When Grammar Attacks

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by lisarea

A fun fact is that "comma splice," according to most style guides, would not be hyphenated. In either case, it's only a rule if you're being paid or graded to treat it as such.

And if you love Hitler.

--J.D.

P.S. Though WORSE than Hitler are those that believe you cannot strive to boldly go where no man has gone before, which would, of course, not involve ThreeLawsSafe's Mom.

P.P.S. Though to take it seriously for a moment, when writing extemporaneously, I think in subordinate clauses, constantly adding detail--wondering if I should also mention that there is a monograph that deals with this issue, but, now that I think about it, it might detract from what is otherwise a quickly flowing prose style--which results in an over-use--or should that be "overuse?" "overusage?" Then should you capitalize "overusage" if it is a single quote in parenthetical material though set off by hyphens--"set-off?"--and have to go back and take a hatchet and flame-thrower . . . flamethrower to the whole mess.

P.P.P.S. In the rain.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by lisarea

You maddddddd - YouTube

ETA now that you have edited your post a couple of times to make it sound less reactionary and pissy.

So is it your understanding that there are non-prescriptive rules governing comma placement?

The OED, like most modern dictionaries, is only authoritative in that it is a well-researched dictionary. That is, it describes spelling, definitions, and etymology, but does not prescribe them.

And it's your understanding that usage and style manuals are somehow authoritative guides to grammar? How was that authority conferred?

How is the authority of the OED conferred in your book? Answer that question, and you'll have my answer to yours.

I suggest we have a conversation about how language and usage rules evolve. I'd like to suggest that the references I've offered up are a strong litmus of agreed-upon general principles in usage. Would you like me to list all of the writing labs, websites, and textbooks that all concur on the problem of the comma-splice? They are legion.

Do you think we do or should have basic rules of thumb for punctuation? If so, why does the comma-splice not count in your book? If not, how shall we communicate effectively?

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

And if you love Hitler.

--J.D.

P.S. Though WORSE than Hitler are those that believe you cannot strive to boldly go where no man has gone before, which would, of course, not involve ThreeLawsSafe's Mom.

P.P.S. Though to take it seriously for a moment, when writing extemporaneously, I think in subordinate clauses, constantly adding detail--wondering if I should also mention that there is a monograph that deals with this issue, but, now that I think about it, it might detract from what is otherwise a quickly flowing prose style--which results in an over-use--or should that be "overuse?" "overusage?" Then should you capitalize "overusage" if it is a single quote in parenthetical material though set off by hyphens--"set-off?"--and have to go back and take a hatchet and flame-thrower . . . flamethrower to the whole mess.

P.P.P.S. In the rain.

Your advice in computing is wonderful. Your take on usage is asinine. Stick to what you know.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

For the record, Hobbes used the Oxford comma in "...solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

[davidm]

Originally Posted by freemonkey

I'm confused, it sounds like the revenue milestone has not been achieved. Yet.

Originally Posted by freemonkey

I'm confused,; it sounds like as if the revenue milestone has not been achieved. Yet.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

The OED is not the authority on grammatical conventions. Check Strunk and White's The Elements of Style or The Little, Brown Handbook. Fowler agrees as well.

1. There is no obejctive authority on grammar conventions.

2. Passive voice is fine, if not overused; and even desirable to break up the monotony of using active voice too often. In the end, it's purely a matter of taste.

[ChuckF]

hahaha this thrad has potential.

Oh by the way, I read somewhere that hyphens and em dashes are interchangeable. And it is actually spelled "n-dash" with a minus sign in the middle.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by davidm

1. There is no obejctive authority on grammar conventions.

2. Passive voice is fine, if not overused; and even desirable to break up the monotony of using active voice too often. In the end, it's purely a matter of taste.

1. Nobody said there was an objective authority on grammar conventions.
2. Nobody said there was a problem with passive voice used in moderation.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

1. Nobody said there was an objective authority on grammar conventions.
2. Nobody said there was a problem with passive voice used in moderation.

In that case, why did you suggest other authorities besides OED? Why suggest any authority at all?

And if there is no problem with the passive voice in moderation, why did you criticize a sentence using a passive voice in moderation?

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by davidm

In that case, why did you suggest other authorities besides OED? Why suggest any authority at all?

And if there is no problem with the passive voice in moderation, why did you criticize a sentence using a passive voice in moderation?

As I've said, those other books (and online writing labs) are a general litmus of agreed-upon rules of thumb in the culture. Culture is the authority.

When did I criticize a sentence using passive voice in moderation?

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

How is the authority of the OED conferred in your book? Answer that question, and you'll have my answer to yours.

Oh my. Everyone is having fun. Then someone gets all "serious." Very well, it is not as if anyone is advocating sex with [Stop that.--Ed.] . . . yes . . . where was I?

YOU, I assumed humorously, claimed "comma splice" was misspelled and should be "comma-splice." I in My Humble, Yet MagNIfIcent, Fashion [Tm.--Ed.], cited the authority on spelling--a dictionary. A preëminent dictionary.

Regarding the "authority" of the OED, I refer you to the wonderful work by Simon Winchester, The Professor and the Madman regarding its formation. Yet, you undercut yourself: if you challenge the authority of a dictionary with regards to spelling, how can you cite a lesser authority with regards to spelling?

I am afraid I do not have The Economist Baghot article from a few years past handy, but it dealt with the "rules" such "as never ending a sentence with a preposition." Baghot, of course, quotes the infamous Churchill "with up which I will not put!" in response to the martinet red-penciling of some subordinate who may have actually been a young Humphrey Appleby, but I do not have the time to perform the Comcast search.

However, he also delved into the history of "split infinitives" in English. It comes, to my recollection, from a particular person who wanted to follow the rules of Latin. Well Latin, like many languages, have single-word verbs. You cannot "split" an infinitive in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Spanish, Japanese [Well, you can place a modifier after the particle but before the actual verb.--Ed.] Shut up!

In other words, the "do not split infinitives" rule which lead to many sexually repressed grammar school English teachers ejaculating with read pens, is nothing but the personal fashion of one crusty old classicist.

Do you think we do or should have basic rules of thumb for punctuation usage? If so, why does the comma-splice not count in your book? If not, how shall we communicate effectively?

Writing is secondary. What I mean is speech is "innate" in that we are built for speech. Writing has to be taught. Granted, for us with calcified temporal-parietal lobes, writing and reading a foreign language proves easier since it is slower and we do not have to rely on listening to inflections and the like. Ancient writing was more of a memory aid. Much you dig up are lists--grocery lists in a way. What else do you wish to record but what Urp the Flagillator owes you in goat lubricant?

Even writing based on speech--and ancient readers often read out loud, a practice denounced today since it slows one down--did not have indications as to how it should be spoken. No commas, periods.

Formanylanguagesyouhadnobreaksinwordsorscriptuacontinua. CLASSICSLIKELATINANDGREEKLACKEDLOWERCASEDLETTERSTH EYWROTEINUNCIALS. GNTDTHTSMSBTTRTHNHBRWWHCHLCKDWRTTNVWLSLTGTHR.

Punctuation and the like came with greater writing to aid with the understanding of what is not familiar. Miniscules--lower-cased letters--are were easier to write, particularly with respect to cursive or continuous writing. Eventually, separation of words became useful for context. Punctuation such as a "full stop" and a comma further aided. Yet, it is a dirty secret of sorts that when dealing with, say, NT material, all of the commas and periods you see which can influence the meaning were all added centuries after the composition.

The "rules" were created to aid reading--to aid communication. Since writing takes longer, one could use it artfully. Spoken word can become different than written word. Letters are admired for their vocabulary, shades of meaning:

The appearance of this Letter will attract the curiosity of the public, and command even your Lordship's attention. I am considerably in your debt, and shall endeavour, once for all, to balance the account. Accept this address, my Lord, as a prologue to more important scenes, in which you will probably be called upon to act or suffer.

You will not question my veracity, when I assure you, that it has not been owing to any particular respect for your person that I have abstained from you so long. Besides the distress and danger with which the press is threatened, when your Lordship is party, and the party is to be judge, I confess I have been deterred by the difficulty of the task. Our language has no term of reproach, the mind has no idea of detestation, which has not already been happily applied to, and exhausted.... [Present in original.--Ed.] Ample justice has been done, by abler pens than mine, to the separate merits of your life and character. Let it be my humble office to collect the scattered sweets, till their united virtue tortures the sense.

--Junius, letter to Lord Mansfield, November 14, 1770

There are those who can speak such, but it is easier to write. It is easier to enjoy reading and re-reading.

One needs to ask, then, why a rule.

--J.D.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

How is the authority of the OED conferred in your book? Answer that question, and you'll have my answer to yours.

The relative authority of the OED is conferred by the fact that it is descriptive, and it is well-researched, as opposed to the style guides you've cited, which for the most part declare rules by fiat. In the case of the Elements of Style, by fiat of a couple of guys who cannot even describe or follow their own guidelines.

I suggest we have a conversation about how language and usage rules evolve. I'd like to suggest that the references I've offered up are a strong litmus of agreed-upon general principles in usage. Would you like me to list all of the writing labs, websites, and textbooks that all concur on the problem of the comma-splice? They are legion.

Those writing labs, websites, and textbooks are designed for beginning learners, and people being paid or graded on their work. That is the only true authority anyone has over language use.

IOW, you do not have authority to 'correct' someone's 'grammar' in casual communications.

Do you think we do or should have basic rules of thumb for punctuation? If so, why does the comma-splice not count in your book? If not, how shall we communicate effectively?

Careful reading will reveal that I am a different person from the guy you are arguing about comma splices with.

I agree that there are several agreed upon rules for communicating effectively. The overriding one being ensuring clarity, and it is very rare in my experience to see a comma splice that actually interferes with clarity. It's a stylistic choice, and one that any literate, native-speaking adult is capable of employing effectively if they choose.

Another rule for communicating effectively is not going around 'correcting' perfectly clear writing based on the dictates of some middle school usage textbook except when you are explicitly grading a middle school student who has been tasked with memorizing and applying those rules for your class. The quick rule of thumb: "Does this person's grade or paycheck depend on their compliance with the rules I've established for this purpose?"

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Your advice in computing is wonderful. Your take on usage is asinine.

Given your consistent errors, your inability to recognize them in the face of overwhelming evidence, and your possession of a humor that would demand reproach from an Oliver Cromwell suffering from a particular advanced case of impaction, I will take that as a compliment.

Stick to what you know.

I always do. Yet you never do. Mayhaps you know nothing? "A man's got to know his limitations." For you, it appears, they are Legion.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by davidm

In that case, why did you suggest other authorities besides OED? Why suggest any authority at all?

And if there is no problem with the passive voice in moderation, why did you criticize a sentence using a passive voice in moderation?

davidm why can you not see that a Serious Thrad is serious!

THERE ARE CHILDREN READING, DAMN YOU!

--J.D.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Your advice in computing is wonderful. Your take on usage is asinine. Stick to what you know.

Wrong again! His computer advice is terrible.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by lisarea

Careful reading will reveal that I am a different person from the guy you are arguing about comma splices with.

*Checks his pants*

Though I am not sure he is even arguing about comma splices. He rendered, I thought, a joke about "spelling." Which is why I joked about how a written post "sounds." Apparently, for him, "internet is serious business!"

I agree that there are several agreed upon rules for communicating effectively. The overriding one being ensuring clarity, and it is very rare in my experience to see a comma splice that actually interferes with clarity.

Exactly. Sort of what I wrote without all of the oversubordinated cogent tangents.

--J.D.

[davidm]

There really are no rules of grammar, just conventionally agreed upon guidelines that change over time. Even my correction of the "like" to "as if" is bullshit, of course. Sure, the RULE says that in a sentence like that, "as if" is correct and "like" is wrong, but the sentence is perfectly clear and no one can miss its meaning. My guess is that the like/as if distinction will eventually disappear, and with it the "rule."

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by lisarea

Wrong again! His computer advice is terrible.

You just wish you Got Mac.

--J.D.

[Leesifer]

Comma comma comma comma comma, commaeleon
You colon go, you colon go
Loving would be easy if your commas were like my dream
Red colon green, red colon green

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Oh my. Everyone is having fun. Then someone gets all "serious." Very well, it is not as if anyone is advocating sex with [Stop that.--Ed.] . . . yes . . . where was I?

YOU, I assumed humorously, claimed "comma splice" was misspelled and should be "comma-splice." I in My Humble, Yet MagNIfIcent, Fashion [Tm.--Ed.], cited the authority on spelling--a dictionary. A preëminent dictionary.
--J.D.

I never claimed "comma-splice" was misspelled. I simply claimed that comma-splices were to be avoided if possible.

I never claimed that the OED is not an authority. I said it's not an authority on punctuation and usage rules. In fact, I did say it was an authority on spelling, definitions, and etymology.

So you're doing a lot of misreading here, X. I know how the history of language works -- and enjoyed Winchester's book a great deal, as it was a fun read -- so I don't need a lecture. Besides, your lecture was entirely beside the point. It was also written using fairly standard rules of thumb in grammar, punctuation, and usage, and therefore you contradicted your main point.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

I never claimed "comma-splice" was misspelled.

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

It's "comma-splice," not "comma slice."

"What can I say but . . . 'Salieri!'"

--J.D.

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by Leesifer

Red colon green

You might wanna get that looked at...

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by lisarea

The relative authority of the OED is conferred by the fact that it is descriptive, and it is well-researched, as opposed to the style guides you've cited, which for the most part declare rules by fiat. In the case of the Elements of Style, by fiat of a couple of guys who cannot even describe or follow their own guidelines.

Of course the OED is well-researched and descriptive. So are the resources I'm suggesting. They are well-researched and descriptive of the general sway of American usage in culture. As I said, they are a fairly definitive litmus of the rules of thumb in punctuation, grammar, and usage. Not even the Elements of Style were "by fiat." E.B. White's writing made The New Yorker and Harpers what they are today, and he did his best to parse down the "rules" into a brief (and yes, terse) summary. He followed most of his rules most of the time.

Originally Posted by lisarea

Those writing labs, websites, and textbooks are designed for beginning learners, and people being paid or graded on their work. That is the only true authority anyone has over language use.

I see the same general guidelines in writing manuals for graduate students. I was expected to follow certain general rules of thumb in my Masters in Humanities at the University of Chicago, for example. They are not simply designed for beginning learners. I would agree, of course, that more advanced learners more easily, and more legitimately, "break the rules" of common-usage. Most of the time, however, we're expected to stick to them for the sake of common communication in a common culture. Those resources are a reflection, or litmus, of the common culture.

Originally Posted by lisarea

IOW, you do not have authority to 'correct' someone's 'grammar' in casual communications.

The only reason I corrected the comma-splice was because this is a thread on grammar. I thought it would be in-bounds.

Originally Posted by lisarea

Careful reading will reveal that I am a different person from the guy you are arguing about comma splices with.

As if you yourself are reading carefully. I don't think so. My only argument is that comma-splices are generally recognized and avoided in common usage. Any other argument is ancillary. Most of your arguments are straw-men.

Originally Posted by lisarea

I agree that there are several agreed upon rules for communicating effectively. The overriding one being ensuring clarity, and it is very rare in my experience to see a comma splice that actually interferes with clarity. It's a stylistic choice, and one that any literate, native-speaking adult is capable of employing effectively if they choose.

That's your opinion. I disagree. So do the editors at every serious publishing house in the industry.

Originally Posted by lisarea

Another rule for communicating effectively is not going around 'correcting' perfectly clear writing based on the dictates of some middle school usage textbook except when you are explicitly grading a middle school student who has been tasked with memorizing and applying those rules for your class. The quick rule of thumb: "Does this person's grade or paycheck depend on their compliance with the rules I've established for this purpose?"

I corrected one comma-splice. Relax.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

"What can I say but . . . 'Salieri!'"

--J.D.

So you're saying you made a spelling error, then?

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by lisarea

A fun fact is that "comma splice," according to most style guides, would not be hyphenated. In either case, it's only a rule if you're being paid or graded to treat it as such.

--J.D.