Whats wrong with this sentence?
Simon Goodwin
erroneous comma placement:
We ran to her aid but, because the door was locked, precious
minutes were lost.
The first comma should, it states, be after 'aid', not 'but', making:
We ran to her aid, but because the door was locked, precious
minutes were lost.
Still, the first sentence seems just fine to me. Any thoughts?
Simon
Polar
Goodwin) wrote:
No, it really looks awful, sorry to say.
The second example is the correct one.
--
Polar
Alan Jones
"Simon Goodwin" <simong...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:999608b0.01072...@posting.google.com...
The second "corrected" version contains a serious error. The
style-guide author apparently wishes to show the structure of the main
sentence ("We ran to her aid, but precious minutes were lost" and this
is in itself laudable. But if you put a comma after "locked", there
must also be one before "because", to bracket the whole adverb clause.
So, as it stands, the style manual's advice is simply wrong. Are you
sure you've quoted it exactly?
The first sentence, offered as a bad example, is correct as it stands.
You could perhaps modify it either by inserting the style-guide's
comma before "because" (so producing a rash of commas in this short
sentence), or omitting the one after "locked" (which might be thought
to produce an uncomfortable breathlessness). To avoid the comma-rash,
you could use a semi-colon after "aid", but I don't think any
punctuation is needed at that point. A longer sentence might have to
be treated differently, of course.
Alan Jones
meirm...@erols.com
<a...@blueyonder.co.uk> posted:
I agree with all of this. But to try to see their pov, the reason I
can see for them objecting to the first one is that not everyone likes
an aid but, and some may not think you should run to one. We ran to
her aid but. Because the door was locked, precious minutes were lost.
>Alan Jones
>
>
>
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 17 years
Eric Walker
The general rule, strongly felt, is that the clauses of a
compound sentence joined by a conjunction--such as
"but"--require a comma to separate them; in the instant case,
that would mean a comma just before the conjunctive "but."
The "fixed" sentence as shown, however, is egregiously wrong, in
that "because the door was locked" is a parenthetical phrase and
requires setting off by a pair of commas. So, by formal
reasoning, the "right' sentence would read:
"We ran to her aid, but, because the door was
locked, precious minutes were lost."
To some tastes, that is too many commas in too short a space.
There is an easy alternative, and that is to set the
parenthetical material off with something other than a comma
pair; in this instance, true parentheses would be too great an
interruption, leaving us the sorely underused but extremely
useful dash:
"We ran to her aid, but--because the door was
locked--precious minutes were lost."
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
Mark Wallace
"Simon Goodwin" <simong...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:999608b0.01072...@posting.google.com...
> A style manual I use gives the following sentence as an example of
The problem is that, technically speaking, it should be:
-- We ran to her aid, but, because the door was locked, precious
minutes were lost.
or:
-- We ran to her aid; but, because the door was locked, precious
minutes were lost.
or even:
-- We ran to her aid, but; because the door was locked; precious
minutes were lost.
depending on the relative importance of the main & sub-clauses.
I'll agree that none of the correct forms is very pretty.
The three 'according to the rules' examples I've given are
over-punctuated, true, but including the 'but' as part of the excluded
sub-clause; as your style guide advises; is just awful (in this case).
It's all to do with the average style guide's inability (or lack of
desire) to say, "this is how it should be if punctuated fully,
according to the rules of punctuation', and, 'this is the way we,
personally, prefer to see it punctuated'.
Solution: Get a different style manual.
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________________________
Ever been stuck on a word, or a point of grammar?
You need to visit the APIHNA World Dictionary
http://pure.as/apihna
____________________________________________
Odysseus
after "locked" should only be there as one of a pair framing the
"because ..." clause. Adding another comma after "but" would remedy
this, but has the drawback of isolating "but" between two commas; as
with the first example I'd call it correct but clumsy. Another option is
to eliminate both commas: this gives the sentence a somewhat
'breathless' quality but it is just short enough, I think, to pass.
My preference: "We ran to her aid, but precious moments were lost
because the door was locked." This de-emphasizes the "precious moments"
clause somewhat by burying it in the middle of the sentence; if it is
important to avoid doing so then one could also rephrase, "Precious
moments were lost when we ran to her aid, because the door was locked."
--Odysseus
Arian Hokin
> -- We ran to her aid, but; because the door was locked; precious
> minutes were lost.
I disagree with this one. I don't believe parenthetical remarks can be set
off with semi-colons. Semi-colons are loners; they don't commonly go about
in pairs.
Arian
Bob Cunningham
Goodwin) said:
Following the rule that a conjunction introducing a clause needs to be
preceded by a comma, and using the fact that commas may be used to set
off a parenthetical remark, the sentence could be correctly written:
We ran to her aid, but, because the door was locked,
precious minutes were lost.
However, it's a little ugly to have commas both sides of "but", so I
would find some other way to set off the parenthetical remark, like:
We ran to her aid, but -- because the door was locked --
precious minutes were lost.
or:
We ran to her aid, but (because the door was locked)
precious minutes were lost.
If you want to not consider the phrase "because the door was locked"
to be parenthetical, then only one comma is really needed:
We ran to her aid, but because the door was locked
precious minutes were lost.
It could be argued that the second comma -- after "locked" -- is
necessary to avoid false scent, but I, for one, don't think I would be
led astray without it.
It can also be argued that the sentence in the style manual is
perfectly all right by invoking the provision that under certain
circumstances the comma before the conjunction is not needed and by
holding that the phrase "because the door was locked" is indeed
parenthetical.
Bob Cunningham
said:
>"Simon Goodwin" <simong...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>news:999608b0.01072...@posting.google.com...
>> A style manual I use gives the following sentence as an example of
>> erroneous comma placement:
>> We ran to her aid but, because the door was locked, precious
>> minutes were lost.
>> The first comma should, it states, be after 'aid', not 'but',
>making:
>> We ran to her aid, but because the door was locked, precious
>> minutes were lost.
>> Still, the first sentence seems just fine to me. Any thoughts?
>The second "corrected" version contains a serious error. The
>style-guide author apparently wishes to show the structure of the main
>sentence ("We ran to her aid, but precious minutes were lost" and this
>is in itself laudable. But if you put a comma after "locked", there
>must also be one before "because",
That's not clearly true. The comma after "locked" can be defended as
a false-scent avoider. I mentioned this in an earlier posting, saying
I didn't think I'd be led astray, but the more I think about it, the
more I think "was locked precious minutes" can be a false scent if you
read it as being equivalent to "was locked for precious minutes".
Mae Tennisco
Simon Goodwin wrote:
Having read the other posts I return to this one.
If one reads the sentence, omitting the words between the commas, the
meaning is there.
"We ran to her aid but precious minutes were lost."
The "why the minutes were lost" is placed between the commas.
Therefore in the second sentence it would read:
"We ran to her aid precious minutes were lost."
I therefore have to agree with the first sentence sounding fine.
jmho
Mae
Odysseus
suggested -- would be much better.
I wouldn't go quite so far as to say that semicolons are "loners",
though: they *do* appear in a series when used to replace the separating
commas in lists whose elements contain commas themselves. This usage
would not be reasonably described as "going about in pairs", though, so
I agree with the second half of your last statement.
--Odysseus
Mark Wallace
"Odysseus" <odysse...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:3B620659...@yahoo.ca...
I wouldn't strongly disagree with anything said, given how much the
role of the semi-colon has changed since it first came into use. Up
until the late 19th century, it wouldn't have been used in my second
example, either -- the colon would have been used in its place -- and,
IIRC, even 1st ed. Fowler advocated the use of the colon over the
semi-colon.
However, I do feel that the semi-colon's role in separating main and
sub-clauses includes parenthesising. I honestly don't see how the
rules for its usage could be interpreted otherwise; especially if
there's a co-ordinate conjunction lurking around in the sentence; and
too many en- or em-dashes make the page look messy.
I tend to write in long sentences, so my semi-colon key sees a lot of
use. In shorter sentences, the comma can often take its place without
making the reader suffer too badly.
Eric Walker
[...]
> However, I do feel that the semi-colon's role in separating
> main and sub-clauses includes parenthesising. I honestly
> don't see how the rules for its usage could be interpreted
> otherwise; especially if there's a co-ordinate conjunction
> lurking around in the sentence; and too many en- or em-dashes
> make the page look messy. I tend to write in long sentences,
> so my semi-colon key sees a lot of use. In shorter sentences,
> the comma can often take its place without making the reader
> suffer too badly.
Perhaps the biggest issue is that it is simply not natural to
expect a semi-colon to be the first of a pair of demarking
pauses, and I do not recall ever having seen it so used. Your
text above, obviously intended to illustrate the point, would
conventionally be punctuated so (where the x's mark changes):
However, I do feel that the semi-colon's role in
separating main and sub-clauses includes parenthesising.
I honestly don't see how the rules for its usage could
x be interpreted otherwise, especially if there's a
co-ordinate conjunction lurking around in the sentence;
x too many en- or em-dashes make the page look messy. I
tend to write in long sentences, so my semi-colon key
x sees a lot of use; in shorter sentences, the comma can
often take its place without making the reader suffer
too badly.
Is that in any way harder to read and understand? I suggest
that it is, in fact, significantly easier.
How many em dashes are "too many" and "make the page look messy"
is, of course, a personal esthetic decision. Coordinating
conjunctions after a semi-colon are, I would say, optional, and
often best omitted, especially the simple "and."
The em dash for parenthesizing has two chief uses. The first is
to differentiate the degree of relevance of the parenthetical
matter: a comma pair suggests that the parenthetical matter is
closely related to the main stream of the thought in which it is
embedded, while a dash pair makes clear that it is tangential.
The second use is avoidance of a rapid-fire stream of commas, as
in the example that started this thread; such streams often,
even--or perhaps especially--when technically correct, impede
understanding.
meirm...@erols.com
<ar...@holly.northnet.com.au> posted:
If you're concerned about the plight of semi-colons, send your
contribution now to Pets for Semi-colons. Nothing else will warm
your heart like the sight of a formerly lonely semi-colon with a
little, loving elipsis dot to keep him or her company through the long
night when the lights are off and no one is reading. Please, help
now.
>
>Arian
Mark Wallace
"Eric Walker" <ewa...@owlcroft.com> wrote in message
news:rjnyxrebjypebsgpb...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> The em dash for parenthesizing has two chief uses. The first is
> to differentiate the degree of relevance of the parenthetical
> matter: a comma pair suggests that the parenthetical matter is
> closely related to the main stream of the thought in which it is
> embedded, while a dash pair makes clear that it is tangential.
> The second use is avoidance of a rapid-fire stream of commas, as
> in the example that started this thread; such streams often,
> even--or perhaps especially--when technically correct, impede
> understanding.
Here's where we seem to diverge.
One purpose of the semi-colon is to show a division between two
clauses which are closely, but not directly, connected. IMO, a
parenthesised clause is just that. The fact that that sentence
continues after the clause which is split off with a semi-colon
indicates; to me, at any rate; that the third clause should be joined
to to the sentence with another semi-colon.
The break in subject matter indicated by en- or em-dashes is normally
greater. In the above sentence, the 'to me, at any rate', is not a
separate subject; it is simply an alternative direction that the
sentence could take, and so is closely related enough to be
parenthesised with semi-colons.
It's all a matter of taste, though. I understand precisely what you
intend when you write, and I daresay you understand my intent just as
precisely -- so we're both doing it right, even if slightly
differently. Vive la difference.
Mark Wallace
<meirm...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:jhq6mtcgljg9n2vgc...@4ax.com...
> In alt.english.usage on Fri, 27 Jul 2001 19:17:08 +1000 Arian Hokin
> <ar...@holly.northnet.com.au> posted:
>
> >Mark Wallace wrote:
> >
> >> -- We ran to her aid, but; because the door was locked; precious
> >> minutes were lost.
> >
> >I disagree with this one. I don't believe parenthetical remarks can
be set
> >off with semi-colons. Semi-colons are loners; they don't commonly
go about
> >in pairs.
>
> If you're concerned about the plight of semi-colons, send your
> contribution now to Pets for Semi-colons. Nothing else will warm
> your heart like the sight of a formerly lonely semi-colon with a
> little, loving elipsis dot to keep him or her company through the
long
> night when the lights are off and no one is reading. Please, help
> now.
Please tell me that this refers to a website...; I'd like to visit
it.
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________
For the best in Freeware
including the latest in signature encryption
visit:
http://server2049.virtualave.net/markwallace/m-pages/progs01.htm
___________________________________________________
Eric Walker
[...]
> One purpose of the semi-colon is to show a division between
> two clauses which are closely, but not directly, connected.
> IMO, a parenthesised clause is just that. The fact that that
> sentence continues after the clause which is split off with a
> semi-colon indicates; to me, at any rate; that the third
> clause should be joined to to the sentence with another
> semi-colon. The break in subject matter indicated by en- or
> em-dashes is normally greater. In the above sentence, the 'to
> me, at any rate', is not a separate subject; it is simply an
> alternative direction that the sentence could take, and so is
> closely related enough to be parenthesised with semi-colons.
The "to me, at any rate" is not a clause; indeed, "at any rate"
is itself parenthetical material, and as such can be eliminated
without loss of correctness, so that "to me" is all you are
trying to isolate with the semi-colons.
Moreover, the introductory "that" should show that that
interpretation is impossible: no one would write:
"That that sentence continues after the clause which
is split off with a semi-colon indicates; that the
third clause should be joined to to the sentence with
another semi-colon."
The gist of the sentence is "X indicates Y."
Semi-colons just do not mark out parenthetical matter. If you
choose to so use them, you must take it for granted that no one
you have not spoken to will have the least understanding of what
you are doing, and even those alerted to your idiosyncracy will
find it odd and, sometimes, tough sledding.
Mark Wallace
>
> [...]
>
> > One purpose of the semi-colon is to show a division between
> > two clauses which are closely, but not directly, connected.
> > IMO, a parenthesised clause is just that. The fact that that
> > sentence continues after the clause which is split off with a
> > semi-colon indicates; to me, at any rate; that the third
> > clause should be joined to to the sentence with another
> > semi-colon. The break in subject matter indicated by en- or
> > em-dashes is normally greater. In the above sentence, the 'to
> > me, at any rate', is not a separate subject; it is simply an
> > alternative direction that the sentence could take, and so is
> > closely related enough to be parenthesised with semi-colons.
>
> The "to me, at any rate" is not a clause;
Near enough for an impressionist portrait. Listen to the sweet but
subtle voice of ellipsis, as she whispers in your shell-like.
> indeed, "at any rate"
> is itself parenthetical material, and as such can be eliminated
> without loss of correctness, so that "to me" is all you are
> trying to isolate with the semi-colons.
>
> Moreover, the introductory "that" should show that that
> interpretation is impossible: no one would write:
>
> "That that sentence continues after the clause which
> is split off with a semi-colon indicates; that the
> third clause should be joined to to the sentence with
> another semi-colon."
Certainly no-one would write so. If you remove the parenthetical
clause, you have to remove its punctuation along with it, or the
punctuation makes no sense.
The fact that the clause can be removed completely -- lock, stock, and
punctuation -- proves that it is parenthetical.
Would you remove the parenthetical clause in my last sentence so:
"The fact that the clause can be removed completely -- proves that it
is parenthetical"?
I note that you do not comment that my reasoning for the parenthetical
use of semi-colons is factually incorrect. You would have a hard time
doing so, because it is not factually incorrect. It is in accordance
with the rules of semi-colon usage. You just don't like using
semi-colons in that way, which is fine by me, but don't try to force
the entire world to share your preferences.
> The gist of the sentence is "X indicates Y."
No. The gist of the sentence is precisely how I wrote it. Nothing
un-needed exists in my wording. Writing is an art, not a science.
Kindly do not rewrite my words in mathematical terms.
> Semi-colons just do not mark out parenthetical matter. If you
> choose to so use them, you must take it for granted that no one
> you have not spoken to will have the least understanding of what
> you are doing, and even those alerted to your idiosyncracy will
> find it odd and, sometimes, tough sledding.
If you disagree, disagree. Speak for yourself, not everyone, and
don't assume the world agrees with you, because it does not.
Notably, the rules for semi-colon usage; as I have pointed out; do not
agree with you.
Arian Hokin
> Arian Hokin wrote:
> >
> > Mark Wallace wrote:
> >
> > > -- We ran to her aid, but; because the door was locked; precious
> > > minutes were lost.
> >
> > I disagree with this one. I don't believe parenthetical remarks can be set
> > off with semi-colons. Semi-colons are loners; they don't commonly go about
> > in pairs.
> >
> Yes; if something stronger than commas are wanted the dashes -- as Eric
> suggested -- would be much better.
>
> I wouldn't go quite so far as to say that semicolons are "loners",
> though:
Not in the sense that you only ever see one in a sentence, certainly. I merely
meant to say that they don't come in pairs - each semi-colon in a sentence is
there to do its own independent job, whether there are two, three or fifteen.
> they *do* appear in a series when used to replace the separating
> commas in lists whose elements contain commas themselves.
They do. If you thought I meant to dispute this, I didn't make my meaning
sufficiently clear.
> This usage
> would not be reasonably described as "going about in pairs", though, so
> I agree with the second half of your last statement.
I believe we're in complete agreement; you have only disagreed with what I
didn't mean to suggest. ;-)
Arian
Arian Hokin
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 15:54:55 +0200, Mark Wallace wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > One purpose of the semi-colon is to show a division between
> > two clauses which are closely, but not directly, connected.
> > IMO, a parenthesised clause is just that. The fact that that
> > sentence continues after the clause which is split off with a
> > semi-colon indicates; to me, at any rate; that the third
> > clause should be joined to to the sentence with another
> > semi-colon. The break in subject matter indicated by en- or
> > em-dashes is normally greater. In the above sentence, the 'to
> > me, at any rate', is not a separate subject; it is simply an
> > alternative direction that the sentence could take, and so is
> > closely related enough to be parenthesised with semi-colons.
>
> The "to me, at any rate" is not a clause;
It definitely isn't. A clause requires a subject and a predicate;
shorn of conjunctions, it could stand as an independent sentence.
"The fact that that sentence continues after the clause which is split
off with a semi-colon indicates" is not a sentence.
"To me, at any rate" is not a sentence.
Yes, "(that) the third clause should be joined to to the sentence with
another semi-colon" is certainly a clause (it's a dependent clause),
but the other two sets of words are not.
> Semi-colons just do not mark out parenthetical matter. If you
> choose to so use them, you must take it for granted that no one
> you have not spoken to will have the least understanding of what
> you are doing, and even those alerted to your idiosyncracy will
> find it odd and, sometimes, tough sledding.
I agree completely.
(A bit quick on the spellchecker Accept button for the misspelling of
"idiosyncrasy" again?)
Arian
Arian Hokin
> "Eric Walker" <ewa...@owlcroft.com> wrote in message
> news:rjnyxrebjypebsgpb...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> > On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 15:54:55 +0200, Mark Wallace wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > One purpose of the semi-colon is to show a division between
> > > two clauses which are closely, but not directly, connected.
> > > IMO, a parenthesised clause is just that. The fact that that
> > > sentence continues after the clause which is split off with a
> > > semi-colon indicates; to me, at any rate; that the third
> > > clause should be joined to to the sentence with another
> > > semi-colon. The break in subject matter indicated by en- or
> > > em-dashes is normally greater. In the above sentence, the 'to
> > > me, at any rate', is not a separate subject; it is simply an
> > > alternative direction that the sentence could take, and so is
> > > closely related enough to be parenthesised with semi-colons.
> >
> > The "to me, at any rate" is not a clause;
>
> Near enough for an impressionist portrait. Listen to the sweet but
> subtle voice of ellipsis, as she whispers in your shell-like.
Frankly, I think that's rubbish.
And besides, even if you can plead for an ellipsis there (of what?), you
certainly can't claim that there is one in the first "clause" of your
sentence.
> I note that you do not comment that my reasoning for the parenthetical
> use of semi-colons is factually incorrect. You would have a hard time
> doing so, because it is not factually incorrect.
It is. I challenge you to find a single instance of parenthetical
semi-colon usage in a respected author.
> It is in accordance
> with the rules of semi-colon usage.
It isn't.
> You just don't like using
> semi-colons in that way, which is fine by me, but don't try to force
> the entire world to share your preferences.
I emphatically share them.
> > The gist of the sentence is "X indicates Y."
>
> No. The gist of the sentence is precisely how I wrote it. Nothing
> un-needed exists in my wording. Writing is an art, not a science.
> Kindly do not rewrite my words in mathematical terms.
The main verb is "indicates".
The subject of the verb is "the fact that that sentence continues after
the clause which is split off with a semi-colon".
The object of the verb is "that the third clause should be joined to to
the sentence with another semi-colon".
"To me" and "at any rate" are two parenthetical phrases.
Are you happier with it parsed that way? Eric is still correct.
> > Semi-colons just do not mark out parenthetical matter. If you
> > choose to so use them, you must take it for granted that no one
> > you have not spoken to will have the least understanding of what
> > you are doing, and even those alerted to your idiosyncracy will
> > find it odd and, sometimes, tough sledding.
>
> If you disagree, disagree. Speak for yourself, not everyone, and
> don't assume the world agrees with you, because it does not.
Wait for the world to agree with *you* before you commit yourself so
hastily. Indeed, I'd like to see some evidence that anybody literate
agrees with you.
> Notably, the rules for semi-colon usage; as I have pointed out; do not
> agree with you.
That looks appalling. And it is self-evidently wrong - not even one of the
three sections of that sentence is a clause. Semi-colons are like
conjunctions; they connect clauses together, and what stands on each side
of a semi-colon must be an entire clause, complete with its (at least
implied) subject and its predicate.
Arian
Mark Wallace
"Arian Hokin" <ar...@holly.northnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3B648AD8...@holly.northnet.com.au...
> I challenge you to find a single instance of parenthetical
> semi-colon usage in a respected author.
"In a respected author"?
Do I look like a surgeon?
Say what you want to say, not what you don't.
If you meant: "I challenge you to find a single instance of
parenthetical semi-colon usage in a book by a respected author", then
try Fowler:
+++++
But the adverbial parenthesis, when once inserted, forms a part of the
sentence; we have sufficiently dealt with the stops it requires in the
last section; the use of commas emphasizes its parenthetic character,
and is therefore sometimes desirable, sometimes not; no more need be
said about it.
+++++
Good enough? Or don't you consider Folwler to be 'a respected
author'?
That is an example of *precisely* the kind of parenthetic exclusion I
described in an earlier posting.
Go and spit on his grave; don't bother me with your semi-literate
rantings.
> > > The gist of the sentence is "X indicates Y."
> >
> > No. The gist of the sentence is precisely how I wrote it.
Nothing
> > un-needed exists in my wording. Writing is an art, not a science.
> > Kindly do not rewrite my words in mathematical terms.
>
> The main verb is "indicates".
> The subject of the verb is "the fact that that sentence continues
after
> the clause which is split off with a semi-colon".
> The object of the verb is "that the third clause should be joined to
to
> the sentence with another semi-colon".
Did anyone else hear the sound of a point whooshing straight over
Arian's head?
> "To me" and "at any rate" are two parenthetical phrases.
Not so. 'To me', on its own, could not be considered as a
parenthetical phrase, clause, or banana. Qualifying it -- as I did
with 'at any rate' -- gives it a dimension; which, in turn, gives it
greater status.
Do you disagree that I could have taken the *clause* out, thusly:
"The fact that that sentence continues after the clause which is split
off with a semi-colon indicates that the third clause should be joined
to to the sentence with another semi-colon. To me, at any rate."?
No, there's no elipsis there, is there? Of course not. There can't
be, because *you* said so.
> > If you disagree, disagree. Speak for yourself, not everyone, and
> > don't assume the world agrees with you, because it does not.
>
> Wait for the world to agree with *you* before you commit yourself so
> hastily. Indeed, I'd like to see some evidence that anybody literate
> agrees with you.
I believe I have made quite clear that I do not require 'the world' to
agree with me; I could never be so arrogant. Eric, however, has shown
that he does desire such, which is why I wrote the above.
Besides, I have already shown that Fowler agrees with me. What more
could I possibly ask for?
> > Notably, the rules for semi-colon usage; as I have pointed out; do
not
> > agree with you.
>
> That looks appalling.
Æsthetics? From someone who seems unable to write what he means?
> And it is self-evidently wrong - not even one of the
> three sections of that sentence is a clause.
'Self-evidently'? Do you, at least, know what you mean by that?
Do you also know the difference between a hyphen and an en-dash?
Do you also read minds? I don't recall saying there were three
clauses in that sentence.
> Semi-colons are like
> conjunctions; they connect clauses together,
No. They *separate* clauses. Or is that what you meant? I shouldn't
be the least bit surprised, given that you seem incapable of
expressing what you do mean.
> and what stands on each side
> of a semi-colon must be an entire clause, complete with its (at
least
> implied) subject and its predicate.
Where on Earth did you pick up that gem of absolute garbage?
I return your challenge. Show me "Where It Is Written".
Eric Walker
>Eric Walker wrote:
>
>> . . . even those alerted to your idiosyncracy will . . .
>
>(A bit quick on the spellchecker Accept button for the
>misspelling of "idiosyncrasy" again?)
Yup.
I live in the world of OS/2. It was and is a wonderful
operating system, but IBM's horrid excuse for marketing buried
it far deeper than any actual defects in it could have. It is
not yet even obsolescent, but soon will be.
The problem is not the OS itself: the problem is the lack of
continuing product development for the OS. Even the shareware
and freeware writers are now few.
One consequence--to finally return to subject--is that there is
at present no really good newsreader product for OS/2. The one
I am using had the potential to be excellent (it is the "mate"
of a first-class e-mail program), but the developer lost
interest when he was graduated from college and no one else is
continuing with it.
The spell checker on this item is fairly crude: it cannot, for
example, recognize plurals or possessives of words it "knows,"
nor can it sort out hyphenated compounds or words separated by
em dashes (which, as most know, I use a lot of). In
consequence, one develops a too-quick trigger finger on the
"Ignore" key.
That is not an excuse, it's an explanation. Aren't you glad you
asked> Oh, that's right, you didn't ask. Aren't you glad I
explained anyway? Oh; you're not . . . .
(I am trying out Linux on another box, but have not yet really
focussed my attention on it; part of my problems is that I
require backwards DOS compatibility for some legacy software we
use in our business, and Linux seems weak there--and, of course,
friends don't let friends use Windoze . . . .)
Eric Walker
[...]
>Semi-colons are like conjunctions; they connect clauses
>together, and what stands on each side of a semi-colon must be
>an entire clause, complete with its (at least implied) subject
>and its predicate.
Except (for the sake of completeness here) for their specialized
use in place of commas to separate the elements of a list when
those individual elements themselves include parenthetical
material isolated by comma pairs.
Aside: Mr. Wallace seems much more combative on this matter than
I understood him to be or than I intended any response of mine
to be.
Mark Wallace
> Mr. Wallace seems much more combative on this matter than
> I understood him to be or than I intended any response of mine
> to be.
I'll accept that as my mistake. When you began to speak in absolutes,
I (as you say, wrongly) assumed I was in for a fight.
Eric Walker
>"Arian Hokin" <ar...@holly.northnet.com.au> wrote in message
>news:3B648AD8...@holly.northnet.com.au...
>
>> I challenge you to find a single instance of parenthetical
>> semi-colon usage in a respected author.
>
>"In a respected author"?
>Do I look like a surgeon?
>Say what you want to say, not what you don't.
>
>If you meant: "I challenge you to find a single instance of
>parenthetical semi-colon usage in a book by a respected
>author", then try Fowler:
>+++++
>But the adverbial parenthesis, when once inserted, forms a part
>of the sentence; we have sufficiently dealt with the stops it
>requires in the last section; the use of commas emphasizes its
>parenthetic character, and is therefore sometimes desirable,
>sometimes not; no more need be said about it.
>+++++
>Good enough? Or don't you consider Folwler to be 'a respected
>author'?
>That is an example of *precisely* the kind of parenthetic
>exclusion I described in an earlier posting.
>Go and spit on his grave; don't bother me with your
>semi-literate rantings.
There are several problems here, the first being attitude: I
have no idea what about this topic has pressed your hot button,
but I suggest you cool down before next replying about it.
Gross rudeness is neither needed, wanted, or helpful.
The next problem is that you appear to not grasp what a clause
is, nor what parenthetical matter is. The sentence from Fowler
(not Folwler) is both perfectly proper and perfectly irrelevant
to your subject. He has used the semi-colon to separate three
related but independent clauses; he has not used it to demark
parenthetical matter; indeed, there is no parenthetical matter
in that sentence.
>> > > The gist of the sentence is "X indicates Y."
>> >
>> > No. The gist of the sentence is precisely how I wrote it.
>> > Nothing un-needed exists in my wording. Writing is an art,
>> > not a science. Kindly do not rewrite my words in
>> > mathematical terms.
You have misunderstood about as totally as possible. No one
said that you wrote anything unneeded; no one said writing is a
science, not an art; no one was using "mathematical terms."
The point was to illustrate the parsing of the sentence in
simplest form. As Arian pointed out:
. The main verb is "indicates".
. The subject of the verb is "the fact that that sentence
continues after the clause which is split off with a
semi-colon".
. The object of the verb is "that the third clause should be
joined to the sentence with another semi-colon".
It seemed simpler to indicate the subject by X and the object by
Y, but there it is in full.
>Did anyone else hear the sound of a point whooshing straight
>over Arian's head?
No; no one did; there was no such sound.
>> "To me" and "at any rate" are two parenthetical phrases.
>
>Not so. 'To me', on its own, could not be considered as a
>parenthetical phrase, clause, or banana. Qualifying it -- as I
>did with 'at any rate' -- gives it a dimension; which, in turn,
>gives it greater status.
Could not be considered by whom? It is, agreed, neither a
clause nor a banana, but it assuredly is a parenthetical phrase.
It is that because it is 1) a phrase, and 2) parenthetical.
"At any rate" is a further parenthesis: it would be expressed
without commas (or semi-colons) like this:
". . . (to me [at any rate]) . . . ."
Whatever "dimension" and "status" might be in grammar is unknown
to me and, I suspect, anyone else.
>Do you disagree that I could have taken the *clause* out,
>thusly:
"Thus" is an adverb; there is no literate form "thusly."
>"The fact that that sentence continues after the clause which
>is split off with a semi-colon indicates that the third clause
>should be joined to to the sentence with another semi-colon.
>To me, at any rate."?
>No, there's no elipsis there, is there? Of course not. There
>can't be, because *you* said so.
And most or likely all of the rest of the literate English-
speaking world would agree. What do you suppose the ellipsis
(*two* l's) is? What is the non-sentence "To me, at any rate"
supposed to fill out to? Do you understand that ellipsis is
only possible when the missing words are uniquely determined by
and obvious from the words that are supplied? It is not enough
to show that it is possible to create some sentence in which the
words that are supplied can be made to fit: any such sentence
must, I repeat, be and be *obviously* the only possible
expansion of the original words or it is not a valid ellipsis.
>> > If you disagree, disagree. Speak for yourself, not
>> > everyone, and don't assume the world agrees with you,
>> > because it does not.
There are, a few recalcitrants' plaintive wails to the contrary
notwithstanding, rules for the grammar of the English language;
she explained the relevant part of those rules as they apply to
the subject at hand; and the rest of the world pretty much does
agree with her. As you say, "don't assume the world agrees with
you, because it does not."
>> Wait for the world to agree with *you* before you commit
>> yourself so hastily. Indeed, I'd like to see some evidence
>> that anybody literate agrees with you.
Then open up any English grammar or usage manual and read. I
daresay that on something so fundamental as this, even The
Burchfield Horror would concur.
>I believe I have made quite clear that I do not require 'the
>world' to agree with me; I could never be so arrogant. Eric,
>however, has shown that he does desire such, which is why I
>wrote the above. Besides, I have already shown that Fowler
>agrees with me. What more could I possibly ask for?
Correctness; validity; wit; grace; manners.
I elide the rest of what is more a tirade than a contribution to
discussion. I also add as possibly appropriate Ambrose Bierce's
observation to the effect that there is no great harm in being a
fool--harm is being a fool at the top of your lungs.
Mark Wallace
> >+++++
> >But the adverbial parenthesis, when once inserted, forms a part
> >of the sentence; we have sufficiently dealt with the stops it
> >requires in the last section; the use of commas emphasizes its
> >parenthetic character, and is therefore sometimes desirable,
> >sometimes not; no more need be said about it.
> >+++++
> The next problem is that you appear to not grasp what a clause
> is, nor what parenthetical matter is. The sentence from Fowler
> (not Folwler) is both perfectly proper and perfectly irrelevant
> to your subject. He has used the semi-colon to separate three
> related but independent clauses; he has not used it to demark
> parenthetical matter; indeed, there is no parenthetical matter
> in that sentence.
I strongly disagree. There is no list, as you seem to be trying to
argue. The clause: "we have sufficiently dealt with the stops it
requires in the last section" is as parenthetic a clause as ever there
was, and is rightly excluded with semi-colons. It could indeed be
equally rightly excluded with en-dashes.
"But the adverbial parenthesis, when once inserted, forms a part of
the sentence -- we have sufficiently dealt with the stops it requires
in the last section -- the use of commas emphasizes its parenthetic
character, and is therefore sometimes desirable, sometimes not; no
more need be said about it."
> >"The fact that that sentence continues after the clause which
> >is split off with a semi-colon indicates that the third clause
> >should be joined to to the sentence with another semi-colon.
> >To me, at any rate."?
> >No, there's no elipsis there, is there? Of course not. There
> >can't be, because *you* said so.
>
> And most or likely all of the rest of the literate English-
> speaking world would agree. What do you suppose the ellipsis
> (*two* l's) is? What is the non-sentence "To me, at any rate"
> supposed to fill out to? Do you understand that ellipsis is
> only possible when the missing words are uniquely determined by
> and obvious from the words that are supplied? It is not enough
> to show that it is possible to create some sentence in which the
> words that are supplied can be made to fit: any such sentence
> must, I repeat, be and be *obviously* the only possible
> expansion of the original words or it is not a valid ellipsis.
Don't be intentionally blind.
Try:
"The fact that that sentence continues after the clause which is split
off with a semi-colon indicates that the third clause should be joined
to to the sentence with another semi-colon. It does to me, at any
rate."
How 'obvious an expansion of the original words' do you want? This is
as obvious as a brick through a window. Can you see any other
'obvious' possibilities? (apart from, "to me, at any rate banana", of
course).
However,
"The fact that that sentence continues after the clause which is split
off with a semi-colon indicates that the third clause should be joined
to to the sentence with another semi-colon. It does to me."
...does not work; so 'to me' cannot be considered parenthetical,
because there is nothing to qualify, quantify, or otherwise give
weight to the its existence as a second sentence.
And still you fail to answer the point of the statement. We are
looking at three clauses. One is a continuance of the first, forming
a main clause; the other is an adverbial sub-clause, which turns out
to be parenthetic because it (by sheer happenstance, you understand)
is written in-between the two clauses which form the main clause. If
it were at the end of the main clause, you would happily exclude it
with a semi-colon -- excluding adverbial sub-clauses is a biggie,
where semi-colons are concerned:
"The fact that that sentence continues after the clause which is split
off with a semi-colon indicates that the third clause should be joined
to to the sentence with another semi-colon; [it does] to me, at any
rate."
Excluding an adverbial sub-clause with semi-colons, whilst it is
within the body of the main clause, is every bit as 'legal' as that --
according to any grammar text or style manual you'd care to pick up --
and makes just as much sense.
It's what semi-colons do.
> >> Wait for the world to agree with *you* before you commit
> >> yourself so hastily. Indeed, I'd like to see some evidence
> >> that anybody literate agrees with you.
>
> Then open up any English grammar or usage manual and read. I
> daresay that on something so fundamental as this, even The
> Burchfield Horror would concur.
You are replying to Arian, there, not me; and I agree with your reply.
As does Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch:
+++++
Wherefore, being one who (in my Lord Chief Justice Crewe's phrase)
would 'take hold of a twig or twine-thread to uphold it'; being also
prone (with Bacon) to believe that 'the counsels to which Time hath
not been called, Time will not ratify'; I do assure you that, had any
legacy of guidance been discovered among the papers left by my
predecessor, it would have been eagerly welcomed and as piously
honoured.
+++++
I suppose you will argue that the semi-colon-parenthesised clause in
the above sentence is not really parenthesised; but it most obviously
is -- I find it almost impossible not to read it sotto voce -- and you
could take whatever arguments you come up with and apply them to any
comma-parenthesised, en-dash-parenthesised, or even
parenthesis-parenthesised (God forbid that one of those should ever
exist!) clause that you would care to mention.
As I have already said, several times: If you don't like it, fine;
but don't try to rule the form out, simply because you've never
noticed its 'legality'.
Arian Hokin
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 08:14:48 +1000, Arian Hokin wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >Semi-colons are like conjunctions; they connect clauses
> >together, and what stands on each side of a semi-colon must be
> >an entire clause, complete with its (at least implied) subject
> >and its predicate.
>
> Except (for the sake of completeness here) for their specialized
> use in place of commas to separate the elements of a list when
> those individual elements themselves include parenthetical
> material isolated by comma pairs.
Yes, except then. I seem to keep on forgetting to mention that. :-)
> Aside: Mr. Wallace seems much more combative on this matter than
> I understood him to be or than I intended any response of mine
> to be.
The message that I sent this morning was written under the pressure of
a need to be elsewhere; if I'd done the sensible thing and saved it to
be revised before posting, I too probably wouldn't have expressed
myself as forcefully as I ended up doing. The final draught, however,
would only have been more diplomatic and tactful rather than changed
in essentials, since I still think he's mistaken.
Arian
Mark Wallace
> The final draught, however,
> would only have been more diplomatic and tactful rather than changed
> in essentials, since I still think he's mistaken.
I have no problem with people disagreeing with me -- anyone who knew
the first thing about English grammar would be a fool to expect
universal agreement.
However, I do take exception to people who make stark declarations of
absolutes in English grammar -- as this is a good sign that the person
speaking is just such a fool, who does have problems with
disagreement.
There are very few absolutes in English grammar, and the only reason I
have followed through with this thread is to point out precisely
that -- it has very little to do with using semi-colons to
parenthesise phrases, clauses, or bananas.
Go back and read the rules regarding semi-colon use; since this is the
example at hand; and you will see that the interpretation (which is
not really mine, but I forget where I read it) I have given is
correct. It fits in snugly with the rules for semi-colon usage, no
matter which text you find them in. Your 'absolute' is incorrect, as
absolutes always are.
Me, I've always been in favour of indiscriminate semi-colon usage,
anyway. I think it's a vastly under-used tool.
Right. Now that's sorted, let's take a look at the *rule* regarding
the terminating of sentences with multiple exclamation points...
Odysseus
>
> > I wouldn't go quite so far as to say that semicolons are "loners",
> > though:
>
> Not in the sense that you only ever see one in a sentence, certainly. I merely
> meant to say that they don't come in pairs - each semi-colon in a sentence is
> there to do its own independent job, whether there are two, three or fifteen.
>
>
> I believe we're in complete agreement; you have only disagreed with what I
> didn't mean to suggest. ;-)
>
sentence (other than those separating composite items in a list) has an
independent role is well taken.
--Odysseus
Harvey V
<mwallacee...@noknok.nl> said:
>
[...]
> There are very few absolutes in English grammar, and the only
> reason I have followed through with this thread is to point out
> precisely that -- it has very little to do with using semi-colons
> to parenthesise phrases, clauses, or bananas.
>
> Go back and read the rules regarding semi-colon use;
But which "rules" are you citing? It's certainly not a use which has
even implied sanction in, for example, Burchfield (who bases his
article on Hart).
> since this is the example at hand; and you will see that the
> interpretation (which is not really mine, but I forget where I read
> it) I have given is correct.
"This usage falls within the rules regarding semi-colon use, but I
can't remember where I read those rules" doesn't exactly ring with
authority.
> It fits in snugly with the rules for semi-colon usage, no matter
> which text you find them in.
It's certainly doesn't fit at all with Fowler or Burchfield, or at
least not with any interpretation I can see. It would be very
interesting to know where you've seen this described as an
acceptable -- let alone common -- use of the semi-colon, or how you
interpret one of the standard descripitions of semi-colon use to
include setting off a parenthetical comment.
> Your 'absolute' is incorrect, as absolutes always are. Me, I've
> always been in favour of indiscriminate semi-colon usage, anyway.
> I think it's a vastly under-used tool.
So do I. Also, alas, often mis-used, and until I've come across at
least *some* sort of style guide or rule-book which describes it as
acceptable, I think I'll opt to consider it as eccentric and non-
standard punctuation.
>
Cheers,
Harvey
JB
> Me, I've always been in favour of indiscriminate semi-colon usage,
> anyway. I think it's a vastly under-used tool.
Yes. But there was a time when teachers carried out a ruthless vendetta
against the semicolon; "never use a semicolon when a period will do" was
pounded into malleable young minds, along with other grammar-school
never-never falsisms such as "never split an infinitive" and "never end
a sentence with a preposition".
--JB
Mark Wallace
"JB" <job...@carolina.rr.comTRIMTHISPART> wrote in message
news:3B659851...@carolina.rr.comTRIMTHISPART...
Ja. The 'never use a semicolon when a period will do' went
hand-in-hand with the 'always write in short sentences'. Without the
semi-colon, it's harder to write in long sentences. I've always
looked at both 'rules' as teaching aids -- it's better to *learn to*
write in short sentences, as it's good exercise for getting the points
you want to write in good order.
Is it Strunk & White which still advocates that, 'the semi-colon
should be used sparingly'? I know it's one of the big US style
manuals.
Mark Wallace
"Harvey V" <whhvs@*removethis*operamail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns90EE7746F8BD4...@194.168.222.8...
> On 30 Jul 2001, I take it that "Mark Wallace"
> <mwallacee...@noknok.nl> said:
>
> >
> [...]
>
> > There are very few absolutes in English grammar, and the only
> > reason I have followed through with this thread is to point out
> > precisely that -- it has very little to do with using semi-colons
> > to parenthesise phrases, clauses, or bananas.
> >
> > Go back and read the rules regarding semi-colon use;
>
> But which "rules" are you citing? It's certainly not a use which
has
> even implied sanction in, for example, Burchfield (who bases his
> article on Hart).
Ok.
Does Burchfield not state that the semi-colon should be used to
separate independent clauses?
Is a parenthesised clause not an independent clause?
Does Burchfield explicitly state that the independent clause *must
not* be in the middle of the main clause, rather than at the end.
QED.
The same goes for every grammar text or style manual I recall
consulting about the semi-colon.
It's legal to put an independent clause in the middle of a main clause
(otherwise, a whole class of parenthetic clauses would become
illegal), and it's legal to separate out those independent clauses
with semi-colons.
I remember reading that explicitly written in either a grammar text or
a style manual; I just don't remember which one (I have very limited
resources, here, and they all merge together in my memory).
Given that I have never seen any other style manual explicitly dispute
it, I have no problem with it.
Plus, it makes sense -- which is always a bonus.
Dr Robin Bignall
<mwallacee...@noknok.nl> wrote:
>
>"JB" <job...@carolina.rr.comTRIMTHISPART> wrote in message
>news:3B659851...@carolina.rr.comTRIMTHISPART...
>> Mark Wallace wrote:
>>
>> > Me, I've always been in favour of indiscriminate semi-colon usage,
>> > anyway. I think it's a vastly under-used tool.
>>
>> Yes. But there was a time when teachers carried out a ruthless
>vendetta
>> against the semicolon; "never use a semicolon when a period will do"
>was
>> pounded into malleable young minds, along with other grammar-school
>> never-never falsisms such as "never split an infinitive" and "never
>end
>> a sentence with a preposition".
>
>Ja. The 'never use a semicolon when a period will do' went
>hand-in-hand with the 'always write in short sentences'. Without the
>semi-colon, it's harder to write in long sentences. I've always
>looked at both 'rules' as teaching aids -- it's better to *learn to*
>write in short sentences, as it's good exercise for getting the points
>you want to write in good order.
>
I read once that in a novel, say, one can increase the tension and
punch. By writing. In short. Sentences.
On the other hand, Jack Kerouak (sp?) wrote 'On the Road' as one long
sentence on a continuous piece of paper one hundred and thirty-odd
feet long in three weeks. I don't think it had any punctuation at all.
I knew you'd like to know that.
--
wrmst rgrds
RB...(docr...@ntlworld.com)
Harvey V
<docr...@ntlworld.com> said:
[...]
> On the other hand, Jack Kerouak (sp?) wrote 'On the Road' as one
> long sentence on a continuous piece of paper one hundred and
> thirty-odd feet long in three weeks. I don't think it had any
> punctuation at all.
>
> I knew you'd like to know that.
It certainly explains why it's a book that's more often referred-to
than read...
Harvey
Eric Walker
[...]
>But there was a time when teachers carried out a ruthless
>vendetta against the semicolon; "never use a semicolon when a
>period will do" was pounded into malleable young minds, along
>with other grammar-school never-never falsisms such as "never
>split an infinitive" and "never end a sentence with a
>preposition".
Since no literate soul in the twentieth century ever believed
any of what you rightly identify as fallacies, what does that
tell us about the educational institutions that propagated such
taradiddles?
Aside: if there are some really useful punctuation marks
currently much underused, I would say that the colon and the
dash head the list. Neither is much seen outside a few formal
uses, which is a shame.
Eric Walker
[...]
"I came; I saw; I conquered."
Any who wish to claim that "I saw" in that sentence is a
parenthetical remark are welcome to so exercise themselves.
That it may, in some few instances, be possible to construct a
chain of three independent but related clauses such that, by
some interpretation, the middle one can somehow be thought of as
parenthetical does not make a semi-colon pair the, or a, general
mark of parenthesizing.
And as Dr. Johnson so often rightly observed, "There's an _end_
on't."
JB
>
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 17:24:17 GMT, JB wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >But there was a time when teachers carried out a ruthless
> >vendetta against the semicolon; "never use a semicolon when a
> >period will do" was pounded into malleable young minds, along
> >with other grammar-school never-never falsisms such as "never
> >split an infinitive" and "never end a sentence with a
> >preposition".
>
> Since no literate soul in the twentieth century ever believed
> any of what you rightly identify as fallacies, what does that
> tell us about the educational institutions that propagated such
> taradiddles?
It tells me that they propagated prescriptivist propaganda. --JB
Eric Walker
[...]
>It tells me that they propagated prescriptivist propaganda.
One of the lad's favorite point-blank lies, uttered for the sake
of a sarcasm both silly and ineffective.
Pretty shameless, aren't you?
Polar
Whaaat? I use them all the time, and not only in very "formal"
settings.
What semis are left, that is. Most of them were used up by
Will and Ariel Durant. You wanna see semis, check out their
"Story of Civilization" series.
--
Polar
Eric Walker
[...]
>On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 15:26:22 -0700 (PDT), "Eric Walker"
> <ewa...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>
>>Aside: if there are some really useful punctuation marks
>>currently much underused, I would say that the colon and the
>>dash head the list. Neither is much seen outside a few formal
>>uses, which is a shame.
>
>Whaaat? I use them all the time, and not only in very "formal"
>settings.
Sorry, didn't mean formal _settings_, meant formalized, that is,
conventional uses. The colon rarely appears as true punctuation
these days, being used almost exclusively to introduce list
sequences or quotations (or in time numerals); the dash has even
fewer ordinary uses.
All that is a shame: those marks are useful--very useful--quite
on their own.
Dr Robin Bignall
I read it in my teens and found it profound. But teenagers find lots
of things profound.
The BBC (Radio 4?)is about to broadcast an item on Kerouak and has
been plugging the story of the book constantly. I've got the feeling
that it's some anniversary of the book's date of publication, so it's
bound to be reissued, and I plan to read it again to see if I'm still
impressed.
--
wrmst rgrds
RB...(docr...@ntlworld.com)
Mark Wallace
>
> [...]
>
> "I came; I saw; I conquered."
>
> Any who wish to claim that "I saw" in that sentence is a
> parenthetical remark are welcome to so exercise themselves.
>
> That it may, in some few instances, be possible to construct a
> chain of three independent but related clauses such that, by
> some interpretation, the middle one can somehow be thought of as
> parenthetical does not make a semi-colon pair the, or a, general
> mark of parenthesizing.
Sure. Clauses of equal stress, as in your example, can be separated
by semi-colons -- be there two or twenty of them. But every time the
pronoun 'it' is used, it does not refer to a particular elephant,
roaming the African plains.
> And as Dr. Johnson so often rightly observed, "There's an _end_
> on't."
I never dispute Johnson's words.
Mark Wallace
"Dr Robin Bignall" <docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:9tucmt0fr4ujid2u6...@4ax.com...
I'm ashamed to say that I've never so much as opened its cover.
Mark Wallace
What's your bent on the un-spaced em-dash/spaced en-dash controversy?
I prefer spaced en-dashes; purely for aesthetic reasons. I prefer
trailing sentences with ellipses, rather than em-dashes, too.
I'm not an em-dash kind of guy, I suppose.
Odysseus
>
> What's your bent on the un-spaced em-dash/spaced en-dash controversy?
> I prefer spaced en-dashes; purely for aesthetic reasons. I prefer
> trailing sentences with ellipses, rather than em-dashes, too.
> I'm not an em-dash kind of guy, I suppose.
>
book proportions I prefer the em-dash with no spacing, but in a
sans-serif font I use an en-dash with spaces. For cases like "Monday -
Friday" I never use an em-dash and often omit spaces as well.
As for ellipses, I prefer to put spaces on either side except where
there is another punctuation mark.
--Odysseus
JB
>
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 23:49:43 GMT, JB wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >It tells me that they propagated prescriptivist propaganda.
>
> One of the lad's favorite point-blank lies, uttered for the sake
> of a sarcasm both silly and ineffective.
>
> Pretty shameless, aren't you?
The 'rules' referred to - the semicolon, the ending preposition, the
split infinitive - are the epitome of prescriptivism. --JB
Bob Cunningham
<job...@carolina.rr.comTRIMTHISPART> said:
[...]
>The 'rules' referred to - the semicolon, the ending preposition, the
>split infinitive - are the epitome of prescriptivism. --JB
I've recently happened to open Theodore Bernstein's _The Careful
Writer_ to the page where he discusses "epitome". Reading the entry
made me realize that I've been quite wrong -- along with lots of other
people -- about what "epitome" means".
Now, reading your statement, I see that it can be interpreted as being
in accord with either the correct meaning or the widely misapprehended
meaning.
The old me would have interpreted your phrase "the epitome of
prescriptivism" to mean something like "the ultimate in
prescriptivism".
The new me knows that the proper interpretation would be more like
"typical examples of prescriptivism" or "summary of prescriptivism".
There's a problem with the article (definite or indefinite), though.
Both of the candidates I've mentioned would require "an" rather than
"the".
In fact, your use of "the epitome" makes me lean toward the idea that
you used the word in its widely misapprehended sense. Can you give an
explanation that shows you were using it in its true sense?
Here's the definition of "epitome" from _The New Shorter Oxford
English Dictionary_. Which definition do you think fits what you
intended to say:
1 A summary or abstract of a written work; a condensed
account. E16.
2 A thing that represents another in miniature; a person
who or thing which embodies a quality etc.; a typical
example. E16.
It seems to me that both of those definitions would imply the use of
the indefinite article. In fact, all of the usage illustrations have
"an epitome".
I wonder if "epitome" is another of those words whose meanings have
evolved to something the dictionaries haven't caught up with.
JB
I used 'epitome' per M-W def.2:
Main Entry: epit·o·me
Pronunciation: i-'pi-t&-mE
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from Greek epitomE, from epitemnein to cut
short, from epi- + temnein to cut -- more at TOME
Date: 1520
1 a : a summary of a written work b : a brief presentation or
statement of something
2 : a typical or ideal example : EMBODIMENT <the British monarchy
itself is the epitome of tradition -- Richard Joseph>
3 : brief or miniature form -- usually used with in
- ep·i·tom·ic /"e-p&-'tä-mik/ or ep·i·tom·i·cal /-mi-k&l/
adjective
--JB
Eric Walker
[...]
>It seems to me that both of those definitions would imply the
>use of the indefinite article. . . .
Not necessarily: one can say of a painting or photograph "It is
the very image of him" without meaning literally that no other
image is possible. It is, I suppose, a form of hyperbole
suggesting that (for epitome) the representation is so perfect
as to exclude all others--an exaggeration for effect.
Eric Walker
Well but they aren't, you see, and you know it and we know that
you know it--making you the very epitome of a shameless liar.
Eric Walker
[...]
>What's your bent on the un-spaced em-dash/spaced en-dash
>controversy? I prefer spaced en-dashes; purely for aesthetic
>reasons. I prefer trailing sentences with ellipses, rather
>than em-dashes, too. I'm not an em-dash kind of guy, I
>suppose.
I don't get much worked up over matters of formal style for much
the same reasons that--within fairly broad limits--spelling and
pronunciation don't fash me: they don't affect the sense of the
language unless carried to ridiculous extremes. I tend to very
much emphasize the written language, so if "you say tomayto and
I say tomahto," it doesn't matter to me. Spellings I think
about only to the extent that they be consistent.
That said, I find em dashes with surrounding spaces to look
rather strange. The _Chicago_ (14th) says nothing explicit, at
least under the direct heading "em dash," but all the examples
show no spaces. The same is true at their discussions of the en
dash and the hyphen. Some hyphenations I think easier to read
if there is a space:
9:00 a.m. - 11:30 a.m.
looks neater to me than
9:00 a.m.-11:30 a.m.
(Actually, I suppose those are, in type, en dashes.)
Looking at that, I wonder if my criterion for including spaces
is whether one or both elements contain or end with some
punctuation mark themselves: but I'd have to look at a lot of
possibilities to be sure.
Trailing sentences have slightly different significances with
ellipses and with dashes. The dash suggests a sentence
incomplete because not completed--interrupted or cut off:
"What did he mean by--"
suggests that the speaker bit his tongue. The ellipses suggest
either that the sentence was completed but is not being quoted
in its entirety, or that it is intended to be felt as trailing
off (as opposed to being cut off):
"Well, I'm not sure I should . . . ."
implies a hesitant speaker not completing the remark.
"I'm not an em-dash kind of guy, . . . ."
implies, rightly here, a sentence with the tail elided.
It is notable that the count of periods used for ellipsis is
often incorrect. Three dots signifies a gap; if the gap occurs
at the end of a sentence, a fourth is needed as the true
sentence-ending period.
"I have to go . . . but I'll be back at three."
"I have to go . . . ."
Of course, if the sentence is terminated otherwise, the true
terminator is needed:
"Will he come back . . . ?"
Another arcane area of style is punctuation in the immediate
vicinity of em dashes. Within them is not really controversial:
supply it as needed:
"On the other hand--or, might it be, the third hand?--one
wonders if . . . ."
But punctuation, if the sentence wants it, just before or after
an em dash is a matter that has changed over the decades. The
modern trend is markedly to avoid any such. Once, however, not
so long ago, dashes were punctuated around much as if they were
parentheses:
"It might be," I said (for so I thought), "that it is so."
"It might be," I said--for so I thought--, "that it is so."
One would almost never see that last today, but instead:
"It might be," I said--for so I thought--"that it is so."
That may be cleaner, but I'm not sure I think it good reading,
and thus good writing. I suspect the best thing to do these
days is to recast any sentence in which a punctuation mark seems
wanted right after a dash.
JB
I believe my statement is true; your ad hominem attacks, in lieu of
facts or logic, will certainly not persuade anyone. --JB
Eric Walker
[...]
>> >The 'rules' referred to - the semicolon, the ending
>> >preposition, the split infinitive - are the epitome of
>> >prescriptivism.
>
>I believe my statement is true; your ad hominem attacks, in
>lieu of facts or logic, will certainly not persuade anyone.
In your case (ad hominem), nothing--facts or logic--will
persuade. Everybody else looks in reputable prescriptive
manuals of grammar and usage and sees that you are 100% wrong.
This has been thrashed out here before at great length.
Apparently you have managed to forget the long laundry list of
manuals cited--probably all of any note whatever in the last
century--that disprove your nonsense. Such a _convenient_
memory (ad hominem).
And there's an _end_ on't.
JB
The 'rules' referred to are *prescriptive*. They were mandated upon the
students. The teachers believed these rules, as did their teachers.
I'm sure their textbooks contained these rules in black and white.
Perhaps the teachers belonged to a different sect of prescriptivism than
yours, with different dogma, just as there are dogmatic differences
between Christian sects. Maybe your particular prescriptivist sect
renounces these particular 'rules', but that does not mean all sects
do. There are hordes of grownup students out there who still rigidly
apply these rules as ingrained - prescriptively. --JB
Dr Robin Bignall
Well, it's its fiftieth anniversary, and I can't believe that I read
it when I was only 11, yet I know I first read it when it was in the
news, so it must have taken about four years to get to the UK.
The BBC blurb says that it was written all as one paragraph. My memory
tells me that it was without punctuation, too, but the guy who is
reading it in nightly installments on Radio 4 is putting in breaks
where one would expect to hear them.
--
wrmst rgrds
RB...(docr...@ntlworld.com)