Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Thenamir
. . . As can plainly be seen if viewed in context, “…” could have been taken as an implicit “?”, leaving open the possibility of concepts unspoken to the imaginations of the reader, even of a grand denouement left hidden, hanging in a deft display of a kind of authorial “cliff hanger”, as it were.
Nevertheless, I believe it can be demonstrated that the asymmetrical nature of “?”, appearing as it does unbalanced and almost ready to topple, provides a more succinct expression than “…”, but that either is quite superior to the “.”.
|
Most intriguing and imaginative theory,
Thena. However, as you yourself note, the "?" is unstable--really, it's a bit of a unicycle, a self-referring bit of circular argument that could threaten to create a rut more than a wide avenue for going forth with the topic.
". . ." does have the virtue of implying yet more unstated. However, it has the drawback of requiring a beginning, an introduction, a preliminary elaboration of the subject. For that reason, I decided initially to go with the "." as an opening gambit. The dot has the virtue of signifying landfall, as in "here beginneth a discussion", "at this point", "this spot flagged for further development." A little dot will do it.
[ ] speaking,
TM, I see your ironic comment as most welcome. You could say it is a , _______ and ■ for you seem to have made a few catches.
The grammar of mythologies is a most intriguing topic, isn't it?