"Hello You There!"

[Prestidigitweeze]

Tonight, while responding to a thread on MobileRead, I found myself logged out and facing our official login prompt. Normally, I ignore everything but the two blank fields, but this time, I actually stopped to read the explanatory text. Imagine my dismay at encountering this:

Hello you there!

Were you trying to post to MobileRead? This is wonderful, since we love to hear your voice! However, either you forgot to log in, or you are still not registered in our community. Don't be shy - to register here takes less than 30 seconds and then you are a full and respected member!

Where to begin?

"Hello you there" for "hello, there"; "we['d] love to hear your voice" on an internet forum, which is visual by definition; "were you trying" for an action that is still taking place in the present; "this is wonderful" instead of "that [what the other person's doing] is wonderful" or the less stilted version, "that's great"; "you are still not registered" to a person who might be visiting for the first time; registering in, as opposed to with, a given community; the idea that registering makes you not only a full member but also a "respected" one; etc., etc.

Shouldn't the login prompt be revised to make the community, which is dedicated to tech-savvy literacy, look a wee Hank better to outsiders?

Suggested fair copy:

Hello there!

You seem to be trying to post to MobileRead. If so, that's great, since we'd love to hear from you. However, there's a teensy problem: Either you've forgotten to log in or you're not yet registered as a member.

If you're not a member of our forums yet, there's no need to be shy. It takes about thirty seconds to register, after which you'll have full membership privileges, including the ability to post.

[Poppaea]

But we still would like to "hear" from them, wouldn't we? How about " would like/love you to join in" or something like that?

[GraceKrispy]

thumbs up to both the op and the 'edit' from poppaea....

I've never actually read that, as I never log out. I don't mind : "hey! you there! yes, you, over there! I'm talking to you!" in big bold red letters. But your way is good, too.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by Poppaea

But we still would like to "hear" from them, wouldn't we? How about " would like/love you to join in" or something like that?

Believe it or not, I actually thought about that.

Because English syntax is fundamentally imperfect and its vocabulary so vast, usage and logic are often the most important parts of style. Despite the apparent reference to our second sense, the phrase "hear from you" is used colloquially to mean any sort of communication. It's acceptable (and common) to say you've heard from someone who recently wrote you a letter.

The complication comes with the use of the word voice. The only context in which we'd use it would be if we were describing our sense of the person or character behind a literary work, as in the phrase, "I decided not to make the essay too formal because I wanted it to be in my voice."

It's easy to see how someone might look at the above example and assume that voice was a synonym for written communication. Unfortunately, usage is more complicated than that. You can hear from a correspondent, but you can only hear their voice if you're specifically and clearly indicating your sense of the person in the style and tone of the language itself.

[Poppaea]

This is something I did not know for sure, I am only used to hear "hear" being used in this manner, but then I am no native speaker. Given the internationality of the board wouldn't it be better to be clear about it and use something else.

Although I do have to admit it is hard to think of another word.

How about: We would be glad to have your company! Let us know your thoughts on ereading. Or would love to make your acquaintance.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Poppaea

This is something I did not know for sure, I am only used to hear "hear" being used in this manner, but then I am no native speaker. Given the internationality of the board wouldn't it be better to be clear about it and use something else.

Although I do have to admit it is hard to think of another word.

How about: We would be glad to have your company! Let us know your thoughts on ereading. Or would love to make your acquaintance.

Would we really "love" to make their acquaintance? Can they really let us know their thoughts or just what the are able to articulate in writing?

Ridiculous? Possibly, but no more so than the preceding contributions.

[Poppaea]

Originally Posted by TGS

Would we really "love" to make their acquaintance?

Well, somebody will that's for sure

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by TGS

Ridiculous? Possibly, but no more so than the preceding contributions.

I'm an editor in the professional (i.e., paid, not superior) sense. Half of what we do would probably strike most readers as ridiculous.

I would argue that international readers would be better served by correct English usage than the careful avoidance of associations that might or might not be pertinent.

Which is not to say that Poppaea's idea of avoiding distracting metaphors -- however deeply built into traditional usage -- is without merit.

TGS: The question isn't whether warmth should be sacrificed to literal-mindedness, but rather if an expression of warmth is appropriate to the context. While you might or might not be fond of President Obama, if you were a member of the press, you'd always refer to him as Mr. President as opposed to, say, Darling!

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

I'm an editor in the professional (i.e., paid, not superior) sense. Half of what we do would probably strike most readers as ridiculous.

I would argue that international readers would be better served by correct English usage than the careful avoidance of associations that might or might not be pertinent.

Which is not to say that Poppaea's idea of avoiding distracting metaphors -- however deeply built into traditional usage -- is without merit.

TGS: The question isn't whether warmth should be sacrificed to literal-mindedness, but rather if an expression of warmth is appropriate to the context. While you might or might not be fond of President Obama, if you were a member of the press, you'd always refer to him as Mr. President as opposed to say, Darling!

As an editor, presumably you would seek to ascertain from the author whose words you are about to edit, what effect they are trying to bring about in using the words that they have.

[Poppaea]

@TGS

The intention seems pretty clear to me.

@Presti

After thinking about the "hear" I realised we do something similar like this in German. Maybe it is a common thing to say "hearing from somebody" in all languages as they were spoken before they were written, as the word for language is in most languages tied to the word for tongue.

@TGS

Is there such a thing in Danish, too?

[Ea]

Originally Posted by Poppaea

@TGS
Is there such a thing in Danish, too?

It's the same in Danish. 'høre'/'hørt'* in colloquial use, refers to written communication as well.


*hear/heard

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by Poppaea

@Presti

After thinking about the "hear" I realised we do something similar like this in German. Maybe it is a common thing to say "hearing from somebody" in all languages as they were spoken before they were written, as the word for language is in most languages tied to the word for tongue.

I think you're onto something.

That sense of telling a story with sonic resonance, that proximity of style to music and sustained narratives to bedtime yarns, all these are powerful aspects of the task, aspects of which most writers I know are mindful. Any archaisms I might use have been poked and squinted at by friends whose goal has been to purge their writing of obvious formality and artifice because they aspire to the natural immediacy of campfire stories. (However, my sense of music is decidedly vintage and I have to be true to that, hence the endless appositives and semi-quaint diction.)

I will say that heard writing -- in the sense of Lautremont's, who was said to write while striking piano chords -- often carries a kind of transmutative spell.