Valedictions - Revision history

Eric Rasmusen at 22:07, 29 February 2024

2024-02-29T22:07:54Z

Eric Rasmusen at 22:06, 29 February 2024

2024-02-29T22:06:00Z

Eric Rasmusen at 22:05, 29 February 2024

2024-02-29T22:05:04Z

Manson Lilian at 15:16, 17 July 2023

2023-07-17T15:16:30Z

Manson Lilian at 15:16, 17 July 2023

2023-07-17T15:16:18Z

Manson Lilian: Created page with "We do not have good conventions for salutations and valedictions in letters and emails. Both are useful to have. The salutation shows where the message starts and to whom it i..."

2023-07-17T14:43:30Z

Created page with "We do not have good conventions for salutations and valedictions in letters and emails. Both are useful to have. The salutation shows where the message starts and to whom it i..."

New page

We do not have good conventions for salutations and valedictions in letters and emails. Both are useful to have.
The salutation shows where the message starts and to whom it is addressed. For letters, "Dear Mr. Smith," is completely conventional for letters. For emails, either that, or, less formally, "Hi, Joe." works well. (Note the period in "Hi, Joe.".).

Valedictions are vexing. A valediction shows where the message ends and by whom it is sent. I have often used "Yours truly, Eric Rasmusen", as being both literally true and clearly convention-driven. But that is somewhat too corny. "Yours faithfully" is too false and pretentious. "Best wishes," "All the best," and "Cheers" all have merit but are often inappropriate.

One valediction I sometimes use is "I.H.S., Eric Rasmusen". For most people, the only meaning of IHS is "Here is where the letters ends", which is fine, since that's the main purpose of a valediction. Others may know its meaning, which I will now explain, and that's fine too.

The meaning of I.H.S. is "In His Service" or "Jesus". Professor Kenneth Elzinga, whom I greatly admire, says he signs his letters writing out the phrase in full, "In His Service". That strikes me as admirable in its Christian witness but too pompous. It makes a claim that the writer hopes is true but seems either overblown or self-aggrandizing: that the writer is trying to act on behalf of God. The Christian is supposed to be doing that always, but if the letter is merely telling someone that the seminar this week is in room CG2069, we smile at this being service to God. It is, but it makes us smile anyway.

I.H.S. has the same meaning, but stated quietly. It has the additional advantage of being a historic Christian code. In Greek, the first three letters of Jesus are Iota, Eta, Sigma, which in Roman letters become I H S. Thus, IHS is a nice nod to God and also identifies the writer's intent to other Christians. At the same time, it offers a witness to non-Christians, in the following way. They see the letters and do not know what they mean. They may then ask the writer or someone else what they mean, and at that point in time they learn, and a useful conversation may start.

IHS does not solve the valediction problem for nonbelievers, but for Christians it may be helpful.

A variant of it is "I hope IHS". That is a pun, meaning either "I hope in His service" or "I hope in Jesus". I like the pun, and I like the greater modesty, since whether I am doing something in God's service is sometimes dubious and since ordinarily what I am doing in the email is entirely mundane (though the Christian is supposed to do *all* things to God's glory, "Soli Deo Gloria", as Bach and Handel wrote on their manuscripts).

Another valediction I've been using, imitating Professor Christopher Connell, is "Shalom, Eric Rasmusen". I like the Hebrew word "shalom", because it is Biblical and encompasses a variety of English words--- completeness, prosperity, peace (think of the Arabic "salaam"). The downside is that it is used as a greeting (and farewell) in modern Hebrew, that many people think it means the same thing as "peace" in English, and that it sounds awkwardly Jewish when used by someone named "Rasmusen". Still another possibility is YT, short for Yours Truly. That has the advantage of being inobtrusive. I like the idea of admitting to people that I am proudly Christian with IHS, but it may too much like boasting. It is best to show one's allegiance to God naturally, without any hint of being forced. I'm still thinking. Comments are welcomed. Email me at erasmuse@indiana.edu. See also Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christogram"Christogram," and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalom "Shalom".

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 (6) The meaning of IHS or I.H.S. is "In His Service" or "Jesus". Professor Kenneth Elzinga, whom I greatly admire, says he signs his letters writing out the phrase in full, "In His Service". That strikes me as admirable in its Christian witness, but too pompous. It makes a claim that the writer hopes is true, but it  seems either overblown or self-aggrandizing--- that the writer is trying to act on behalf of God. The Christian is supposed to be doing that always, to be sure, but if the letter is merely telling someone that the seminar this week is in room CG2069,  saying too explicitly that this is in service to God gets humorous.  It *is* in His service, but it makes me smile anyway.
-IHS has the same meaning as "In His Service", but stated more succinctly, formally, and  quietly. It has the additional advantage of being not just  code, but historic Christian code. In Greek  the first three letters of Jesus are Iota, Eta, Sigma (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heta),  which in Roman letters become I H S. Thus, IHS is a nice nod to God and also identifies the writer's intent to other Christians. At the same time, it offers a witness to non-Christians, in the following way. They see the letters and do not know what they mean. They may then ask the writer or someone else what they mean, and when they learn,   a useful conversation may start. Using the Greek letters might accomplish this even better; I haven't thought about that much.
+IHS has the same meaning as "In His Service", but stated more succinctly, formally, and  quietly. It has the additional advantage of being not just  code, but historic Christian code. In Greek  the first three letters of Jesus are Iota, Eta, Sigma (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heta),  which in Roman letters become I H S. Thus, IHS is a nice nod to God and also identifies the writer's intent to other Christians. At the same time, it offers a witness to non-Christians, in the following way. They see the letters and do not know what they mean. They may then ask the writer or someone else what they mean, and when they learn,   a useful conversation may start. See https://www.rasmusen.org/_religion/why.htm. Using the Greek letters might accomplish this even better; I haven't thought about that much.
-IHS also is an allusion to  "In hoc signo vinces,"   which means "In this sign you will conquer" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_hoc_signo_vinces). Eusebius's  History of Constantine tells how Constantine I, the first Christian emperor of Rome, was marching to battle when he looked up towards the sun and saw the Greek words "Touto niko", which mean "In hoc signo vinces" in Latin.  Lactantius's On the Deaths of the Persecutors says that Constantine had his soldiers paint the Greek letters chi and rho on their shields as a reference to Christ. Constantine, Emperor of the West, won the battler over  the Emperor of the East and became the sole Roman empereror.
+IHS also is an allusion to  "In hoc signo vinces,"   which means "In this sign you will conquer" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_hoc_signo_vinces). Eusebius's  History of Constantine tells how Constantine I, the first Christian emperor of Rome, was marching to battle when he looked up towards the sun and saw the Greek words "Touto niko", which mean "In hoc signo vinces" in Latin.  Lactantius's On the Deaths of the Persecutors says that Constantine had his soldiers paint the Greek letters chi and rho on their shields as a reference to Christ. Constantine, Emperor of the West, won the battler over  the Emperor of the East and became the sole Roman emperor.
 IHS does not solve the valediction problem for nonbelievers, but for Christians it  is helpful.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-  (1)  (I will number my points here, in case anyone wishes to reply.)
+(1)  (I will number my points here, in case anyone wishes to reply.)
-  We do not have good conventions for salutations and valedictions in letters and emails. Both are useful to have
+We do not have good conventions for salutations and valedictions in letters and emails. Both are useful to have
 (2) The salutation shows where the  message starts and to whom it is addressed. For letters, "Dear Mr. Smith," is completely conventional.   For emails,   "Dear Mr. Smith,"  is fine for formal emails, or first emails to strangers-- usually--- but it is  too formal for ordinary use.  An email is halfway between a letter and a phone call, and you would never say "Dear Mr. Smith," to open a phone call, even if Mr. Smith were old and distinguished.
-   Thus, I have come to use "Hello, Joseph,",  or  "Hi, Joe,"  if I want to be  less formal. I still use "Dear Mr. Epstein," for first emails to strangers if they are old and high-status, or "Dear Joseph (if I may)," to go a step down, e.g. to an old and high-status person in my profession), or "Dear Joseph," to go another step down to a young or low-status stranger, e.g. a graduate student.
+Thus, I have come to use "Hello, Joseph,",  or  "Hi, Joe,"  if I want to be  less formal. I still use "Dear Mr. Epstein," for first emails to strangers if they are old and high-status, or "Dear Joseph (if I may)," to go a step down, e.g. to an old and high-status person in my profession), or "Dear Joseph," to go another step down to a young or low-status stranger, e.g. a graduate student.
-   Then, in the second and succeeding emails in a thread I will not use a salutation, but I may insert the name in the first sentence so as to make the message more human. For example, I might write, "You indeed have found a mistake, Joe, and I am very grateful for that." Inserting Joe's name every time in five messages just between the two of us is too artificial though.  >
+Then, in the second and succeeding emails in a thread I will not use a salutation, but I may insert the name in the first sentence so as to make the message more human. For example, I might write, "You indeed have found a mistake, Joe, and I am very grateful for that." Inserting Joe's name every time in five messages just between the two of us is too artificial though.  >
-(3)  Note the  comma in "Hi, Joe," as a salutation. I would value discussion of that. Should it be "Hi, Joe," or "Hi, Joe." or "Hi, Joe"?   Which looks better? Which is more logical?
+(3) Note the  comma in "Hi, Joe," as a salutation. I would value discussion of that. Should it be "Hi, Joe," or "Hi, Joe." or "Hi, Joe"?  Which looks better? Which is more logical?
-(4)  Valedictions are vexing. A valediction shows where the message ends and by whom it was sent. I have often used "Yours Truly, Eric Rasmusen", as being both literally true and clearly convention-driven. But "Yours Truly" is a bit  corny.   "Yours faithfully"  is false and pretentious. "Yours sincerely" is okay, but doesn't seem right for an email.     "Best wishes,"  "All the best," and "Cheers" all have merit, but they  are often inappropriate.
+(4) Valedictions are vexing. A valediction shows where the message ends and by whom it was sent. I have often used "Yours Truly, Eric Rasmusen", as being both literally true and clearly convention-driven. But "Yours Truly" is a bit  corny.   "Yours faithfully"  is false and pretentious. "Yours sincerely" is okay, but doesn't seem right for an email.     "Best wishes,"  "All the best," and "Cheers" all have merit, but they  are often inappropriate.
-(5)   Thus, my standard  valediction now  is "IHS, Eric".   For most people, the only meaning of IHS is "Here is where the letters ends", which is fine, since that's the main purpose of a valediction. They don't need to know its meaning to understand that.  Other people may know its meaning, which I will now explain.
+(5) Thus, my standard  valediction now  is "IHS, Eric".   For most people, the only meaning of IHS is "Here is where the letters ends", which is fine, since that's the main purpose of a valediction. They don't need to know its meaning to understand that.  Other people may know its meaning, which I will now explain.
 (6) The meaning of IHS or I.H.S. is "In His Service" or "Jesus". Professor Kenneth Elzinga, whom I greatly admire, says he signs his letters writing out the phrase in full, "In His Service". That strikes me as admirable in its Christian witness, but too pompous. It makes a claim that the writer hopes is true, but it  seems either overblown or self-aggrandizing--- that the writer is trying to act on behalf of God. The Christian is supposed to be doing that always, to be sure, but if the letter is merely telling someone that the seminar this week is in room CG2069,  saying too explicitly that this is in service to God gets humorous.  It *is* in His service, but it makes me smile anyway.
- IHS has the same meaning as "In His Service", but stated more succinctly, formally, and  quietly. It has the additional advantage of being not just  code, but historic Christian code. In Greek  the first three letters of Jesus are Iota, Eta, Sigma (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heta),  which in Roman letters become I H S. Thus, IHS is a nice nod to God and also identifies the writer's intent to other Christians. At the same time, it offers a witness to non-Christians, in the following way. They see the letters and do not know what they mean. They may then ask the writer or someone else what they mean, and when they learn,   a useful conversation may start. Using the Greek letters might accomplish this even better; I haven't thought about that much.
+IHS has the same meaning as "In His Service", but stated more succinctly, formally, and  quietly. It has the additional advantage of being not just  code, but historic Christian code. In Greek  the first three letters of Jesus are Iota, Eta, Sigma (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heta),  which in Roman letters become I H S. Thus, IHS is a nice nod to God and also identifies the writer's intent to other Christians. At the same time, it offers a witness to non-Christians, in the following way. They see the letters and do not know what they mean. They may then ask the writer or someone else what they mean, and when they learn,   a useful conversation may start. Using the Greek letters might accomplish this even better; I haven't thought about that much.
 IHS also is an allusion to  "In hoc signo vinces,"   which means "In this sign you will conquer" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_hoc_signo_vinces). Eusebius's  History of Constantine tells how Constantine I, the first Christian emperor of Rome, was marching to battle when he looked up towards the sun and saw the Greek words "Touto niko", which mean "In hoc signo vinces" in Latin.  Lactantius's On the Deaths of the Persecutors says that Constantine had his soldiers paint the Greek letters chi and rho on their shields as a reference to Christ. Constantine, Emperor of the West, won the battler over  the Emperor of the East and became the sole Roman empereror.
@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 (9) Still another  valediction is YT, short for "Yours Truly". That has the advantage of being inobtrusive. I like the idea of admitting to people that I am  proudly Christian with IHS, but it may too much like boasting. The best thing is to show one's allegiance to God naturally, without any hint of being forced.  Thus, in some contexts, or just for variety, I use "YT".
-  Comments are welcomed!    Email me at erasmuse@indiana.edu.
+Comments are welcomed! Email me at erasmuse@indiana.edu.
-See  also Wikipedia,  "Christogram,"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christogram" > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christogram  </A>  and "Shalom,"  <A HREF= "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalom" > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalom  </A>.
+See also Wikipedia,  "Christogram,"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christogram" > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christogram  </A>  and "Shalom,"  <A HREF= "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalom" > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalom  </A>.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-We lack good conventions for salutations and valedictions in letters and emails.
+  (1)  (I will number my points here, in case anyone wishes to reply.)
-Both are useful to have. The salutation shows where the message starts and to whom it is addressed. For letters, "Dear Mr. Smith," is completely conventional. For emails,  that, or, less formally, "Hi, Joe," work.
+  We do not have good conventions for salutations and valedictions in letters and emails. Both are useful to have
-Valedictions are more vexing. A valediction shows where the message ends and by whom it is sent. I have often used "Yours truly, Eric Rasmusen", as being both literally true and clearly convention-driven. But that is somewhat too corny. "Yours faithfully" is too false and pretentious. "Best wishes," "All the best," and "Cheers" all have merit but are often inappropriate.
+(2) The salutation shows where the  message starts and to whom it is addressed. For letters, "Dear Mr. Smith," is completely conventional.   For emails,   "Dear Mr. Smith,"  is fine for formal emails, or first emails to strangers-- usually--- but it is  too formal for ordinary use.  An email is halfway between a letter and a phone call, and you would never say "Dear Mr. Smith," to open a phone call, even if Mr. Smith were old and distinguished.
-One valediction I sometimes use is "I.H.S., Eric Rasmusen". For most people, the only meaning of IHS is "Here is where the letters ends", which is fine, since that's the main purpose of a valediction. Others may know its meaning, which I will now explain, and that's fine too.
+   Thus, I have come to use "Hello, Joseph,",  or  "Hi, Joe,"  if I want to be  less formal. I still use "Dear Mr. Epstein," for first emails to strangers if they are old and high-status, or "Dear Joseph (if I may)," to go a step down, e.g. to an old and high-status person in my profession), or "Dear Joseph," to go another step down to a young or low-status stranger, e.g. a graduate student.
-The meaning of I.H.S. is "In His Service" or "Jesus". Professor Kenneth Elzinga, whom I greatly admire, says he signs his letters writing out the phrase in full, "In His Service". That strikes me as admirable in its Christian witness but too pompous. It makes a claim that the writer hopes is true but seems either overblown or self-aggrandizing: that the writer is trying to act on behalf of God. The Christian is supposed to be doing that always, but if the letter is merely telling someone that the seminar this week is in room CG2069, we smile at this being service to God. It is, but it makes us smile anyway.
+   Then, in the second and succeeding emails in a thread I will not use a salutation, but I may insert the name in the first sentence so as to make the message more human. For example, I might write, "You indeed have found a mistake, Joe, and I am very grateful for that." Inserting Joe's name every time in five messages just between the two of us is too artificial though.  >
-I.H.S. has the same meaning, but stated quietly. It has the additional advantage of being a historic Christian code. In Greek, the first three letters of Jesus are Iota, Eta, Sigma, which in Roman letters become I H S. Thus, IHS is a nice nod to God and also identifies the writer's intent to other Christians. At the same time, it offers a witness to non-Christians, in the following way. They see the letters and do not know what they mean. They may then ask the writer or someone else what they mean, and at that point in time they learn, and a useful conversation may start.
+(3)  Note the  comma in "Hi, Joe," as a salutation. I would value discussion of that. Should it be "Hi, Joe," or "Hi, Joe." or "Hi, Joe"?   Which looks better? Which is more logical?
-IHS does not solve the valediction problem for nonbelievers, but for Christians it may be helpful.
+(4)  Valedictions are vexing. A valediction shows where the message ends and by whom it was sent. I have often used "Yours Truly, Eric Rasmusen", as being both literally true and clearly convention-driven. But "Yours Truly" is a bit  corny.   "Yours faithfully"  is false and pretentious. "Yours sincerely" is okay, but doesn't seem right for an email.     "Best wishes,"  "All the best," and "Cheers" all have merit, but they  are often inappropriate.
-A variant of it is "I hope IHS". That is a pun, meaning either "I hope in His service" or "I hope in Jesus". I like the pun, and I like the greater modesty, since whether I am doing something in God's service is sometimes dubious and since ordinarily what I am doing in the email is entirely mundane (though the Christian is supposed to do *all* things to God's glory, "Soli Deo Gloria", as Bach and Handel wrote on their manuscripts).
+(5)   Thus, my standard  valediction now  is "IHS, Eric".   For most people, the only meaning of IHS is "Here is where the letters ends", which is fine, since that's the main purpose of a valediction. They don't need to know its meaning to understand that.  Other people may know its meaning, which I will now explain.
-Another valediction I've been using, imitating Professor Christopher Connell, is "Shalom, Eric Rasmusen". I like the Hebrew word "shalom", because it is Biblical and encompasses a variety of English words--- completeness, prosperity, peace (think of the Arabic "salaam"). The downside is that it is used as a greeting (and farewell) in modern Hebrew, that many people think it means the same thing as "peace" in English, and that it sounds awkwardly Jewish when used by someone named "Rasmusen". Still another possibility is YT, short for Yours Truly. That has the advantage of being inobtrusive. I like the idea of admitting to people that I am proudly Christian with IHS, but it may too much like boasting. It is best to show one's allegiance to God naturally, without any hint of being forced. I'm still thinking. Comments are welcomed. Email me at erasmuse@indiana.edu. See also Wikipedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christogram"Christogram," and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalom  "Shalom".
+(6) The meaning of IHS or I.H.S. is "In His Service" or "Jesus". Professor Kenneth Elzinga, whom I greatly admire, says he signs his letters writing out the phrase in full, "In His Service". That strikes me as admirable in its Christian witness, but too pompous. It makes a claim that the writer hopes is true, but it  seems either overblown or self-aggrandizing--- that the writer is trying to act on behalf of God. The Christian is supposed to be doing that always, to be sure, but if the letter is merely telling someone that the seminar this week is in room CG2069,  saying too explicitly that this is in service to God gets humorous.  It *is* in His service, but it makes me smile anyway.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 We lack good conventions for salutations and valedictions in letters and emails.
- Both are useful to have. The salutation shows where the message starts and to whom it is addressed. For letters, "Dear Mr. Smith," is completely conventional. For emails,  that, or, less formally, "Hi, Joe," work.
+Both are useful to have. The salutation shows where the message starts and to whom it is addressed. For letters, "Dear Mr. Smith," is completely conventional. For emails,  that, or, less formally, "Hi, Joe," work.
 Valedictions are more vexing. A valediction shows where the message ends and by whom it is sent. I have often used "Yours truly, Eric Rasmusen", as being both literally true and clearly convention-driven. But that is somewhat too corny. "Yours faithfully" is too false and pretentious. "Best wishes," "All the best," and "Cheers" all have merit but are often inappropriate.