Dear copyeditors and grammar geeks -
A reader emailed me this week with a suggestion for a subject to blog. After I wrote a polite negative reply, I added a "p.s." after my signature with a thought about something else. He acknowledged my reply, and added this comment "Ps. Postscripts in a digital age seem a bit anachronistic, no?"
That really got me thinking. Postscripts ("after-writing") were common devices in the early centuries of letter writing, when insertion of additional material into the body of the letter was impractical. Now, even the most rudimentary communications systems allow one to scroll up to insert new thoughts above the signature or closure.
But I still use them in correspondence. For the blog I use "addenda" and "updates" to clarify that material has been added at some time period beyond the original posting of the content - but that's different. In an email there is no technical need to say "p.s.", but when I have other comments or thoughts that are only marginally related to the subject matter of the email, I postscript them.
Am I being anachronistic? Not that it really matters, of course, but I'm wondering about it.
p.s. - I do appreciate reader suggestions re subject matter for posts, but I essentially always decline because I'm so swamped with material for the blog; the next reader-submitted topic that I plan to write up is from an email I received in March of last year! (about the Lewis and Clark expedition).