Timeline for What does "do't" mean?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 16, 2013 at 10:43 | comment | added | StoneyB on hiatus | I'm occasionally tempted to throw 'a, 's,'n into the ring as the long-sought genderless 3d person singular pronoun. | |
| Mar 16, 2013 at 10:39 | comment | added | user264 | @StoneyB: Yes, again, y'are prob'ly right about't, & y'are certain to be better informed about't than I am. | |
| Mar 16, 2013 at 10:27 | comment | added | StoneyB on hiatus | Yes, though I think it's less a matter of meter than the fact of representing spoken language. Also, Early Modern English tended to contract pronouns, or omit them altogether (th'art, is't, y'are, and the contraction of he to 'a and his to 's), where today we prefer to contract or omit auxiliary verbs. That very different colloquial rhythm is difficult for actors coming to Shakespeare for the first time. | |
| Mar 16, 2013 at 3:57 | vote | accept | Capacitor | ||
| Mar 16, 2013 at 3:52 | history | answered | user264 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |