I were saying it, I'd probably go with "Who do you think you
are, Nero Wolfe?".
[1] As I recall, nobody but Marko Vukcic was allowed to call him Nero.
--
Ray Heindl
(remove the Xs to reply)
Skitt
> "Skitt" wrote:
>> Matti Lamprhey wrote:
>>> "Skitt" wrote:
>>>> Michael Hamm wrote:
>>>>> GenJerDan wrote, in part:
>>>> [responding to the following:]
>>>>>>> The NBC host Matt Lauer asks a guest, "What do people in
>>>>>>> Great Britain think about this journalist, or
>>>>>>> *quote-unquote*, journalist?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unquote? Shouldn't that be ENDquote?
>>>>>
>>>>> Who are you, Nero Wolfe?
>>>>
>>>> Hmm. I would have written "Who are you? Nero Wolfe?"
>>>
>>> The difference lies in whether or not you want to imply that you
>>> had the name in mind when you started asking the question.
>>
>> True. I made the more natural (to me) assumption that he was not
>> addressing Nero.
>
> Interpreting "Who are you, Nero Wolfe?" as addressing Mr. Wolfe[1]
> doesn't seem terribly natural to me. The difference is in which word
> is stressed; asking if someone thinks he's Wolfe would require
> stressing the "you", whereas in addressing Wolfe I would stress the
> "are".
>
> But if I were saying it, I'd probably go with "Who do you think you
> are, Nero Wolfe?".
But see -- in writing that doesn't help a bit. You are still addressing
Nero Wolfe. What would you write differently it if you were, indeed,
addressing Nero Wolfe (by his full name)?
Ray Heindl
> Ray Heindl wrote:
>> "Skitt" wrote:
>>> Matti Lamprhey wrote:
>>>> "Skitt" wrote:
>>>>> Hmm. I would have written "Who are you? Nero Wolfe?"
>>>>
>>>> The difference lies in whether or not you want to imply that
>>>> you had the name in mind when you started asking the question.
>>>
>>> True. I made the more natural (to me) assumption that he was
>>> not addressing Nero.
>>
>> Interpreting "Who are you, Nero Wolfe?" as addressing Mr.
>> Wolfe[1] doesn't seem terribly natural to me. The difference is
>> in which word is stressed; asking if someone thinks he's Wolfe
>> would require stressing the "you", whereas in addressing Wolfe I
>> would stress the "are".
>>
>> But if I were saying it, I'd probably go with "Who do you think
>> you are, Nero Wolfe?".
>
> But see -- in writing that doesn't help a bit. You are still
> addressing Nero Wolfe.
I see your point, but I think it's unlikely that there would be any
ambiguity. Context is vital.
The problem with "Who are you? Nero Wolfe?" is that it implies an
unnaturally long pause between "you" and "Nero", which doesn't square
with the way I'd say it. But if it were otherwise ambiguous then the
two-sentence version would take care of it.
> What would you write differently it if you
> were, indeed, addressing Nero Wolfe (by his full name)?
The same. It would likely be clear from context what is meant. But
I'd proofread it very carefully, as Wolfe was pickier even than the
average AUEite.
A couple of years ago the A&E network did a series of shows taken from
the Wolfe stories. The shows were excellent, among the best TV
adaptations of anything that I've ever seen. But one episode contained
a howling error -- Wolfe used the word "contact" as a verb. In at
least two of the written stories he objected to that usage, so I was
surprised to see it in the otherwise well-made TV version.
Michael Hamm 'msh210'
> >>>> Who are you, Nero Wolfe?
> >>>
> >>> Hmm. I would have written "Who are you? Nero Wolfe?"
> Interpreting "Who are you, Nero Wolfe?" as addressing Mr. Wolfe[1]
> doesn't seem terribly natural to me. The difference is in which word
> is stressed; asking if someone thinks he's Wolfe would require
> stressing the "you", whereas in addressing Wolfe I would stress the
> "are".
I think the difference is more in the tune (or whatever it's called)
of the sentence.
Michael Hamm
msh...@math.wustl.edu
http://math.wustl.edu/~msh210/
Stewart Gordon
<snip>
> Interpreting "Who are you, Nero Wolfe?" as addressing Mr. Wolfe[1]
> doesn't seem terribly natural to me. The difference is in which word
> is stressed; asking if someone thinks he's Wolfe would require
> stressing the "you", whereas in addressing Wolfe I would stress the
> "are".
<snip>
IMM, the "asking if someone thinks he's Wolfe" interpretation would mean
stressing the name.
Ray Heindl
> While it was 12/12/03 10:16 pm throughout the UK, Ray Heindl
> sprinkled little black dots on a white screen, and they fell thus:
>
> <snip>
>> Interpreting "Who are you, Nero Wolfe?" as addressing Mr.
>> Wolfe[1] doesn't seem terribly natural to me. The difference is
>> in which word is stressed; asking if someone thinks he's Wolfe
>> would require stressing the "you", whereas in addressing Wolfe I
>> would stress the "are".
> <snip>
>
> IMM, the "asking if someone thinks he's Wolfe" interpretation
> would mean stressing the name.
Good point. I was too fixated on the first part of the sentence.