quote:

---

Just for the record, "wherefore" means "why."

---

quote:

---

1. For what? esp. for what purpose or end? (Often scarcely distinguishable from 2.)
2. For what cause or reason? on what account? why? (Freq. with ellipsis; often coupled with why for emphasis.)

---

quote:

---

ROMEO
He jests at scars that never felt a wound.

JULIET appears above at a window

But, soft! what light through yonder window breaks?
It is the east, and Juliet is the sun.
Arise, fair sun, and kill the envious moon,
Who is already sick and pale with grief,
That thou her maid art far more fair than she:
Be not her maid, since she is envious;
Her vestal livery is but sick and green
And none but fools do wear it; cast it off.
It is my lady, O, it is my love!
O, that she knew she were!
She speaks yet she says nothing: what of that?
Her eye discourses; I will answer it.
I am too bold, 'tis not to me she speaks:
Two of the fairest stars in all the heaven,
Having some business, do entreat her eyes
To twinkle in their spheres till they return.
What if her eyes were there, they in her head?
The brightness of her cheek would shame those stars,
As daylight doth a lamp; her eyes in heaven
Would through the airy region stream so bright
That birds would sing and think it were not night.
See, how she leans her cheek upon her hand!
O, that I were a glove upon that hand,
That I might touch that cheek!

JULIET
Ay me!

ROMEO
She speaks:
O, speak again, bright angel! for thou art
As glorious to this night, being o'er my head
As is a winged messenger of heaven
Unto the white-upturned wondering eyes
Of mortals that fall back to gaze on him
When he bestrides the lazy-pacing clouds
And sails upon the bosom of the air.

JULIET
O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father and refuse thy name;
Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
And I'll no longer be a Capulet.

ROMEO
[Aside] Shall I hear more, or shall I speak at this?

JULIET
'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.

ROMEO
I take thee at thy word:
Call me but love, and I'll be new baptized;
Henceforth I never will be Romeo.

JULIET
What man art thou that thus bescreen'd in night
So stumblest on my counsel?

---

She doesn't know that he's there until after her 'wherefore' speech. What she's doing is ruminating on the difficult decision his existence forces her to make -- for what purpose does he exist when he is the son of her family's enemies?

EDIT: Jon Boy beat me, but my post is thoroughly documented. Therefore, I win.

[ October 21, 2003, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: Zalmoxis ]
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
Zal's throrough documentation
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Well I'm not a Shakespeare scholar so all I ever knew was the common quotation that apparently most average people interpret incorrectly. In one of the two formal English classes I ever took, we did Hamlet instead, so I missed that bit.

Now I know!

AJ
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
That reminds me, JB. Do you know if there is a section on smilies and graemlins in the new edition of Chicago? I'd hate to think that I'm doing these wrong.

Or is it:

I'd hate to think that I'm doing these wrong .

Or is it:

I'd hate to think that I'm doing these wrong. .
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
I hate to think what it says about me that I have actually fretted over the issue that zal just raised.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
That's an interesting question, but unfortunately it's not covered in the new edition of Chicago. In my opinion, it depends on whether the emoticon bears a syntactic or semantic relationship to the sentence. If it does, then I think it should be included before the period. If not, then it should go afterward. Of course, if there's another sentence after the emoticon, it may appear to be a part of that following sentence. In that case, you should probably put the emoticon before the period of the previous sentence. But I don't think it would warrant a second period like your second example.
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
" ."

So am I quoting dkw or making light of (ironicalizing?) her pain?

Normally quotes are in some sort of context, but smilies don't really need context -- not entirely at least. I mean their meanings can be changed by context, but they also have meaning by themselves.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
I'm sorry, Zalmoxis. I can't have a meaningful conversation with someone who makes up words like "ironicalizing."
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
That was entirely for your benefit, you know.

Just to make you cringe.

-----
Bonus post: best Shakespearean word that's not a noun --> perforce!
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
That was low. But I'll excuse it this time because of that cool bonus word.
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
I have often wondered about the proper syntaxtual (that's a word!) use of the graemiln. The rules will have to be adapted, I fear, for use of graemlins after colons and withing parentheses. An additional space will have to become standard to avoid confusing the encoding mechanism in which the graemlin is typed.

Hopefully, after years of training, schoolchildren will know that it is proper to :: peek :: into a chatroom, and we will avoid all occurances of : eek::ing

[ October 21, 2003, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: Annie ]
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
Low.

----
Aside for OJ: Don't never not say that us Jatraqueros didn't ever try to edumacate ya real good.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
I believe wherefore is in the Bible a couple times too. I'll have to go back and look for those verses now that I am more enlightened.

AJ
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
Annie, don't think that you can get away with making up words just because you're my triplet.

My old roommate had one of Low's Where Are Going? t-shirt, and I'd buy one if it weren't for the fact that I've only ever heard one song by Low.

AJ, whenever wherefore is used in the Bible, it either means why or therefore.

[ October 21, 2003, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
I love that they sell pillowcases.
 

---

Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
I just received an email from Sandra Schulberg at Phobos announcing the 2003 contest finalists. She didn't say anything about keeping this secret, so here's the list (note that there are 25 of them):

“A Timely Education”
“All the Rage This Year”
“And Cry the Name of David”
“Big Shot, The”
“Come to Dust”
“Dissident”
“Earl Billings and the Angels of the Lord”
“End of the Beginning, The”
“Forgotten War, The”
“Future Games: 2050”
“Golden Town”
“Incomplete”
“Man Who Moved the Moon, The”
“Man Who Murdered Himself, The”
“Merge”
“Noah’s Children”
“Second Chance of Clevon Walker, The”
“Sounds of a Future”
“Travelogue”
“Tried as an Adult”
“Truth Will Not Save You,The ”
“Two Rooms and all the Electricity…”
“Veil Of Ignorance”
“Walls Within, The”
“Waterfall”

Hope some of these were from Hatrack people, I can't tell by the titles.
 

---

Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
 
Thanks a lot. I'm glad to know.

:: mutters and swears under his breath ::

:: kicks violenty at some unseen object on ground, misses, falls on butt, gets up and rubs butt, embarressed, hopes nobody saw ::

:: walks away ::
 

---

Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
 
So, is anyone of those yours, Destineer?
 

---

Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
 
Come on, people, no-one who recognise their title? Since I couldn't submit a story of my own, I'm living vicariously here and this lack of responsiveness is frustrating.

[ November 12, 2003, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: Tristan ]
 

---

Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
No, I didn't submit to Phobos this year. I'm trying out some other markets before submitting to them again.
 

---

Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
 
So they're emailing random non-participants the names of the finalists, but not any of the actual people who submitted entries?

Or are you somehow not a random non particpant?
 

---

Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 5938) on :
 
I haven't participated on this forum, but I've been active over in the Writers Workshops forum.

One of those titles is mine. Two belong to someone else active in the writers' forum.

So at least three of the finalists were written by Hatrack writers.
 

---

Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
 
Congratulations and best of luck to all.
 

---

Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 

quote:

---

So they're emailing random non-participants the names of the finalists, but not any of the actual people who submitted entries?

Or are you somehow not a random non particpant?

---

quote:

---

I haven't participated on this forum, but I've been active over in the Writers Workshops forum.

One of those titles is mine. Two belong to someone else active in the writers' forum.

So at least three of the finalists were written by Hatrack writers.

---