| ▲ | zahlman 19 hours ago |
| How about "Whoa!"? That seems to me like it preserves some of the ambiguous sense (calling for attention vs. remarking upon a discovery). |
|
| ▲ | cvoss 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The issue is really focused on the grammatical function of the word. The researcher is arguing that it's not ever used as an interjection, which "whoa" always is. |
| |
| ▲ | zahlman 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | I would say the presence of an exclamation mark, in a context where exclamation marks are rare, is strong evidence of use as an interjection. Unless we're arguing that some other mark was mistaken for an exclamation, generally I would say rare typography is "marked" (noteworthy) rather than being likely mistaken. I think the researcher's position is not likely to hold much sway going forward. | | |
| ▲ | tsimionescu 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The exclamation mark is added in transliterations of the manuscript because it is believed to be an interjection. If you look at the manuscript, there is no such mark: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf#/media/File:Beowulf_Co... | |
| ▲ | Sharlin 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Why would you assume the original had an exclamation mark? Indeed the whole symbol was not invented until the 1300s. | | |
| ▲ | LudwigNagasena 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | The article puts punctuation into its rendering of the original text. That confused me too. | | |
| ▲ | tsimionescu 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'll note that it's not this decision is not coming from the newspaper article's writer, it's coming from any common transliteration of the manuscript that you'll find. But it's clearly a transliteration decision made because the people doing this assume it is an interjection, and they're using modern punctuation rules accordingly. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
| ▲ | badgersnake 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Bill and Ted kill a dragon. |
