Grammar Nazi, or Against Stupidity ...

[Ray Moscow]

I had an argument with a colleague this morning: he objected to some corrections I made to a document (prepared by another colleague who is not a native English speaker) in which I hypenated some compound modifiers (e.g., two nouns used a single adjective), changed upper case to lower case for non-proper nouns, corrected some run-on sentences, etc. His basic objection is that "no-one" in my industry (chemistry and engineering) does this.

For one thing, I'm just trying to make the document clear so the customer can understand it and not think that we're a bunch of dumbasses (especially me, since I'm the one sending it to them).

Secondly, I thought this was just basic, high-school (there I go again!) English.

Third, I showed him a few examples from my old organic chemistry textbook -- the first text at hand -- which did exactly this.

Anyway, I usually am not such a grammar or spelling Nazi (as you can tell by the plentiful errors in my posts), but I was really taken back by the argument that I needed to just do what everyone else did, even if it were grammatically incorrect. I'm not trying to correct what everyone else writes -- just what goes out in my name.

Have you have similar experiences?

[Puck]

As a consumer, I want to thank you, Ray. Any time a company sends out the written word, if it's written poorly, it makes me think the company is sloppy and careless. Do I really want a product from people with that attitude? No. If they can't get something as basic as the written word right, what does that say about the quality of their product?

I'm all about spelling and grammar mistakes, but when it's official, ffs, get it right.

[Ray Moscow]

Another pet peeve: a lot of chemists and engineers will capitalise the names of elements and compounds throughout their writings. Yes, PhD-holding chemists, too.

Geez, people: the symbols are capitalised (and in "H2O"*), not the words themselves (as in "hydrogen") -- unless they start a sentence, of course.

*Sorry, I couldn't find any subscript fonts here.

[Ray Moscow]

As a consumer, I want to thank you, Ray. Any time a company sends out the written word, if it's written poorly, it makes me think the company is sloppy and careless. Do I really want a product from people with that attitude? No. If they can't get something as basic as the written word right, what does that say about the quality of their product?

I'm all about spelling and grammar mistakes, but when it's official, ffs, get it right.

Thanks! That's how I feel, too. There are problems enough in most business arrangements without having to wade through easily corrected ones.

[Danhalen]

I'm with you too, Ray. I used to work for Goodyear, and we had some of the most irritating inter-office memos I have ever seen. I would always be embarrassed by my bosses' language when they would say something like "... should of done... ." Another one that drove me insane was using an improperly typed ellipsis to demonstrate the importance of a command instead of an omission: I need this done immediately.......................... My last complaint is when my bosses used double quotes to add emphasis: This should of been done yesterday. I "really" need it done immediately.......................

There were also the general spelling errors, but come on! We were all professionals, and we all went to college. At least learn how to use spell check and grammar check.

[Christina]

Our lead systems engineers and a few of our programmers had English as a second language and I tried to spare them from writing as much as I could, but the error messages that they came up with were truly hilarious or rudely commanding perfection. Luckily they all had a sense of humor about it and didn't mind when I had analysts translate them into something you could read with a straight face.

[Gooch's Dad]

I agree that publications that are sent out to the public, and represent a company, should be as close to the "rules of English" as possible. OTOH, as a high school *science* teacher, I generally couldn't care less how most of my students spell things. I'm not teaching an English class, and if I can understand what they're writing, then I'm completely ok with it.

I told one student that Shakespeare even spelled his own name several different ways. her response: "For real!?". I liked that.

[Danhalen]

http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/fail-owned-quotation-marks-correction-sign-fail.jpg

[alien billie]

A professionally developed piece of software that we use at work occasionally comes up with the following message:

A catastophic error has occurred

Not something to fill you full of confidence.

[Brother Daniel]

One of my pet peeves is faulty parallelism in comma-separated series.

"Do not take [this drug] if you are nursing, pregnant, or may become pregnant."

I hate that. It's fucking sloppy.

[Garnet]

*raises hand*

I'm a business analyst. I write requirements and functional design documents for a living. I also work with a lot of developers from India and deal every day with English as a second language. As Christina said, there is some damned funny stuff that comes out of that.

[Joykins]

I work in publishing. Anytime something incoherent or poorly written comes out of corporate or HR, the editors mock it mercilessly.

Yes, Virginia, it does make a publishing firm look bad if it uses bad grammar and usage.

[Notta]

Way to Godwin a thread in your first post, Ray.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Ergh. If you expect people to pay you money, correct spelling and reasonable grammar is vital.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no prescriptivist. And as a CS geek, the concept of 'incorrect grammar' grates on me every time. However, there's still a line between 'casual' and 'illiterate' that you just don't want to cross.

It really bugs the shit out of me when people whine that 'the purpose of language is communication; you knew what I meant, so job done'. (Though on reflection, these people rarely use semicolons.) Yes, and the purpose of peeing is to empty your bladder. My bladder is empty, so job done. Here, have a towel.

It is basic courtesy to optimise the process of communication so that the other person doesn't have to constantly guess, reparse, sound out or trip over your words. Yes, language evolve and usage changes. Key word: evolution. Not random ongoing mutation regardless of fitness. Changes that provide extra flexibility/expressiveness/precision/conciseness are good. Sometimes one factor is traded for another - but with a net gain. That's not the same as mere laziness for the sake of it, sacrificing all the factors at once for the convenience of not having to think about what you're saying.

The protocols are not there for the sheer love of rules - they're there to enable fast, accurate communication with the smallest practical amount of effort. It does mean that the majority of the work falls to the speaker rather than the listener, but that's OK. If that seems unfair, think of it as nature's way of telling you to shut up and listen.

(and I'm not even getting into the differences between spoken and written English...)

[Christina]

Not that you'd know it from my posts but anything that I wrote professionally had to be perfect. I spelled checked and grammar checked everything twice, set it aside and read it again a few times once I no longer had it memorized, and if it was really important like writing campaign literature for someone that would prefer that you didn't make him appear to be illiterate, I ran it by an English professor as well. What I did find interesting was that when I wrote any sort of speech I would write it in professional mode, and then I couldn't say it out loud comfortably so I had to loosen up to write in a more conversational style.

[His Noodly Appendage]

*nods* Cadence good. I bypassed the whole education thing - is it actually taught? Some people just don't get it, and look at me as if I'm mad when I suggest that a sentence needs a couple more syllables at the end...

[Oolon Colluphid]

It is basic courtesy to optimise the process of communication so that the other person doesn't have to constantly guess, reparse, sound out or trip over your words. [...]
The protocols are not there for the sheer love of rules - they're there to enable fast, accurate communication with the smallest practical amount of effort. It does mean that the majority of the work falls to the speaker rather than the listener,
Which is another way of saying that rule Loren has mentioned about good interoperability: be conservative in what you give out and liberal in what you accept from others.

[Christina]

After a while I knew the subject matter so well and was comfortable with public speaking so I would just wing it. At most I had an index card with bullet points so I didn't leave anything out. Anything more and I would have to stand at the podium and read straight from the paper, sounding stiff and awkward and getting halfway through a sentence and then garbling the rest because it didn't sound right. Public speaking is easy but publicly flubbing it is really embarrassing.

I went to a catholic private school and we weren't taught anything advanced about speaking vs. writing. Nuns don't speak in public much.

[Garnet]

I've been working in government for so long that I honestly don't know how to write correctly anymore. I feel like I need to take some classes in bonehead English. :(

[dug_down_deep]

I correct shit for a living, so yes, I've seen and had to do what you've done, Ray. I would caution, though, against assuming that some of the more subtle rules are universally considered correct. You usually have to specify a style guide, or create one, to achieve any kind of consistency in a text-producing environment.

[Christina]

Garnet, I'm fluent in bureaucrat-ese too. I think that they try to confuse people on purpose so that they give up and stop asking for things or doze off in meetings.

[dug_down_deep]

And since you're in the high-scrutiny mode, I guess I should clarify that I have indeed seen what you've done. And you should be ashamed of yourself.

[Garnet]

Garnet, I'm fluent in bureaucrat-ese too. I think that they try to confuse people on purpose so that they give up and stop asking for things or doze off in meetings.

Ain't that the truth.

[Ray Moscow]

I correct shit for a living, so yes, I've seen and had to do what you've done, Ray. I would caution, though, against assuming that some of the more subtle rules are universally considered correct. You usually have to specify a style guide, or create one, to achieve any kind of consistency in a text-producing environment.

Yes, you're right. I just like documents to be as simple and clear as possible, and good grammar and style help achieve this.

Another argument that my colleague used was "Microsoft Word doesn't mark this as wrong." :) My English and typing teachers would have flunked the M$ Word spelling- and grammar-check programmers.

[Christina]

Garnet, just a simple word change from "the CAO requests" and "the CAO directs" can create a shitstorm if you're talking about an elected official. Talk about touchy people.

[dug_down_deep]

Yes, you're right. I just like documents to be as simple and clear as possible, and good grammar and style help achieve this.

Another argument that my colleague used was "Microsoft Word doesn't mark this as wrong." :) My English and typing teachers would have flunked the M$ Word spelling- and grammar-check programmers.
Microsoft Word's grammar-checker is retarded.

(Can I say that here? :confused: :p)

[Brother Daniel]

Yes, you can.

The influence of the Microsoft grammar checker has made common at least one previously uncommon grammatical error (actually a punctuation error).

[dug_down_deep]

Is the challenge to figure out what it is?

[Brother Daniel]

That sounds fun. But it probably wouldn't be.

So here's a clue.

The error which has become common under the influence of Microsoft will be revealed in the course of this thread.

I think that sentence is grammatically correct. (Feel free to beat me up if I'm wrong.) I also think the MS grammar checker would reject it, and would suggest two alternatives. (I haven't checked it just now, but I'm basing these claims on previous experience.) One of those alternatives screws up the sentence completely. And many people would choose that one.

[Garnet]

Christina, I can only imagine. A couple of months ago, I was dealing with a user group that was so touchy that they were hollering and making a big deal about simple screen standards. Every stinking thing we talked about was a damn drama. I bailed out of that project as fast as I could. It's gotten to the point that no business analyst on our project will work with that group.

[His Noodly Appendage]

OH NOES NOT THE PASSIVE VOICE

Whatever will we do?

[Ray Moscow]

That sounds fun. But it probably wouldn't be.

So here's a clue.

The error which has become common under the influence of Microsoft will be revealed in the course of this thread.

I think that sentence is grammatically correct. (Feel free to beat me up if I'm wrong.) I also think the MS grammar checker would reject it, and would suggest two alternatives. (I haven't checked it just now, but I'm basing these claims on previous experience.) One of those alternatives screws up the sentence completely. And many people would choose that one.

The old WordPerfect grammar checker was much better, IIRC.

[dug_down_deep]

That sounds fun. But it probably wouldn't be.

So here's a clue.

The error which has become common under the influence of Microsoft will be revealed in the course of this thread.

I think that sentence is grammatically correct. (Feel free to beat me up if I'm wrong.) I also think the MS grammar checker would reject it, and would suggest two alternatives. (I haven't checked it just now, but I'm basing these claims on previous experience.) One of those alternatives screws up the sentence completely. And many people would choose that one.
Oh, I see. Yes, I think it would tell you either to put commas after 'error' and 'Microsoft', or to replace 'which' with 'that'. Is that it? That is one of those raging battles among the grammar conscious that can only be described as too geeky for mere words. :D

[Brother Daniel]

Yes, that's it. The latter choice is valid but (IMO) unnecessary, while the former choice changes the meaning of the sentence. The comma-adding option is made even worse when people add only one of the two commas, mangling the sentence completely.

So for the last few years, I've frequently seen an incorrect comma appear just before the word "which". In this example, some people would put a comma after "error" without putting the matching comma after "Microsoft". Horrible.

[dug_down_deep]

The comma-adding option is made even worse when people add only one of the two commas, mangling the sentence completely.
*makes choking sound*

So for the last few years, I've frequently seen an incorrect comma appear just before the word "which". In this example, some people would put a comma after "error" without putting the matching comma after "Microsoft". Horrible.
*dies*

I've seen much, much worse, though.

[His Noodly Appendage]

But commas are just "pause marks", arent' they? :D

GAH.

It's amazing how many people believe that.

WRITING IS NOT A MEANS OF TRANSCRIBING SPEECH SOUNDS, YOU IGNORANT FUCKS.

[Joykins]

Commas are my weak point when it comes to punctuation, but still I'm better than Microsoft.

[Garrett]

The error which has become common under the influence of Microsoft will be revealed in the course of this thread.

The error (which has become common under the influence of Microsoft) will be revealed in the course of this thread.

That's how I'd probably have written it.

[Brother Daniel]

That's valid. But it changes the sense of the sentence.

In my original sentence, the words "which has become common under the influence of Microsoft" are there to specify which error I'm talking about. They're not parenthetical in nature, so they shouldn't be separated by punctuation.

In your modified version, the implication is that "the error" is adequately specified by prior context, and the words "which has become common under the influence of Microsoft" are merely parenthetical (i.e. "aside").

You can do the same thing with commas: The error, which has become common under the influence of Microsoft, will be revealed in the course of this thread. That works too, and it's equivalent to yours.

The grammar-checker is using an obscure rule about the alleged difference between "that" and "which". Apparently (according to some people) "which" should be used for parenthetical information, while "that" should be used when the added information is part of the specification of the subject. But in practice, many (most?) people use "which" in both cases.

So the grammar-checker suggests either adding the commas or changing "which" to "that". But, unfortunately, many people misunderstand the point of the suggestion.

[DMB]

Something that drives me nuts is the use of "12 pm" for 12 noon. Sky News does this for its weather forecasts. I once got a letter from some utility company saying someone would call between "8 am and 12 pm". I rang their Customer Service department to complain:

Me I don't want to wait in all day. Can you please give me more specific time

CS The man is going to call in the morning. That's what it says.

Me No it doesn't. It says "between 8am and 12 pm". That's between 8 in the morning and midnight.

CS 12 pm means midday.

Me Do you know what the letters "pm" stand for? -- post meridiem , literally "after noon". It cannot at the same time mean "noon" and "after noon".

CS Well it's normal business practice.

Me You are in no position to speak for the world of business.

[Garrett]

That's valid. But it changes the sense of the sentence.
I'm certainly just a layman. But I'm not agreeing yet.

In my original sentence, the words "which has become common under the influence of Microsoft" are there to specify which error I'm talking about. They're not parenthetical in nature, so they shouldn't be separated by punctuation.

In your modified version, the implication is that "the error" is adequately specified by prior context, and the words "which has become common under the influence of Microsoft" are merely parenthetical (i.e. "aside").
But those words ("which has become common under the influence of Microsoft") are explanatory, so they can live in the parenthesis. Makes your long sentence easier to parse.

The point of your sentence was that we can find the error you spoke of somewhere in this thread. Wasn't it?

You can do the same thing with commas: The error, which has become common under the influence of Microsoft, will be revealed in the course of this thread. That works too, and it's equivalent to yours.
I think so. But putting in in parentheses makes it sound different in my head, so that the point of the sentence seems more coherent. If your point wasn't that the error can be found in this thread, then I'd want to rewrite the entire sentence.

The grammar-checker is using an obscure rule about the alleged difference between "that" and "which". Apparently (according to some people) "which" should be used for parenthetical information, while "that" should be used when the added information is part of the specification of the subject. But in practice, many (most?) people use "which" in both cases.
We can agree that language evolves, right? Based on what you just said, we can safely disregard that obscure rule.

So the grammar-checker suggests either adding the commas or changing "which" to "that". But, unfortunately, many people misunderstand the point of the suggestion.
One thing I didn't like about your version is that it seems to imply that there is one and only one of such errors caused by Microsoft.

[darjeeling]

It really bugs the shit out of me when people whine that 'the purpose of language is communication; you knew what I meant, so job done'.

In the end, that really is true. Being understood wins out.

It is basic courtesy to optimise the process of communication so that the other person doesn't have to constantly guess, reparse, sound out or trip over your words.

We do that automatically. I'm completely blanking out on the name of the principle. :o

That's not the same as mere laziness for the sake of it, sacrificing all the factors at once for the convenience of not having to think about what you're saying.

What laziness are you talking about and how do you define it?

The protocols are not there for the sheer love of rules - they're there to enable fast, accurate communication with the smallest practical amount of effort.

So is a hyphen in the phrase "high-school" there to enable fast, accurate communication? Where I'm from, that's not standard. Neither is "no-one." And we seem to get along just fine.

In my original sentence, the words "which has become common under the influence of Microsoft" are there to specify which error I'm talking about. They're not parenthetical in nature, so they shouldn't be separated by punctuation.

Microsoft changes it because for inanimate/non-human things, that is "supposed" to be used for restrictive clauses and which is "supposed" to be used for non-restrictive clauses. In practice, most people use which for non-restrictive clauses but are okay with using that for both types.

Microsoft sees which and assumes you meant a non-restrictive clause, which would require the addition of commas. You meant to write a restrictive clause, which would require the use of that, not which.

The grammar-checker is using an obscure rule about the alleged difference between "that" and "which". Apparently (according to some people) "which" should be used for parenthetical information, while "that" should be used when the added information is part of the specification of the subject. But in practice, many (most?) people use "which" in both cases.

Nah, it's the other way around. Most people use that for both types of clauses, but use which for non-restrictive clauses.

WRITING IS NOT A MEANS OF TRANSCRIBING SPEECH SOUNDS, YOU IGNORANT FUCKS.

It is sometimes.

...

...

:D

Something that drives me nuts is the use of "12 pm" for 12 noon.

Where I am, that's standard. 12 pm = noon, and 12 am = midnight. No one knows or gives a damn what pm and am stand for. It's irrelevant.

[Brother Daniel]

The point of your sentence was that we can find the error you spoke of somewhere in this thread. Wasn't it?
The real point of the sentence was simply to provide an example of the sort of sentence that people sometimes mess up. Since I enjoy self-referentiality, I thought it would be cute to provide an example of the (potential) error in a sentence that would also fit into the discussion of the error. This was probably a mistake! I should have made an example on a different topic entirely.

The dog, which had crapped on my lawn last week, bit my son this morning. (Appropriate for a context in which "the dog" has already been specified, the point of the sentence is to tell you that it bit my son, and parenthetically I'm also mentioning a lesser crime that it had previously committed.)

versus

The dog which had crapped on my lawn last week bit my son this morning. (Appropriate for a context in which more than one dog has been discussed, and the point of the sentence is to tell you that it bit my son, but I also want to specify exactly which dog I'm talking about, so I mention the earlier (lesser) crime in order to do so.)

Sometimes you want to make a sentence fitting the former template, and sometimes you want to make one fitting the latter. The problem is that in contexts that require the latter template, people sometimes put in the commas erroneously -- because Microsoft doesn't like the word "which" being used that way.
We can agree that language evolves, right? Based on what you just said, we can safely disregard that obscure rule.
I agree.
One thing I didn't like about your version is that it seems to imply that there is one and only one of such errors caused by Microsoft.
Right. And that was intended, for the sake of the example. Not that I'm seriously suggesting that this is the case! My attempt at self-referentiality was an unfortunate distraction. Forget "the error", focus on "the dog".

[darjeeling]

Crap, I just remembered it.

Grice's Cooperative Principle:
Maxims of quantity

1. Make your contribution as informative as required.
2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

Maxims of quality

1. Do not say what your believe to be false.
2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

Maxim of relation

1. Be relevant.

Maxims of manner

1. Avoid obscurity of expression.
2. Avoid ambiguity.
3. Be brief.
4. Be orderly.

[His Noodly Appendage]

In the end, that really is true. Being understood wins out.

Except that the people that fall back on that excuse generally introduce large amounts of ambiguity and imprecision into their speech, not just increasing the workload on the listener/reader, but also reducing the chance that their intent will be conveyed accurately.

What laziness are you talking about and how do you define it?

There's a whole lot of metadata in spelling, syntax and punctuation. People that are not mindful of them simply throw it all away. Without that layer of redundancy to hint at specific meanings, there's a lot more guesswork involved.

Conveying meaning takes a certain amount of effort. You can pack that effort either into precision or verbosity. If, for instance, you don't want to put the effort in for subject-verb agreement, you can get around it by using a lot more words to keep relationships completely explicit. Different languages (and indeed different dialects of the same language) all spend their effort differently. What takes three words in Latin takes all day in Indonesian. But conversely, learning exactly which three Latin words takes far, far longer. It's all one big tradeoff.

The problem comes when people ignore the subtleties, but also fail to compensate for their loss. That's laziness.

So is a hyphen in the phrase "high-school" there to enable fast, accurate communication? Where I'm from, that's not standard. Neither is "no-one." And we seem to get along just fine.

The hyphen has a very small payoff. It disambiguates between a school that is high and the atomic concept of a "highschool", which has nothing to do with being high, obvious jokes excepted.

But those obvious jokes are exactly the point. The jokes play off the inherent ambiguity in the first form, which can be confusing when not being exploited for humour. Removing that "wtf? reparse!" moment, or the rather more unlikely wrong interpretation does indeed make for faster, more efficient communication.

In practice however there's generally very little confusion in these cases, so the distinction may as well be optional. And indeed, it's mostly fallen into disuse.

[Brother Daniel]

Microsoft changes it because for inanimate/non-human things, that is "supposed" to be used for restrictive clauses and which is "supposed" to be used for non-restrictive clauses.... Microsoft sees which and assumes you meant a non-restrictive clause, which would require the addition of commas. You meant to write a restrictive clause, which would require the use of that, not which.
Yes, I understood that. But this is (IMO) a very obscure rule.
In practice, most people use which for non-restrictive clauses but are okay with using that for both types.
In my experience, which is commonly used both ways. YMMV.

[diana]

Secondly, I thought this was just basic, high-school (there I go again!) English.Um, Ray?

Hiya. :)

"High school" doesn't need a hyphen in that case. The current rule is that the hyphen is only needed when the lack of it might create ambiguity (such as a "third-world war" or a "third world war").

Otherwise, I'm with you.

d

[diana]

A professionally developed piece of software that we use at work occasionally comes up with the following message:

A catastophic error has occurred

Not something to fill you full of confidence.Why? Because a catastrophic error has occurred?

Confused I am.

d

[Brother Daniel]

Notice the spelling error. "catastophic" versus "catastrophic".

[darjeeling]

Except that the people that fall back on that excuse generally introduce large amounts of ambiguity and imprecision into their speech, not just increasing the workload on the listener/reader, but also reducing the chance that their intent will be conveyed accurately.

Really? Can ya prove it? :D

For me, it's not an excuse but a statement of fact.

There's a whole lot of metadata in spelling, syntax and punctuation. People that are not mindful of them simply throw it all away. Without that layer of redundancy to hint at specific meanings, there's a lot more guesswork involved.

In spelling? Well, English spelling is a mess, and a lot of the data just provide hints as to the etymology of the word, not its pronunciation. That someone misspells a word just shows that (a) the formal spelling of the word isn't relevant or important in the speaker's mind and (b) they didn't have it drilled into their minds in grade school. (Or is it grade-school? :p)

People generally aren't "mindful" about syntax and that sort of thing when they're speaking. When they're writing, they're more aware of it, but I don't think any of the problems you're describing are "laziness." There's always guesswork in language, and most speakers don't try to give the listener more work on purpose.

The problem comes when people ignore the subtleties, but also fail to compensate for their loss. That's laziness.

When do they do that and how? Give me examples so I can see what you're talking about.

A lot of people would describe the verbal system of AAVE as a great example of laziness and of losing the subtleties without compensating for their loss.

In practice however there's generally very little confusion in these cases, so the distinction may as well be optional. And indeed, it's mostly fallen into disuse.

And that's my point. What speakers find relevant survives. What they don't find relevant falls into disuse. That's all. Deal with it. :p

Yes, I understood that. But this is (IMO) a very obscure rule.

From my point of view, most of the rules people talk about (like the hyphen in "high-school") are obscure. But if you're going to be picky about some prescriptive rules, how can you justify not being picky about others?

In my experience, which is commonly used both ways. YMMV.

It doesn't work that way in my dialect.

Another pattern I've noticed is the usage of that to refer to humans/animate things. In fact, Noodly did it in the first sentence of his post. :D

[diana]

Notice the spelling error. "catastophic" versus "catastrophic".Oh thank you. Got it.

I'd probably notice that about the time I got the fifth "catastophic error."

d

[Brother Daniel]

From my point of view, most of the rules people talk about (like the hyphen in "high-school") are obscure. But if you're going to be picky about some prescriptive rules, how can you justify not being picky about others?
Some rules are simply better than others. I'd argue in favour of, or against, being picky about a rule on a case by case basis. (Or should I say a "case-by-case basis"?)
Another pattern I've noticed is the usage of that to refer to humans/animate things. In fact, Noodly did it in the first sentence of his post. :D
IIRC, Shakespeare used to do that as well.

[darjeeling]

Some rules are simply better than others. I'd argue in favour of, or against, being picky about a rule on a case by case basis. (Or should I say a "case-by-case basis"?)

So how do you get hundreds of millions of speakers to agree, then? If you pick different rules than I do, can't I just point my finger at you and call you lazy? :evil:

How do you weigh "no split infinitives" against "hyphenate 'high-school'" against "which is for non-restrictive clauses" against "no dangling prepositions"...?

[diana]

Just a comment, HNA and Bro Dan:

Not that I want you to stop arguing or anything. In fact, please continue with your intellectual masturbation. It's titillating to watch.

Anyhow...FWIW, I teach this shit for a living, and I've become convinced that my job consists of teaching the tykes (college-age tykes, but still) how written English and spoken English differ, and why. Most of them come to me innocently believing that their dialect is Standard American English and is, therefore, good writing. (None are the same, for the record, and each has its place.)

d

[diana]

Are y'all reading the intervening posts? Or just those which directly contribute to your special argument?

How do you weigh "no split infinitives" against "hyphenate 'high-school'" against "which is for non-restrictive clauses" against "no dangling prepositions"...?Please point me to any rule which says "high school" needs a hyphen, and in what circumstances.

Thanks in advance.

d

[darjeeling]

Please point me to any rule which says "high school" needs a hyphen, and in what circumstances.

Thanks in advance.

d

What? Why are you asking me?

I don't think it does. I was never taught that it does by any of my English teachers, and even if they taught me that, I still would refuse to write it that way.

But I'm willing to accept that it could be an actual rule to someone, somewhere. That it wasn't something I ever learned doesn't mean anything to me because prescriptive rules don't mean anything to me unless I'm writing in a formal setting.

[diana]

What? Why are you asking me?Because I was already annoyed at the usage and you mentioned it again, I think. :) Sorry! I see now that you're using it as one in a long list of silly prescriptive rules.

Maybe I should ask Ray to provide the rule. I'm curious.

d

[darjeeling]

Because I was already annoyed at the usage and you mentioned it again, I think. :) Sorry! I see now that you're using it as one in a long list of silly prescriptive rules.

Maybe I should ask Ray to provide the rule. I'm curious.

d

No worries. :p

Maybe it's a British thing. :dunno:

[diana]

No worries. :p

Maybe it's a British thing. :dunno:Aw, Ray ain't British.

d

[Brother Daniel]

Just a comment, HNA and Bro Dan:

Not that I want you to stop arguing or anything.
I didn't know I was arguing. As far as I can tell, darjeeling is looking for things to argue about with me.
In fact, please continue with your intellectual masturbation. It's titillating to watch.
Gratuitous rudeness noted. Your point, however, remains obscure.

[Brother Daniel]

So how do you get hundreds of millions of speakers to agree, then? If you pick different rules than I do, can't I just point my finger at you and call you lazy? :evil:
If you want to, you can.
How do you weigh "no split infinitives" against "hyphenate 'high-school'" against "which is for non-restrictive clauses" against "no dangling prepositions"...?
How do you?

[darjeeling]

If you want to, you can.

Well, I wouldn't. I'm just wondering how you decide which rules are better than others. And I'm wondering what happens when your idea of which rules are better don't match someone else's. I'm not trying to fight -- just asking.

My original point was that prescriptive rules don't really have any basis or justification other than "this is how we've been doing it" and "someone said to do it this way once," so I'm wondering what makes you pick certain ones over others.

How do you?

I don't, really. They're all equally forced and artificial to me. In formal writing, I follow the rules I was taught because that's expected of me in an academic paper. In slightly more casual writing, I follow some of them out of habit and usually because the social context demands it (for example, if I came in here and started writing in txtspk, it'd probably piss most people off, so I stick to a register that's considered acceptable). Outside of those contexts, I don't think prescriptive rules are relevant. If someone's talking to me, I don't interrupt them and tell them they shouldn't split infinitives like that, and if someone writes me an email, I don't correct them if they leave dangling prepositions.

And I'm not suggesting you do any of that. I'm just pointing out that I consider prescriptive rules arbitrary and irrelevant outside a limited context, so I don't know how people decide which ones they consider useful and which ones they don't.

[diana]

Gratuitous rudeness noted. Hrm? You found that offensive?

Holy fuck. I'll watch my language with you, then.

d

[Brother Daniel]

I don't, really. They're all equally forced and artificial to me.
All? I would expect that there are (probably) some rules that you follow instinctively, without thinking about them.
In formal writing, I follow the rules I was taught because that's expected of me in an academic paper. In slightly more casual writing, I follow some of them out of habit and usually because the social context demands it (for example, if I came in here and started writing in txtspk, it'd probably piss most people off, so I stick to a register that's considered acceptable).
Same here.
Outside of those contexts, I don't think prescriptive rules are relevant. If someone's talking to me, I don't interrupt them and tell them they shouldn't split infinitives like that, and if someone writes me an email, I don't correct them if they leave dangling prepositions.
Nor do I. Those are, for me, very low-priority rules. I usually follow them, out of habit, but I don't care when they're broken.
And I'm not suggesting you do any of that. I'm just pointing out that I consider prescriptive rules arbitrary and irrelevant outside a limited context, so I don't know how people decide which ones they consider useful and which ones they don't.
If the breaking of a rule tends to inflict "wtf? reparse!" moments (as HNA put it) on the reader, then it's probably a good rule.
And I'm wondering what happens when your idea of which rules are better don't match someone else's.
Fair question. But I don't know. It hasn't led to conflict, yet.

[Brother Daniel]

I'll watch my language with you, then.
It's not a question of watching your language.

Sometimes I say things that are sneerworthy. I may have done so ITT. But if you're going to sneer at something I've said, please provide some clues of what you're sneering at (and why), so I can mend my ways.

[His Noodly Appendage]

In spelling? Well, English spelling is a mess, and a lot of the data just provide hints as to the etymology of the word, not its pronunciation. That someone misspells a word just shows that (a) the formal spelling of the word isn't relevant or important in the speaker's mind and (b) they didn't have it drilled into their minds in grade school. (Or is it grade-school? :p)


What the hell makes you think I'm talking about pronunciation? As Diana points out, the written language is not the spoken language - and neither is it a mere transcription of sounds.

Spelling reveals etymology, which tells you a great deal about meaning; you can delve into a word and pull out all kinds of clues from its component parts. Think, if nothing else, of all the distinctions implied by the suffixes -or, -our, -er, and -re. Unfortunately, they're homophones.

These spoken language just doesn't have the range for this kind of subtlety. The symbol-referent mapping is more or less atomic; you can't reliably discern component meanings from a bunch of sounds. Written words can contain meaning, spoken ones can only point to it.

It's rather akin to the difference between cladistics and baraminology, really.

People generally aren't "mindful" about syntax and that sort of thing when they're speaking.[quote]

Rubbish. Of course they are. There's a whole different set of protocols in place, but most people can follow them quite closely.

[quote] When they're writing, they're more aware of it

Speak for yourself.

but I don't think any of the problems you're describing are "laziness." There's always guesswork in language, and most speakers don't try to give the listener more work on purpose.

When did I ever imply that they did? I never suggested that people were malicious - I just said that they're lazy, and by extension, inconsiderate.

When do they do that and how? Give me examples so I can see what you're talking about.

Examples aren't hard to come by, innit?

A lot of people would describe the verbal system of AAVE as a great example of laziness and of losing the subtleties without compensating for their loss.

And a lot of people would be fucking idiots. Your point? AAVE has a rich, strict grammar that's at least as expressive as more generic dialects. Read your Pinker, and look at the differences in meaning expressed by 'be' and 'is'. The subtleties haven't been lost - they've just moved.

Compare and contrast with a pidgin language, or with random corruptions that continually resurface in the culture without ever being widely adopted or built upon.

Not every mutation is adaptive.

And that's my point. What speakers find relevant survives. What they don't find relevant falls into disuse. That's all. Deal with it. :p

But in the meantime, you have to actually communicate with the people that use corruptions and adaptations that cannot survive in the long term. And that's a pain in the ass.

[Joykins]

Um, Ray?

Hiya. :)

"High school" doesn't need a hyphen in that case. The current rule is that the hyphen is only needed when the lack of it might create ambiguity (such as a "third-world war" or a "third world war").

Otherwise, I'm with you.

d

High-school seems archaic, kind of like spelling today to-day.

A hyphen is often used when there is a compound adjective before a noun:

per-capita income but income per capita

high-school English (perhaps), but we all went to high school

At least that was my editor's pronouncement back when I was a staff writer.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Sounds sensible.

[Joykins]

Oh, by the way, if you ever start writing for a reference book where your goal is to write in the same style as all the other staff, you become acutely aware of grammar and usage. I became tediously aware of ways to break down a list, and let me tell you, there were many times that I wished for something to trump a semicolon in the same way a semicolon trumps a comma--within a sentence; obviously the period will do it but sometimes I didn't want to have to use more than one sentence. :p

[DMB]

Where I am, that's standard. 12 pm = noon, and 12 am = midnight. No one knows or gives a damn what pm and am stand for. It's irrelevant.

Doesn't make it right though. 12 am = 12 pm = midnight and 12 noon = midday.

But of course, the sensible thing to do is to use the 24-hour clock. This is standard in Continental Europe and you don't then need "am" or "pm".

[diana]

High-school seems archaic, kind of like spelling today to-day.

A hyphen is often used when there is a compound adjective before a noun:

per-capita income but income per capita

high-school English (perhaps), but we all went to high school

At least that was my editor's pronouncement back when I was a staff writer.And perhaps it is archaically correct. My point is that it is no longer considered correct (http://www.englishforums.com/English/RulesForUsingHyphens/gqxx/post.htm).

d

[DMB]

And perhaps it is archaically correct. My point is that it is no longer considered correct (http://www.englishforums.com/English/RulesForUsingHyphens/gqxx/post.htm).

d

That's a rather sweeping statement! Don't you mean that it is no longer considered incorrect to omit the hyphen?

IMO a correctly placed hyphen makes reading for comprehension smoother and easier.

[diana]

That's a rather sweeping statement! Don't you mean that it is no longer considered incorrect to omit the hyphen?

IMO a correctly placed hyphen makes reading for comprehension smoother and easier.What I mean is that the hyphen is currently considered correct only when it is needed to avoid ambiguity. Otherwise, it is considered incorrect.

Commas have also gone minimalist, for the record.

d

[Brother Daniel]

Doesn't make it right though.
Drawing a distinction between "standard" and "right"? I think you're on shaky ground there.

[DMB]

Drawing a distinction between "standard" and "right"? I think you're on shaky ground there.

It's nonsensical to use an abbreviation that means "after noon" to mean "noon". Why the fuck don't they use the 24-hour clock?

[diana]

I can answer that one.

Americans arrogantly believe their archaic and even cryptic systems of measurement and time-telling to be superior to those of the rest of the developed world. We got nothin' to learn from everyone else.

We're basically a teenaged country. We think we know everything.

Why? I think we can attribute it to two major factors: most Americans have never traveled far beyond their home state, let alone to Canada or Mexico, and let's not even bother discussing Europe, etc. Their isolationism encourages them to not question their inherent patriotism, largely borne of ignorance. Second, most Americans aren't educated beyond high school; of those who are, many (most?) are educated in "techie" fields. Education, to me, is to provide access to new ideas and to teach you how to think for yourself (but I'm probably thinking liberal arts education, here). The fact remains, though: the less educated a people, the more difficult it is to change any of their beliefs or habits.

All that to say, I think America won't abandon the admittedly confusing, sometimes contradictory (as you point out) and ambiguous method of time-telling anytime soon. Short of executive order, I mean...but Obama's busy with stuff that's actually important, so I won't email him with this particular concern today.

d

[Garnet]

Well, shit.


Can you at least e-mail him to get rid of daylight savings time?

[diana]

Other than the fact that it's just bloody annoying, do you have any good arguments to offer?

We might be able to make an argument that it reduces productivity for two weeks every year while everyone adjusts to the change, and put it in dollar amounts.

Anything else? Bad for health, maybe, but I'm not sure what data might seal that position.

Help me here.

d

[Garnet]

I don't have facts at hand, but I recall seeing some stuff about increase in accidents, decreases in productivity, sleep pattern disruptions, no energy savings or energy savings in such negligible amounts that it isn't worth it, software bugs...

That's all I can think of off the top of my head.

And yeah, it's damned annoying.

[Garnet]

Good old wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight_saving_time

[His Noodly Appendage]

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/8080/droughtxc8.gif

[darjeeling]

What the hell makes you think I'm talking about pronunciation?

You can't divorce spelling from pronunciation, even in English. The two are connected, even if they're separate.

As Diana points out, the written language is not the spoken language - and neither is it a mere transcription of sounds.

Yes, written language is not the same as spoken language. But neither are the two completely separate, independent things. Spoken language affects written language all the time. You can't have [a natural,] written language where a spoken language never existed, and people don't learn written language before they ever learn a spoken language, whether it be French or American Sign Language.

And right, written language isn't a mere transcription of sounds, but how a word is actually pronounced can lead to a change in spelling over time. If the orthography is outdated and doesn't accurately reflect the way people speak, people are going to make plenty of spelling errors, and in some instances, those errors will eventually become acceptable or standard.

Spelling reveals etymology, which tells you a great deal about meaning; you can delve into a word and pull out all kinds of clues from its component parts.

Right. But you can do that when you hear words, too. You do it all the time. If you didn't, you would never understand novel words in spoken language.

Think, if nothing else, of all the distinctions implied by the suffixes -or, -our, -er, and -re. Unfortunately, they're homophones.

Can you explain to me the semantic differences between all of those suffixes?

There are instances where written language is ambiguous in ways that spoken language isn't. If I show you the word lead, you don't know which one I mean, but if I say it, you'll understand.

And are you saying that if I said, "He's such a googler" to you in person, you'd have a harder time figuring out what I meant than if you saw it in writing?

These spoken language just doesn't have the range for this kind of subtlety.

How so?

The symbol-referent mapping is more or less atomic; you can't reliably discern component meanings from a bunch of sounds.

I don't buy that. We discern component meanings from a bunch of sounds every time we listen to someone speak and every time we hear a new word.

If I said, "Why don't you regoogle that?", would you understand what I meant?

Written words can contain meaning, spoken ones can only point to it.

No, that's not right at all. How is it that spoken words can only point to meaning? Spoken language is the default; written language is learned. How can the latter possibly contain meaning while the former doesn't? The former determines meaning.

Rubbish. Of course they are. There's a whole different set of protocols in place, but most people can follow them quite closely.

That people can follow protocols doesn't mean they're mindful or aware/conscious of what they're doing. I've never had anyone tell me that they carefully plan out every sentence before they utter it.

When did I ever imply that they did? I never suggested that people were malicious - I just said that they're lazy, and by extension, inconsiderate.

I'm not saying it's malicious, either. You're saying that people are lazy and inconsiderate and that they're mindful or aware of things like syntax when they speak. If they're mindful of their syntax and inconsiderate, then they're doing it on purpose.

Examples aren't hard to come by, innit?

Was that a forced example of an inconsiderate utterance? Or were you being genuine? If it's the latter, then you shouldn't have trouble giving me examples so I can understand exactly what it is you're talking about.

And a lot of people would be fucking idiots. Your point?

That is my point. A lot of people think that the AAVE verbal system lost some subtleties of the Standard American English verbal system, and they're wrong. Just because they don't see those subtleties doesn't mean they don't exist.

Likewise, just because you think someone is being lazy when they're speaking doesn't mean they are.

AAVE has a rich, strict grammar that's at least as expressive as more generic dialects.

Please lecture me a little more on this. I have no idea what AAVE is like - that's why I brought it up.

Read your Pinker, and look at the differences in meaning expressed by 'be' and 'is'. The subtleties haven't been lost - they've just moved.

Yes, mother. Please point me to Pinker's grammar of AAVE.

Nice to see you're as condescending as ever, Noodles. :)

Compare and contrast with a pidgin language,

Why?

or with random corruptions that continually resurface in the culture without ever being widely adopted or built upon.

Not every mutation is adaptive.

Right.

So does that mean you can tell me right now which features of the current Standard American English or Australian English are going to survive and which ones will fall into disuse? Which mutations are adaptive and which ones aren't?

But in the meantime, you have to actually communicate with the people that use corruptions and adaptations that cannot survive in the long term. And that's a pain in the ass.

That's a pain in the ass? Well, if something natural bothers you, it's your problem.

Corruptions and adaptations happen all the time. No two people speak the same exact language, so it's not exactly a surprise. I just don't see the point in getting irritated by it or calling someone else lazy because their English is different from yours.

Doesn't make it right though. 12 am = 12 pm = midnight and 12 noon = midday.

"Right" is whatever the majority decides is right. The abbreviation pm isn't interpreted as post meridian. That knowledge isn't in your average speaker's mind and is therefore completely irrelevant. The convention is 12pm = noon and 12am = midnight, and if you want to be understood in the US, you have to look at it that way.

It's nonsensical to use an abbreviation that means "after noon" to mean "noon". Why the fuck don't they use the 24-hour clock?

The abbreviation doesn't mean "after noon" - it means "time between 12:00 and 23:00," so it's not nonsensical.

I have a question - do you personally use the 24-hour clock all the time? I mean, if you were on the phone and your friend asked you at what time you wanted to meet for dinner, would you say, "6:30" or "18:30"? In my experience in Eastern Europe, people use the 12-hour clock in casual conversation and the 24-hour clock for business/official situations.

Americans arrogantly believe their archaic and even cryptic systems of measurement and time-telling to be superior to those of the rest of the developed world. We got nothin' to learn from everyone else.

I don't think that's true. :dunno:

I think we can attribute it to two major factors: most Americans have never traveled far beyond their home state, let alone to Canada or Mexico, and let's not even bother discussing Europe, etc.

There are plenty of people in other countries who have never traveled anywhere. Does that mean they're more insular? And what about insular countries where people generally do travel to other countries?

I've met some well-traveled people who were more close-minded and insular than people who never left the state they were born in.

Their isolationism encourages them to not question their inherent patriotism, largely borne of ignorance.

I don't believe patriotism is inherent. It's learned.

All that to say, I think America won't abandon the admittedly confusing, sometimes contradictory (as you point out) and ambiguous method of time-telling anytime soon.

It's not contradictory, and I personally don't find it too confusing. The 24-hour clock is clearer and more convenient for official things like train schedules, but for everyday, casual conversation, the 12-hour clock works fine for me.

[diana]

Americans arrogantly believe their archaic and even cryptic systems of measurement and time-telling to be superior to those of the rest of the developed world. We got nothin' to learn from everyone else.
I don't think that's true.Furthermore, the war in Iraq was justified, George W. Bush was a good president who will be remembered by historians for leading us into a necessary but unpopular war, Carl Rove is a misunderstood genius, Cheney is being framed for war crimes he didn't commit, we're winning the war in Iraq, which--incidentally--is becoming the democracy (ally) we always wanted, that old-time religion is good enough for me and beef...it's what's for dinner.

I think we can attribute it to two major factors: most Americans have never traveled far beyond their home state, let alone to Canada or Mexico, and let's not even bother discussing Europe, etc.
There are plenty of people in other countries who have never traveled anywhere. Does that mean they're more insular? And what about insular countries where people generally do travel to other countries?

I've met some well-traveled people who were more close-minded and insular than people who never left the state they were born in.Me too. Well no, not really, but I acknowledge they probably exist. Exceptions to the rule are common.

Their isolationism encourages them to not question their inherent patriotism, largely borne of ignorance.
I don't believe patriotism is inherent. It's learned.Which doesn't disprove my point.

I meant that in the sense that we are inculcated with it pretty much from birth and never question it. I didn't mean to suggest it was genetic or anything. Geez.

All that to say, I think America won't abandon the admittedly confusing, sometimes contradictory (as you point out) and ambiguous method of time-telling anytime soon.
It's not contradictory,Yeah, it is. 12 pm means what? post meridian. After noon. However, 12pm is, technically, noon itself. (We can play the same game with 12am.)

Please pay attention.

and I personally don't find it too confusing. The 24-hour clock is clearer and more convenient for official things like train schedules, but for everyday, casual conversation, the 12-hour clock works fine for me.So it's confusing enough that the 24-hour clock is better for train schedules and basically, time schedules that count. I see.

You've just made my point for me. Thanky.

d

[Brother Daniel]

It's nonsensical to use an abbreviation that means "after noon" to mean "noon".
That's essentially just the etymological fallacy. It really doesn't matter what the abbreviation "means" (in terms of its origin).

And even if I granted your argument (which I don't), I would still suggest that the now-standard usage of the term "pm" is not as crazy as you say it is. 12:01 pm is after noon. 12:00:01 pm is after noon. "12:00" is not strictly used for an instant of time (the stroke of noon) each day; it's also used for a period of time that begins with the stroke of noon. Depending on the degree of granularity required by the context, that period of time can be as much as a full minute long. And regardless of its duration, almost all of that period (that is, all but a single instant of it) is, literally, after noon.
Why the fuck don't they use the 24-hour clock?
This sounds awfully similar to "Why the fuck don't they speak English?" -- as a stereotypical "ugly American" tourist in France might say.

[Joykins]

And perhaps it is archaically correct. My point is that it is no longer considered correct (http://www.englishforums.com/English/RulesForUsingHyphens/gqxx/post.htm).

d

What, they changed the rules since 2001?????

[Joykins]

What I mean is that the hyphen is currently considered correct only when it is needed to avoid ambiguity. Otherwise, it is considered incorrect.

Commas have also gone minimalist, for the record.

d

People who want to be all loosey-goosey should not be prescriptive grammarians.

*folds arms over chest and hmphs*

[Joykins]

"There are those in the world who dare to speak out in defiance of all that is holy, and who disdain the use of the serial comma. They are blasphemers and the spawn of evil. Do not succumb to their ways." --Lawrence Watt-Evans

This is my signature on another board, btw, one that allows more than 275 characters in signatures.

[Brother Daniel]

What, they changed the rules since 2001?????
Ray's rule is given in item 6 in the list to which diana linked. I'm not sure why she's claiming the rules have changed.

(Maybe I read too hastily.)

[diana]

People who want to be all loosey-goosey should not be prescriptive grammarians.

*folds arms over chest and hmphs*Sorry? I don't follow.

d

[diana]

"There are those in the world who dare to speak out in defiance of all that is holy, and who disdain the use of the serial comma. They are blasphemers and the spawn of evil. Do not succumb to their ways." --Lawrence Watt-Evans

This is my signature on another board, btw, one that allows more than 275 characters in signatures.Funny! :D

d

[Joykins]

Ray's rule is given in item 6 in the list to which diana linked. I'm not sure why she's claiming the rules have changed.

(Maybe I read too hastily.)

What diana linked was the Economist's style guide which is, I suppose, just as valid as my abstractor style guide in 2001 (and does not conflict with it, my style guide being a subset of GPO style). For what it's worth, just because a hyphen is not in all cases required does not make it incorrect. The word "optional" comes to mind, if one is not a prescriptivist :p

To-day, however, I just like because it reminds me of T. Herman Zweibel (http://www.theonion.com/content/columnists/view/zweibel).

[Joykins]

I am opposed to minimal commas. Those who advocate the loss of the serial comma end up perpetrating atrocities like "I'd like to thank my parents, God and Ayn Rand."

[Brother Daniel]

Now those two would certainly be strange bedfellows! :D

[diana]

Ray's rule is given in item 6 in the list to which diana linked. I'm not sure why she's claiming the rules have changed.

(Maybe I read too hastily.)The rules states that the hyphen is used only when needed (to avoid ambiguity, even though it doesn't say that in those words):


6. ADJECTIVES FORMED FROM TWO OR MORE WORDS

right-wing groups (but the right wing of the party), balance-of-payments difficulties, private-sector wages, public-sector borrowing requirement, a 70-year-old judge, state-of-the-union message, value-added tax (VAT).

Adverbs do not need to be linked to participles or adjectives by hyphens in simple constructions: The regiment was ill equipped for its task; The principle is well established; Though expensively educated, the journalist knew no grammar. But if the adverb is one of two words together being used adjectivally, a hyphen may be needed: The ill-equipped regiment was soon repulsed; All well-established principles should be periodically challenged. The hyphen is especially likely to be needed if the adverb is short and common, such as ill, little, much and well. Less-common adverbs, including all those that end -ly, are less likely to need hyphens: Never employ an expensively educated journalist.

Do not overdo the literary device of hyphenating words that are not usually linked: the stringing-together-of-lots-and-lots-of-words-and-ideas tendency can be tiresome. If there's a reasonable chance that your readership will see ambiguity in the words, use a hyphen. Otherwise, no hyphen.

Last I checked, it was just "high school," even when used as an adjective.

I quoted the Brit style guide for Ray's benefit. I think he probably goes by that by now. All of the American style guides I've had occasion to read (which is far more than I want to) are less ambiguous on the minimalist standard.

d

[diana]

I am opposed to minimal commas. Those who advocate the loss of the serial comma end up perpetrating atrocities like "I'd like to thank my parents, God and Ayn Rand."This is funny. :D

But...don't be insulting. You misrepresent the competition.

d

[Joykins]

Now those two would certainly be strange bedfellows! :D

But imagine what the children would be like! :eek:

[Joykins]

This is funny. :D

But...don't be insulting. You misrepresent the competition.

d

So, give me a good argument in favor of dropping the serial comma. I have yet to see any real benefit beside keystroke minimization, but my training was very rigorous with punctuation.

[Brother Daniel]

The ill-equipped regiment was soon repulsed; All well-established principles should be periodically challenged.
Surely, "the ill equipped regiment" and "well established principles" are no more likely to be read ambiguously than "the high school girl".

The hyphenating of "high school" (when the two words together are used as an adjective) is well in keeping with the examples given.
If there's a reasonable chance that your readership will see ambiguity in the words, use a hyphen. Otherwise, no hyphen.
The bolded words misrepresent the rule you quoted.

[diana]

I said commas have gone minimalist, which doesn't narrow the usage in question down to the serial comma. (No style guides, as far as I can tell, say that dropping it is mandatory; they make it optional, as long as deleting the extra comma creates no ambiguity, which--of course--doesn't include your example.)

I speak of commaphilia, where commas are inserted where they are clearly understood and not needed. Example: "After dinner I went to the porch for a smoke." The old rules say you need a comma after "dinner," but it isn't necessary by the new rules.

d

[diana]

Surely, "the ill equipped regiment" and "well established principles" are no more likely to be read ambiguously than "the high school girl".The "ill equipped regiment" can be sick, but properly supplied. Although there isn't much ambiguity in the next one (the "well established principles"), they still fall under the bolded rule. "High school girl" means a girl in high school, clearly (not to be confused with a high schoolgirl). :)

The hyphenating of "high school" (when the two words together are used as an adjective) is well in keeping with the examples given.Nope. Not needed.

d

[Joykins]

I said commas have gone minimalist, which doesn't narrow the usage in question down to the serial comma. (No style guides, as far as I can tell, say that dropping it is mandatory; they make it optional, as long as deleting the extra comma creates no ambiguity, which--of course--doesn't include your example.)

I speak of commaphilia, where commas are inserted where they are clearly understood and not needed. Example: "After dinner I went to the porch for a smoke." The old rules say you need a comma after "dinner," but it isn't necessary by the new rules.

d
Ah, OK. That issue has not been one of my philosophical problems. :p

It took me longer to master commas than anything else and I am still not sure I have mastery :p That sentence probably used to require a comma; I'm sure it did when I was in grade school.

I like the really modern technique of using emoticons as periods :o

[diana]

Ah, OK. That issue has not been one of my philosophical problems. :p

It took me longer to master commas than anything else and I am still not sure I have mastery :p That sentence probably used to require a comma; I'm sure it did when I was in grade school.

I like the really modern technique of using emoticons as periods :o:D

Sadly, that was one of my problems in grading papers until I started looking up the rules. Egads...they've changed! (The fuck?)

d

[darjeeling]

Furthermore, the war in Iraq was justified, George W. Bush was a good president who will be remembered by historians for leading us into a necessary but unpopular war, Carl Rove is a misunderstood genius, Cheney is being framed for war crimes he didn't commit, we're winning the war in Iraq, which--incidentally--is becoming the democracy (ally) we always wanted, that old-time religion is good enough for me and beef...it's what's for dinner.

Funny enough, I've never met anyone in person who believes all that.

Me too. Well no, not really, but I acknowledge they probably exist. Exceptions to the rule are common.

I don't think you can prove it's a rule.

I meant that in the sense that we are inculcated with it pretty much from birth and never question it. I didn't mean to suggest it was genetic or anything. Geez.

I wasn't inculcated with it and I always questioned it. So did a lot of the people I grew up with. :dunno:

Yeah, it is. 12 pm means what? post meridian. After noon. However, 12pm is, technically, noon itself. (We can play the same game with 12am.)

Please pay attention.

I am paying attention. I already addressed this.

Stop a person on the street and ask them what pm stands for. Do you think they'll know?

Most people won't know because it's irrelevant. No one thinks (edit: or rather, most people don't think) post meridian when they see the abbreviation. All it does is indicate the time between noon and a minute before midnight.

So it's confusing enough that the 24-hour clock is better for train schedules and basically, time schedules that count. I see.

You've just made my point for me. Thanky.

No, it's not confusing enough. I've read train and bus schedules all my life that rely on the 12-hour clock and I never showed up at the train station at 6 am when I was supposed to be there at 6 pm. I don't know anyone who suffered that fate, either. I'm just saying the 24-hour clock would be completely unambiguous, and maybe that's better for official schedules. That doesn't mean that the 12-hour clock is automatically confusing.

Besides, you skipped over my point that using the 12-hour clock in casual conversation isn't problematic. If I tell my friend that I'm coming over to visit at 3, she's not going to expect me to show up at her door at 3 in the morning.

[Joykins]

If y'all are going to be pedants about PM, I feel obliged:

"post meridiem" not "post meridian"

That is all, you may drive thru :D

[diana]

Funny enough, I've never met anyone in person who believes all that.Me neither. ;)

Besides, you skipped over my point that using the 12-hour clock in casual conversation isn't problematic. If I tell my friend that I'm coming over to visit at 3, she's not going to expect me to show up at her door at 3 in the morning.The question is on the 12s, of course.

I did shiftwork (just one letter away from shitwork), and when we spoke of doing 12-hour shifts, I suggested that the most equitable approach would be a division at midnight and noon. That way, each shift would get some daylight and dark. You'll never guess what they told me....

They'd tried the divisions as 12, and (not surprisingly) it was too confusing. People didn't know when to show up to work.

Well golly gee. Do ya s'pose that "1200" and "2400" might have resolved that problem?

d

[diana]

If y'all are going to be pedants about PM, I feel obliged:

"post meridiem" not "post meridian"

That is all, you may drive thru :DShouldn't that be "through"? :D

d

[darjeeling]

If y'all are going to be pedants about PM, I feel obliged:

"post meridiem" not "post meridian"

That is all, you may drive thru :D

Sorry. :o

The question is on the 12s, of course.

I did shiftwork (just one letter away from shitwork), and when we spoke of doing 12-hour shifts, I suggested that the most equitable approach would be a division at midnight and noon. That way, each shift would get some daylight and dark. You'll never guess what they told me....

They'd tried the divisions as 12, and (not surprisingly) it was too confusing. People didn't know when to show up to work.

Well golly gee. Do ya s'pose that "1200" and "2400" might have resolved that problem?

d

Sure. It would've been unambiguous with 1200 and 2400. It'd also be unambiguous with "noon" and "midnight." In that context, the 24-hour clock would've been better.

But I still don't think saying 12 pm when you mean noon is "wrong" or confusing.

[diana]

If you use it in casual conversation and the person you're making an appointment with is a night owl, then yeah...it can be quite confusing. If, however, the person assumes all reasonable people are in bed by 8pm, then it usually isn't a problem.

And since you mention it, saying, "You don't work until midnight, Tuesday" also causes confusion, because...do they mean 0001 Tuesday or 2400 Tuesday? (Not to insult, but this is because the midnight preceding Tuesday is actually 2400 Monday.)

d

[darjeeling]

If you use it in casual conversation and the person you're making an appointment with is a night owl, then yeah...it can be quite confusing. If, however, the person assumes all reasonable people are in bed by 8pm, then it usually isn't a problem.

Sure. It depends on context. In most situations, it's usually clear, though. :dunno:

And since you mention it, saying, "You don't work until midnight, Tuesday" also causes confusion, because...do they mean 0001 Tuesday or 2400 Tuesday? (Not to insult, but this is because the midnight preceding Tuesday is actually 2400 Monday.)

That sort of thing is confusing to me even with the 24-hour clock. I would read "midnight, Tuesday" as "after 11:59pm, Tuesday," not 0001 Tuesday. Aaaahhh.

[diana]

Right.

Maybe we need an entirely new system, now you mention it....

d

[Joykins]

Shouldn't that be "through"? :D

d

thru
nite
donut
ttyl
l8r

It's late and I'm minimizing keystrokes :D

[DMB]

Hi, darjeeling! When I am speaking informally to anyone in French I normally use the 24-hour clock, because that's what's expected. You invite someone to come to tea at 17 h, not at 5 pm.

[Ray Moscow]

Because I was already annoyed at the usage and you mentioned it again, I think. :) Sorry! I see now that you're using it as one in a long list of silly prescriptive rules.

Maybe I should ask Ray to provide the rule. I'm curious.

d

It's usually no big deal, but when a compound word is used as an adjective it's best to hyphenate it to remove ambiguity.

Otherwise the reader is sometimes left guessing what the hell one is talking about.

For example, if I'm writing about my grades in school, and I write "my high school grades", do I mean my grades in high school, or the good grades that I got in school? A hyphen makes it clear.

[Xrikcus]

My biggest gripe at the moment is with "targeted". It's inconsistent with the general "double the consonant when you add ed" rule, on the grounds that it's an unstressed e. That would be a reasonable rule in itself, but there are many other words that still acceptably double-up when not stressed: benefitted and focussed being two examples. In these cases the single consonant version is "preferred", with the double consonant version optional. Unfortunately, I naturally read "focused" as fock-used, and hence regularly use the double-consonant spelling.

[DMB]

I'm not sure of the American rules, Xrickus, but they don't double consonants in all the places that we do. I always do a double take when I see "traveling" and "traveler".

[Ray Moscow]

I get mixed up on the double-consonant thing since I write for both sides of the pond.

[Xrikcus]

These have been British grammar web sites I've been reading. Parallelled/Paralleled is definitely a UK/US difference, focussed/focused less so. Everyone seems to argue that targeted should have a single t... and I think they're wrong! It just adds inconsistency to grammar - a pronunciation dependent inconsistency, at that.

[Xrikcus]

Dialed/Dialled is a nasty exception. By general rules it should only have 1 l (double vowel), but clearly has two in common British English.

[Xrikcus]

Here's a comma case for you, straight from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7932149.stm) website:
Microsoft is currently facing an anti-trust filing led by browser maker Opera, and supported by Mozilla, the makers of Firefox, and Google, who last year launched Chrome.

[diana]

It's usually no big deal, but when a compound word is used as an adjective it's best to hyphenate it to remove ambiguity.

Otherwise the reader is sometimes left guessing what the hell one is talking about.

For example, if I'm writing about my grades in school, and I write "my high school grades", do I mean my grades in high school, or the good grades that I got in school? A hyphen makes it clear.Ah! Gotcha. :) Thanks. I didn't see the ambiguity before; now I do.

d

[darjeeling]

Hi, darjeeling! When I am speaking informally to anyone in French I normally use the 24-hour clock, because that's what's expected. You invite someone to come to tea at 17 h, not at 5 pm.

That's interesting. What about in English? Is it the same?

For example, if I'm writing about my grades in school, and I write "my high school grades", do I mean my grades in high school, or the good grades that I got in school? A hyphen makes it clear.

But it's unambiguous in spoken language because of where the stress falls. :D

[Xrikcus]

24 hour isn't too common in speech in the UK, but not a great surprise either.

I don't really see an issue with the am/pm midnight/noon issue. Noon is the instant at which the clock moves from 11:59:59.999999999999999 to 12:00:00.0. For the entire minute where the clock displays 12:00 it is after noon, hence it is pm.

[DMB]

I would say that in the UK the 24-hour clock is mainly used for timetables, but move across the Channel and it's another story. I am posting from Switzerland and everybody uses the 24-hour clock. They understand you if you use a 12-hour one, but they think 24-hours.

The only possible ambiguity with the 24-hour clock is what you call midnight. It is both 24:00 and 00:00. Usually, it seems to be resolved by making it 00:00 and the beginning of the new day.

[Joykins]

I am American and I like the 24-hour clock but I don't think in it.

[Copernicus]

Me Do you know what the letters "pm" stand for? -- post meridiem , literally "after noon". It cannot at the same time mean "noon" and "after noon".

So I suppose that the ultimate solution would be to call it "12 m". :D If we all agree to say that from now on, and stick to our guns*, then maybe the rest of the English-speaking world will see the logic.

----
* For Americans, only. The British and other gun-haters will have to be satisfied with fists, knives, rocks, and bats.

[DMB]

If y'all are going to be pedants about PM, I feel obliged:

"post meridiem" not "post meridian"

That is all, you may drive thru :D

**cough! cough!**

http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p=5263&#post5263

[Copernicus]

Microsoft changes it because for inanimate/non-human things, that is "supposed" to be used for restrictive clauses and which is "supposed" to be used for non-restrictive clauses. In practice, most people use which for non-restrictive clauses but are okay with using that for both types.

I think that you've somewhat reversed it. The pronoun "which" can be used in restrictive or non-restrictive clauses. The pronoun "that" is associated only with restrictive clauses. The rule is technically wrong about English usage, but it is not a bad stylistic advice, because "that" is less ambiguous than "which".

The problem is that the advice breaks down whenever you want to make the relative pronoun the object of a preposition. So you can say (1), but not (2):

"The house in which Jack lives is painted purple."
**"The house in that Jack lives is painted purple."

English does allow you to "strand" prepositions in relative clauses, so it is quite permissible to say either of the following:

"The house which Jack lives in is painted purple."
"The house that Jack lives in is painted purple."

A major difference between "which" and "that" is that "that" requires the stranding of prepositions, and only "which" allows you to drag them to the front of the relative clause.

[Joykins]

**cough! cough!**

http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p=5263&#post5263

I didn't say everyone was guilty :D

[darjeeling]

I think that you've somewhat reversed it. The pronoun "which" can be used in restrictive or non-restrictive clauses. The pronoun "that" is associated only with restrictive clauses.

Oh jesus. You're right. I totally flipped them around. :o

Thanks for pointing it out.

English does allow you to "strand" prepositions in relative clauses, so it is quite permissible to say either of the following:

"The house which Jack lives in is painted purple."
"The house that Jack lives in is painted purple."

A major difference between "which" and "that" is that "that" requires the stranding of prepositions, and only "which" allows you to drag them to the front of the relative clause.

But stranding prepositions is wrong, wrong, wrong! ;)

[hecaterin]

We do 12.00am is midnight, 12.00pm is noon here in Aus, as a standard.

12.01am is definitely in the middle of the night. It makes more sense to me to to have the am/pm shift match up with the hour shift. "11.59pm, 12.00am, 12.01am" seems more reasonable than "11.59pm, 12.00pm, 12.01am".

Of course, that could be because I was taught that way. But if you do a sciencey dividey thing, a microsecond after midnight is still 12.00.00.0000001am - so it still seems reasonable to me.

[DMB]

I still like the 24-clock, where the last minute of one day is 23:59 and the next minute is 00:00 of the new day.

[hecaterin]

Much less confusing, to be sure.

[Pendaric]

Could we have an official decision from you guys on this thread title:

What do you want doing with your body when you die?

That was my original. Christina thinks it should be:

What do you want done with your body when you die?

We're about to have violence over this, so please tell Christina she is wrong...:evil:

[Joykins]

Christina is SO RIGHT.

[Brother Daniel]

Of course Christina is right.

I'm surprised you're asking about it. I thought your original was a typo.

[DMB]

I'd accept either. Christina's seems more formally correct, but yours is colloquial and I would have thought that everyone with English as a first language would understand it.

[Christina]

:yay:

Are you still going to get violent about it?

[Brother Daniel]

I'd accept either. Christina's seems more formally correct, but yours is colloquial and I would have thought that everyone with English as a first language would understand it.
To me, it doesn't even look colloquial. It just looks wrong.

[Copernicus]

I must admit that "What do you want doing with your body?" is completely ill-formed for me, but there could be a dialectal difference. In American English, both of the following mean the same thing:

1) The door needs fixing.
2) The door needs fixed.

(1) is considered standard, because it belongs to the Northern dialect, which is the basis for the literary standard in American English. (2) is typical of a Midland dialect and seems to be a shortened form of "The door needs to be fixed." It sounds totally ungrammatical to those whose native dialect is Northern (for example, my dialect), but it sounds perfectly natural to speakers of the Midland dialect.

[Pendaric]

:yay:

Are you still going to get violent about it?

No, you'd probably win.

[DMB]

I suppose that Pendaric's version may be a feature of spoken English English. It is totally unremarkable in the English with which I am familiar.

OTOH "the door needs fixed" sounds strange to me.

[Christina]

No, you'd probably win.

We'd probably both stand around not knowing how to get violent and then go get a civilized cup of tea and talk about it instead. : )

[Joykins]

I suppose that Pendaric's version may be a feature of spoken English English. It is totally unremarkable in the English with which I am familiar.

OTOH "the door needs fixed" sounds strange to me.

I never encountered that one until college. It seems to be at least a Central/Western Pennsylvania thing. I think the Pittsburghers have their own language sometimes.

[Garnet]

What'cha talkin' about up in here?

*ducks and runs*

[Copernicus]

I never encountered that one until college. It seems to be at least a Central/Western Pennsylvania thing. I think the Pittsburghers have their own language sometimes.

Exactly right. The traditional dialect boundary between Northern and Midland American English runs through Pennsylvania and northern Ohio. I grew up in Cleveland, so I was exposed to the "needs fixed" expression early on. It wasn't part of my dialect, but it was characteristic of people who came from western Pennsylvania and southern Ohio. It is one of the dialect traits that allows dialecticians to pinpoint where a person grew up from their linguistic usage.

[damitall]

The Lady Wife runs a PR company, having only science-based companies as clients. She is a very clear communicator, and has battles-royal with those scientists whose copy she must make intelligible. It is a very successful company, so presumably the readers appreciate the final results, but I had not realised just how rare good copy-writers are.

My problem is that I was brought up on authors like Michael Innes, (who was an Oxbridge don, IIRC) whose prose drew on a vast vocabulary, sending me ever and again to the dictionary; but was, to me anyway, beautifully constructed and wonderful to read.
As a consequence, although I have an excellent command of English, I have great difficulty in resisting the temptation to use words and constructions I like, but are somewhat outmoded.

Therefore, I can never work for the Lady Wife.

Which is a Good Thing.

It also pisses off my current boss when I correct his Essex English; and it equally annoys a Russian colleague when I use unusual words - she is very fluent in English, but is stymied by words like "contumely" and "condign". Believe me, it's not easy to work words like that into the conversation in a molecular biology lab!

It's my daily challenge. Tomorrow, I have to find a way to insert "boustrophedonic" into the general chitchat. Wish me luck

[DMB]

Ah, a man after my own heart! Another Michael Innes fan here! Have you read his Oxford novels written under his real name, J.I.M. Stewart?

And while on this derail, I must put in a plug for Robert Robinson, he of multiple TV appearances and Brain of Britain. In his youth he wrote an Oxford whodunnit called Landscape with Dead Dons (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/images/1903552524/sr=1-2/qid=1237279610/ref=dp_image_0?ie=UTF8&n=266239&s=books&qid=1237279610&sr=1-2), which is up there with works of the masters.

[Brianna]

I purposely have avoided this thread as I speak my own version of English and I don't mind being corrected but condescending asshats can kiss my septic tank.

[sohy]

I purposely have avoided this thread as I speak my own version of English and I don't mind bring corrected but condescending asshats can kiss my septic tank.


Me too. In fact, I found this thread so disturbing when I first found it, that I had to close down my computer and consider if I had the stomach to hang out with such anal retentive people. :D


I'm used to charting as a nurse. We love to leave out the subject and sometimes the verb, while using tons of abbreviations. Sometimes those habits have spilled over to my real life. :D Deal with it!

[Joykins]

I'm just interested in grammar and usage. :p

[Copernicus]

I'm used to charting as a nurse. We love to leave out the subject and sometimes the verb, while using tons of abbreviations. Sometimes those habits have spilled over to my real life. :D Deal with it!

When it is my health being assessed by medical professionals, I can only hope that they take the time to describe it in clear, grammatical English in my health records. I don't wish to overburden those who write up the record, but I wish even less to burden those who read it in the future.

[Tawny]

Way to Godwin a thread in your first post, Ray.

I have always wanted to know what this means. Please can someone explain it to me?

[Brianna]

I have always wanted to know what this means. Please can someone explain it to me?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Godwin%27s%20Law i think

[Ray Moscow]

I have always wanted to know what this means. Please can someone explain it to me?

It's turning the conversation to a comparison with Hilter or the Nazis, as in Godwin's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's). By those rules, I failed at the OP title.

[Copernicus]

It's turning the conversation to a comparison with Hilter or the Nazis, as in Godwin's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's). By those rules, I failed at the OP title.

Not so fast. Godwin's law is couched as a probability that one will bring up Hitler to smear an opponent in a debate. The probability approaches 1 as the debate lengthens. You have not yet tried to claim that those who disagreed with you were like Hitler or the Nazis. Or maybe I missed a post you made somewhere? I did skim through it quickly before joining in.

[Moriah Conquering Wind]

Could we have an official decision from you guys on this thread title:

What do you want doing with your body when you die?

That was my original. Christina thinks it should be:

What do you want done with your body when you die?

We're about to have violence over this, so please tell Christina she is wrong...:evil:

Christina happens to be correct. But yours SOUNDS better.
Disclaimer: THIS BES the opinion of one what says IT BES instead of "I am" so TAKESY with them hefty shakers of salt!!! :evil: :evil: :evil:

*ducks out before Grammar Nazis start throwing rotten pronouns and conjugations at it*

[Full Tilt Boogie]

I had an argument with a colleague this morning: he objected to some corrections I made to a document (prepared by another colleague who is not a native English speaker) in which I hypenated some compound modifiers (e.g., two nouns used a single adjective), changed upper case to lower case for non-proper nouns, corrected some run-on sentences, etc. His basic objection is that "no-one" in my industry (chemistry and engineering) does this.

For one thing, I'm just trying to make the document clear so the customer can understand it and not think that we're a bunch of dumbasses (especially me, since I'm the one sending it to them).

Secondly, I thought this was just basic, high-school (there I go again!) English.

Third, I showed him a few examples from my old organic chemistry textbook -- the first text at hand -- which did exactly this.

Anyway, I usually am not such a grammar or spelling Nazi (as you can tell by the plentiful errors in my posts), but I was really taken back by the argument that I needed to just do what everyone else did, even if it were grammatically incorrect. I'm not trying to correct what everyone else writes -- just what goes out in my name.

Have you have similar experiences?

Yes, and agree with you entirely. If you are presenting work to a reader, then it is only basic courtesy to ensure that the work is clear, well and properly presented (i.e. with paragraphs and no typo's) and worth their time. More so, when you're presenting work to a customer, for all the reasons listed here:

As a consumer, I want to thank you, Ray. Any time a company sends out the written word, if it's written poorly, it makes me think the company is sloppy and careless. Do I really want a product from people with that attitude? No. If they can't get something as basic as the written word right, what does that say about the quality of their product?

I'm all about spelling and grammar mistakes, but when it's official, ffs, get it right.


And just because the people putting the document together might be scientists (in your case physicists or chemists), then doubly so - as their aim is to convey, clearly, the meaning and position (and relevance) of otherwise complex material.

Indeed, one example of where the lazy/bad habits of "techies" have become almost de facto is in the use of lower-case letters, where capitals might ordinarily be the norm - and why do they do this? Their job requires that they write code all day, and it's easier just to default everything into lower-case. Here's where context plays its part: OK for code (as no one sees or cares about it other than other techies, bots and spods), but it's now made the leap into 'IM' usage, and now teenagers the world over have made it a la mode.

I was once asked to proof-read a book which was about to be published. The book's author was a Chinese woman, who was friendly with the wife (also Chinese) of the guy who asked me to proof-read it, before it went to the publishing house. He was actually dyslexic, so the reasons he wanted me to do it, rather him doing it himself, are obvious.

It ended-up being quite a task, as whilst the book arrived ostensibly in 'Chinglish', I had to keep asking about contexts in which certain words, references and phrases were being used; and what certain references and (invariably misspelt) words meant; as some were downright unintelligible (perhaps not surprisingly, as the author's first language was not English).

Knowing the the first thing a publisher or editor will do is toss any manuscript in the bin, which is either poorly laid-out, contains typo's all over the place and uses conflicting (or non-existent) clausal agreement (subject/object), I battled on, through many only half-joking accusations of "grammar Nazi!", and "does it have to be that accurate?!"

And, after all that, after I'd explained the qualitative differences between 1st and 3rd person narratives, the author changed her mind and completely re-wrote the book any way. I declined a further request to repeat the exercise.

There's a basic maxim with regards to communication: you could have the finest mind in the world, with earth-shatteringly important ideas: but if you can't communicate them effectively [to either your target or a general audience], then you may as well be a dunce.

And as for the "just do what everyone else does" argument (such as it is), why copy their bad habits?

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Something that drives me nuts is the use of "12 pm" for 12 noon. Sky News does this for its weather forecasts. I once got a letter from some utility company saying someone would call between "8 am and 12 pm". I rang their Customer Service department to complain:

Me I don't want to wait in all day. Can you please give me more specific time

CS The man is going to call in the morning. That's what it says.

Me No it doesn't. It says "between 8am and 12 pm". That's between 8 in the morning and midnight.

CS 12 pm means midday.

Me Do you know what the letters "pm" stand for? -- post meridiem , literally "after noon". It cannot at the same time mean "noon" and "after noon".

CS Well it's normal business practice.

Me You are in no position to speak for the world of business.

Agree entirely. I obviate this mistake by, invariably, writing in twenty-four hour clock, e.g. 14.00 hrs.

[neilstone40]

Dude, if you go any further back with some of these threads, we'll need to get a couple of mediums on staff...:D

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Dude, if you go any further back with some of these threads, we'll need to get a couple of mediums on staff...:D

:D This one's a bloody good read - excellent point and counterpoint. There's both a healthy mix of humour and erudition on display, utter joy to read.

And besides, Ray had a good point :o

[kennyc]

http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/fail-owned-quotation-marks-correction-sign-fail.jpg

Where's that <snicker> smiley....

AH, here it is http://cdn0.4dots.com/i/smiliesadd1//snicker.gif

[kennyc]

And after all that no one has mentioned "Strunk and White" :(

http://books.google.com/books?id=IAy6NCD0Iq0C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

or download in pdf: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~jms/doc/elos.pdf

Thank you, thank you, thank you. :p

[Copernicus]

And after all that no one has mentioned "Strunk and White" :(
It pains me to say this (well, not really), but Strunk and White is the most overrated grammar guide in the universe. (I'm just talking about English grammar books here, so I'm not going out on that big of a hyperbolistic limb here. :)). Those two amateurs could not recognize a passive sentence to save their lives. Seriously. They called sentences passive that were active sentences. For shame!

[kennyc]

We'll you know how opinions are. I and many others think it's a wonderful book.

[Notta]

And after all that no one has mentioned "Strunk and White" :(
It pains me to say this (well, not really), but Strunk and White is the most overrated grammar guide in the universe. (I'm just talking about English grammar books here, so I'm not going out on that big of a hyperbolistic limb here. :)). Those two amateurs could not recognize a passive sentence to save their lives. Seriously. They called sentences passive that were active sentences. For shame!Is this book used as a reference for Microsoft Word's grammar tool, then? Because I get the 'passive sentence' notification quite a bit when I write in Word, and I KNOW that not all of those sentences are passive.