NYHIST-L Archives

April 2007

NYHIST-L@LISTSERV.NYSED.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Date:
Mon, 2 Apr 2007 10:32:49 -0400
Content-Disposition:
inline
Reply-To:
"A LISTSERV list for discussions pertaining to New York State history." <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
David Palmquist <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
Sender:
"A LISTSERV list for discussions pertaining to New York State history." <[log in to unmask]>
Comments:
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (29 lines)
Dear Paul : I agree/concur.  The common/overdone use of the slash to
link related terms is confusing and should be condemned/avoided.

David 

>>> [log in to unmask] 03/25/07 9:15 PM >>>
As we approach the Hudson-Champlain observances in  2009, there is a
question 
of historians' writing style that has me  intrigued.  I find myself
slightly 
annoyed when I read a phrase that seems  to me trite and hackneyed in 
otherwise good historical writing.  Am I being  oversensitive, or is
this a valid 
gripe?  The phrase is this:  In  1609 Hudson/Champlain "explored the
river/lake 
which bears his name."   This gets written in this way over and over. 
Shouldn't 
this worn-out,  stale phrase be avoided by good writers?  I guess once
one 
begins to notice  it, the more annoying it gets.
 
Paul Huey



************************************** AOL now offers free email to
everyone. 
 Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2