[Roger Slater]

Carl, when you say "plus one" instead of specifying a particular person, the plus-one is indeed "unknown" and remains just a parenthetical check mark. To me it seems quite clear, requiring just a moment's thought to process (and that quality of needing a moment's thought, I think, is what characterizes a good sher, just as it characterizes a good haiku).

[Joe Crocker]

Originally Posted by Paula Fernandez

Ghazal on (non-essential additional information)



The invitation’s in the mail, come share our wedding joy!
(+1) and your true love's unknown inside parentheses.

How about

(+1) so don't come on your own, inside parentheses

[Carl Copeland]

Originally Posted by Roger Slater

Carl, when you say "plus one" instead of specifying a particular person, the plus-one is indeed "unknown" and remains just a parenthetical check mark. To me it seems quite clear, requiring just a moment's thought to process (and that quality of needing a moment's thought, I think, is what characterizes a good sher, just as it characterizes a good haiku).

Yeah, I didn’t mean it would be misunderstood, only that it diverts attention from the primary sense of the sher—that the invitee can bring an unnamed someone—to the inessential details that it can be her true love and that she can keep his identity a secret until she gets there. I liked the primary sense explicit, but emphasis on the details does create a backstory with its own interest: maybe the bride and bridesmaids are waiting to see who the guest’s secret love is. You could be right.