The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 16.0263  Thursday, 10 February 2005

[1]     From:   Roger Gross <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 08 Feb 2005 10:42:13 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 16.0248 Printing Conventions for -ed Ending

[2]     From:   Peter Groves <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 9 Feb 2005 08:21:03 +1100
        Subj:   RE: SHK 16.0248 Printing Conventions for -ed Ending

[3]     From:   Matthew Baynham <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 9 Feb 2005 11:05:40 -0000
        Subj:   Printing -ed


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Roger Gross <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 08 Feb 2005 10:42:13 -0600
Subject: 16.0248 Printing Conventions for -ed Ending
Comment:        Re: SHK 16.0248 Printing Conventions for -ed Ending

Julia Griffin wrote:

 >Does anyone else find very irritating the 3rd Arden eds' policy of
 >printing the past tense "-ed" in all cases, explaining the pronunciation
 >each time in a note at the foot of the page?

Extremely!  And this is just one of the offenses to a reader concerned
with the verse. We need a verse-friendly edition.

Roger Gross

 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Peter Groves <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 9 Feb 2005 08:21:03 +1100
Subject: 16.0248 Printing Conventions for -ed Ending
Comment:        RE: SHK 16.0248 Printing Conventions for -ed Ending

Julia Griffin asks "Does anyone else find very irritating the 3rd Arden
eds' policy of printing the past tense "-ed" in all cases, explaining
the pronunciation each time in a note at the foot of the page?  It means
that anyone reading aloud who is unconfident with metric is likely to
falter over the scansion about half the time.  Why not print "lov'd" if
it's so pronounced, or - even more helpfully - the deeply unfashionable
"lov