The syntax of the Southern Europeans is very similar (other Italians that I know told me that).
The photo which you uploaded has the initials MB, ergo I made an educated guess.
I understand that you speak metaphorically, but can you explain what do you mean by "voice" ?
P.S. Why do you use improper grammar sometimes? I believe it may indicate a feeling of suspicion on your behalf about the writer of the statement, e.g., when you put your hand in your jaw and think, while moving your head, "wtf is he talking about now ! "
I mean no disrespect, I am just explaining something in a plain and direct way so I can make myself clear. And perhaps I want to understand your character deeply, as Carl Young would put it.
You mean like this?
Very clever, Echetlaeus.
It's Carl
Jung, by the way.
I fear you're too "young" to understand my character deeply. Perhaps there is also a certain lack of "gravitas"? No offense meant, of course. :grin: Also, I've never cared to have anyone understand me too well. It spoils all the mystery for one thing, and for another I'm, yes, far too suspicious of other people to normally allow them that much access. These internet exchanges are actually fun precisely because it's a safer environment in which to reveal more of oneself, don't you think? So long as everything stays within reason and decorum, of course.
And now to return the conversation to more seemly matters.
"Voice" can mean several different things in terms of written communication. It can mean "point of view", as in the book is written from the point of view of the main character, or the point of view or "voice" is that of an omniscient narrator. That's a literary use.
It can also mean "active voice" or "passive voice" in writing. In English one can write that "Caesar was stabbed by Brutus.", or one can write that "Brutus stabbed Caesar." My natural inclination is to write in the passive voice, and I have to actively work against it.
It can also mean, and this is the sense in which I used it, the unique style of the author of a particular piece. After all, written language is just transcribed speech. This wouldn't be revealed in a business plan or a legal brief, for example, but it would be revealed in more personal communications. Speaking of "Sherlock", analyzing the "voice" of a writer is often of great help in the kind of detective work that goes on in the criminal justice system, and it can also be of great help in business negotiations for the added insight it provides into the minds of the other parties.
As to my grammar, I've made my living to a certain extent based on my facility with the English language, so it's rather disconcerting that you find it incorrect. I wonder, frankly, that a Greek who learned English relatively late in life, I assume, feels so qualified to judge, but regardless, I'll answer the question. Sometimes, it's because I'm in a hurry, but often it's done quite deliberately for effect, especially when using text or writing on the internet, so as to convey, when facial expression and even tone of "actual voice" is not available, nuance and "color". I also speak, and therefore write, in these settings, very colloquially. So yes, I know you're not technically supposed to start a sentence with "and".
I'm "transcribing" speech as it actually occurs here, and also doing it stylistically, for effect. For example, I tend to use commas in this kind of setting to express intonation.
Another thing occurs to me. When people learn a language that is not their native one, and they learn it after a certain age, or in their native country, there is sometimes a tendency to speak and write in a rather stilted and formulaic way, even in casual settings. Henry Kissinger strikes me that way. His English is always totally, teutonically correct in terms of grammar, but even when heard in more casual settings his language is still as stilted as the language of a treaty.
On a related issue, his accent is atrocious, and he came to America as a teenager. It's just proof that most people who learn a language after about the age of fourteen are incapable of speaking the language with a "native" accent, although the closer the native language is to the learned one the easier it is to approximate the "native" accent. The only people who can really do it are those who have a real "ear" for language. Now, don't ask me to explain that, and no, I don't have an "accent" in English! Well, that's not true. I have what I've been told is a regional western New England accent. I got my first professional job because of it. Well, only partly I hope. My employers were thrilled that unlike so many of their applicants I didn't have a "New York" accent. However, I can do very passable imitations of a Boston accent, a New York accent, and, of course, a southern accent. I'm pretty good at mimicking English as spoken with various foreign accents too. In another life, I would have liked to be an actress.
There, that's enough self-revelation for one day.
