Talk:Postscript

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Typography  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 

Post Scriptum[edit]

I've changed the translation of post scriptum from "after writing" to "written after." Scriptum is a passive participle, not an active participle.--149.99.131.154 (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC) ~~True, but scriptum as a noun, the far more common usage of it simply means 'text', or 'that which is written'. We could say 'hoc scriptum post ...' but 'post scriptum' clearly implies that scrimptum is the object of the praeposition post without any other object for it to take. Thus it simply means 'after the text:' especially because if we said 'written after..', 'scriptum post...' then the only logical thing that could fill in the dots is scriptum itself. 'scriptum post scriptum est', 'it is written after the text'. Rajakhr (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

PP[edit]

what does pp stand for on a letter-? 217.169.51.254


It stands for per procuram and has nothing to do with postscript Braeside

P.S.S.[edit]

I have seen people use P.S.S. instead of P.P.S. I'm a little confused, any thoughts on that? 149.169.89.176 03:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking P.S.S. is probably just incorrect -Power Slave 11:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
That would be, "Post script-script". Those people are just wrong. ISAYsorry 02:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. It's perhaps worth mentioning that outside of casual writing (such as e-mails), anything beyond a simple 'PS' is likely to be seen as poor style and disorganised. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.143.122.58 (talk) 16:46, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
I added it to the content, as I can see that this might be true, but still it'd be best if we have sources. I wanted to put up a "citation needed" tag, but decided otherwise since this page is already marked unreferenced. I might as well go find some sources now.
石川 (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Added the tag anyway. 石川 (talk) 11:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I use P.S.S and P.S.S.S, and so on, but one of my friends says "It's not written P.S.S, it's written P.P.S. I'm confused as well. 71.212.122.197 (talk) 05:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

End of postscript[edit]

In Norwegian a postscript is initiated with "p.s." and ends with "d.s." Is this practice unknown in English writing? __meco 08:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any usage of that in English. McKay 16:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
We use "D.S." in Swedish, too, and apparently it's the abbreviated form of the Latin "Deinde Scriptum" (lat. "thereafter" + "written text" (roughly)). However, many Swedes take it to mean "densamme" - meaning "the same" - indicating that the Postscript is written by the same person who wrote the text that precedes it (as opposed to being an addendum by another person, or the like). --TheFinalFraek 15:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with trivia?[edit]

May I ask why the "trivia flag" was added to this entry? I thought the notes added were rather informative, and contributed to the quality of this article. While I understand the trivia policy, in my opinion this flag should be used sparingly. In this particular case, I think it is unwaranted, and request that the flag either be removed or be defended on the talk page.

Dr. T. 16:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the guideline has to do more with style rather than content. No one would disagree that the notes are informative, it's to present them in an unorganized list that people advise against. I've sorted them into "Usage" and "References in popular culture", in keeping with the style of other pages. How does it look right now? One might argue that now it needs to be expanded, though. 石川 (talk) 11:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


Where does "P.S." go?[edit]

Where should be exactly located the "P.S." in a letter? at the very end? after the famous "Sincerely yours"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.10.117.49 (talk)

Anywhere else, and it wouldn't be a post-script! A postscript should go after the signature. --Bando26 (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)gsdrfgergggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg

Precice Meaning of the Latin[edit]

Post scriptum was listed in the article as possible meaning "after the writing" or "the writing which comes afterwards." However, according to proper Latin, only the former meaning would be possible.

Post scriptum consists of one accusative-requiring preposition (translated "after") and its object. If the writer meant to confer through the Latin the meaning of "the writing which comes afterward," the Latin would, at a minimum, contain the adverb postea (and probably should account for the adjective phrase).

So, I am removing the alternative explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasel001 (talkcontribs) 18:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Usage[edit]

The Usage section states that the Oxford English Dictionary lists PS as the correct abbreviation. I don't believe this is factual. Please provide a specific citation for that claim. I am looking at the OED entry for "P.S.,n." which cites usage examples of P.S. from 1616 to 2006. I'm inclined to remove this section entirely. Netrapt (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Since no one has responded and I was unable to find any authoritative opinion on this matter I'm going to delete the section. The OED does list "P.S." as a common abbreviation but the OED is not a prescriptive dictionary. I'll wait a few more days just in case someone has something. Bfootdav (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Removed the Usage section. I suppose it would be nice to have something authoritative here or at least a link to wiktionary though that entry has some problems too. Bfootdav (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: Necessity of.[edit]

[Before I begin, may I please ask that you forgive mistakes of Protocol with respect to Wiki discussion, editing, etc. Though I've read the necessary information, it was a while ago, and I have not yet used the system in this way. I am open to constructive criticism, but please don't flame me for it. I'm just trying to help through this participation.]

I would like to suggest that the question of whether or not PS is a valid convention in digital communication is examined. I can see points for and against its use in digital communications, but am wondering if a more official entity has discussed / resolved this issue.

Premise for the belief that this is a necessary topic: At the time the P.s. convention was first used regularly, the expenditure of time and the expense of the supplies dictated that there be a formal way to differentiate between what would otherwise be a complete writing- and writing that was necessary to the communication- but was added after the fact. Otherwise, there existed no good way to formally edit the communication while maintaining writing etiquette- other than to completely redo the writing. Such edits could be as simple as an adjustment to erroneous facts within the main body of text, or to add to or diminish emphasis on a particular concept. They could also be complex enough to strike entire concepts from the main body or update time sensitive information received just prior to dispatching the message.

It could be argued that postscript writing is a necessary convention in digital communication- as well as in any other format- because it creates an additional vehicle to denote emphasis on a particular subject. I have often viewed others' use of postscript writing as an attempt to communicate a "last word" or "last thought" regarding the message they were attempting to present.

In addition, postscript emphasis lies outside the realm of text formatting- a technique that is often misused and overused. This point presents both and argument for- and against- its use in digital communications. It is of benefit to create emphasis without visual formatting, but the combination of ways in which emphasis can be added are so numerous that it could be considered unnecessary and/or confusing to the reader.

I would also mention that the use of postscript for email communication could be an important part of maintaining proper message etiquette. This is to say that, often, writers review, re-write, and edit messages in an attempt to put forth communication that is most accurate to their intent, knowing that so many dispatch messages without doing so, with catastrophic impact. (e.g., pressing the "SEND" button too soon.)

For written communication, I believe postscript entries are still necessary, as it follows original convention and intent.

These are not necessarily verifiable, though I cannot imagine that the subject has not been discussed by linguists at one level or another. Part of my purpose in writing this entry is to encourage participation in, and research of this question. (Has this issue been dealt with by an official / authoritative entity whose purpose is in defining the proper use of language and communication?)

Thoughts on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savage223 (talkcontribs) 14:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)