View Full Version : Why Punctuation is Everything
An English professor wrote these words
"A woman without her man is nothing"
on the chalkboard and asked his students to punctuate it correctly.
All of the males in the class wrote:
"A woman, without her man, is nothing."
All the females in the class wrote:
"A woman: without her, man is nothing."
ashpwner
08-06-07, 12:53 AM
i don't get it
Read-Only
08-06-07, 03:06 AM
i don't get it
Perhaps you haven't learned to read correctly? The punctuation makes a TREMENDOUS difference in those statements.
The first one is saying that a woman is worth nothing if she doesn't have her man.
The second one is saying that a man is worth nothing if he doesn't have a woman.
And it's examples like those sentences AND your reaction to them that explains a whole lot of the confusion that exists here on these forums AND out there in the real world. Simply put, many people aren't educated enough to properly understand the written word. (Or are simply too lazy to notice the difference.)
one_raven
08-06-07, 03:23 AM
i don't get it
No offense, but it looks like you answered the "Why we are so critical of people who can't spell and punctuate (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=69238)" thread.
Fraggle Rocker
08-07-07, 12:13 AM
Perhaps you haven't learned to read correctly? * * * MODERATORS COMMENT * * *
Please avoid personal insults in the Linguistics subforum. We attract an extremely cross-cultural membership and misunderstandings can easily be triggered by inflammatory remarks. Not everyone is as thick-skinned as us Americans. Our goal is to encourage people to study the nuances of language, not to ridicule them for missing one. You could have answered this question in a more professorial way.There are no stupid questions. But there sure are a lot of smart answers.
Read-Only
08-07-07, 05:31 AM
* * * MODERATORS COMMENT * * *
Please avoid personal insults in the Linguistics subforum. We attract an extremely cross-cultural membership and misunderstandings can easily be triggered by inflammatory remarks. Not everyone is as thick-skinned as us Americans. Our goal is to encourage people to study the nuances of language, not to ridicule them for missing one. You could have answered this question in a more professorial way.
Sorry, Fraggle, it was NOT meant as a personal insult at all. Nor was it intended as ridicule. The meanings and differences of the sentences was quite clear to anyone with an average reading ability and I believe that's why Sam posted them in the first place. I thought, therefore, that what I said was an obvious conclusion to reach.
Perhaps you are correct about one thing, though - that I could have acted with more professionalism. Many times in different threads I've stressed the consequences of miscommunication and I suppose my method of directness also came through after having repeated those assertions so many times already.
As you so eloquently pointed out in one of your threads, many people do not punctuate properly either through a lack of knowledge, failure to pay attention to detail or just plain laziness. But those same exact problems apply to the reader as well. And THAT was the point I was trying to make in this case - nothing more.
Challenger78
08-07-07, 06:40 AM
Whoa, dude, That is so true... perhaps i should pay more attention in english class, my first reaction was the the second answer was right... is this a sign of a sexual bias or is it just inbred in all males ?
Read-only hit on me on more than one occasion. Not meant as an insult, my foot.
Read-Only
08-07-07, 08:01 AM
Read-only hit on me on more than one occasion. Not meant as an insult, my foot.
Please show me some of those 'occasions.' I've never, ever intentionally insulted anyone personally. Some very stupid ideas, yes. Some utter nonsense, yes. Some woo-wooisms, yes. Some rambling diarrhea of the mouth, yes. But personalities, no.
Grantywanty
08-07-07, 08:10 AM
An English professor wrote these words
"A woman without her man is nothing"
on the chalkboard and asked his students to punctuate it correctly.
All of the males in the class wrote:
"A woman, without her man, is nothing."
All the females in the class wrote:
"A woman: without her, man is nothing."
I've got a number of problems with the above. 1) I think the sentence is fine without anything more than a period. That sentence would probably mean what the poster is claiming all the males in the class intended/interpreted.
2) A woman: without her, man is nothing." does not strike me as a very good sentence. 'Her' when not the possessive is generally used to refer to a woman, but 'man' in general would be without many individuals. Without 'one' perhaps. Or 'Woman: without her, Man is nothing.' Note the capital letter additions. Those sentences work better, I think. In fact the women's example seems clunky and, without its context, confusing, if we are going to be fussy and perfectionistic. 3) The vast majority of sentences do not end up have these potential cross meanings and those that do are generally clarified by context. And a great many sentences that are perfectly punctuated STILL require that context for their meanings to be clear. The fussiness around punctuation critics is that they view sentences are monads that must be perfect, when in fact this is rarely necessary and not linguistically true as a theory. 4)
To me this English professor while building a general case from an exceptional example. And an example that is vastly less relevent on online discussion forums than in college let's make perfect documents and put people through hoops settings.
I also think the story is partially urban legend. I truly doubt the gender lines broke down so perfectly. I say this not because of my opinions about men and women and their gender expectations and biases, but because I doubt their abilities to find the right grammatic structures to express their biases. That every woman decided to use a colon and use it correctly, I just don't buy. (and if the men had needed colons ((feel free to come back with some bad puns)) I doubt they would have thought of it either.)
The story and the examples seem part of a smug overestimation of the importance of punctuation perfection. A self-congratulatory portion of the professor's myth of his or her own importance. A vastly better approach would be to take actual examples from students' writing where the professor had trouble understanding the meaning. This could be distributed and let the students experience the problems directly.
Having this made up example is a power move. Using concrete and living examples from the students' own writing is method that would trust their own decision-making around how perfect they want to be, rather than implying that there is a perfection and they must always strive toward it. The theoretically sound solutions found by the men and the women above are not perfect, which is not something I would care about if they were not being used as propaganda. (I am reacting this way to this post because it has shown up in the thread dealing with how correctly we should write here in an online forum. In that context I find it irritating the professor deserving of the fussiness he directs, no doubt, at others.)
Fraggle Rocker
08-07-07, 08:45 AM
"A woman without her man is nothing"
"A woman, without her man, is nothing."
"A woman: without her, man is nothing."As a lifelong English tutor, writing instructor and editor, I agree with the posters who assert that only a small minority of English speakers would interpret this sentence in the second way if it were written without punctuation, or punctuated properly with only a period. The second version uses a rhetorical device that is the mark of a highly-educated person, something of an academic, and would be regarded by many readers as downright stilted if it were encountered in everyday prose.
Furthermore, we must remember that the basic purpose of punctuation is to compensate for the extra-linguistic cues carried by the bandwidth of oral communication, including pauses, speed, volume and tone. (Tone in Indo-European languages but not in Sino-Tibetan and other families.)
If we read the unpunctuated sentence aloud casually, the first interpretation is unavoidable. We would recite the words in a steady cadence and it would sound perfectly normal. Those commas in the first punctuated version do not represent pauses that most of us would insert in speech, and I daresay most of us would write the sentence without the commas as a faithful transcription of actual speech. The pauses add dramatic effect to speech and would only be heard in a more formal context such as a lecture or a sermon.
The colon and the comma are required to force us to reinterpret the sentence in the second way, to interrupt the cadence after only reading two words and not having a clue as to what will follow. They force us to insert the pauses that alter the way we parse the sentence.
I agree that this "example" is probably apocryphal. Perhaps during the early 1970s at the militant apex of the femininst movement, when stickers proclaiming, "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle," were sold for actual money and glued onto actual auto bumpers, female university students might have chosen the second interpretation just to make a point. But if they encountered that sentence in writing, even though it would make them shudder, they would have recognized it as the work of an unreconstructed male supremacist and parsed it in the unpunctuated way.
After all, we read sentences linearly. We don't know how they are going to end.I've never, ever intentionally insulted anyone personally.But it's easy to do unintentionally. Of all our subforums, this is the one where it's appropriate to stress that point. :)
An English professor wrote these words
"A woman without her man is nothing"
on the chalkboard and asked his students to punctuate it correctly.
All of the males in the class wrote:
"A woman, without her man, is nothing."
All the females in the class wrote:
"A woman: without her, man is nothing."
Without punctuation it means both things and both are correct. Show a similar example where one is true and the other false.
Without punctuation it means both things and both are correct. Show a similar example where one is true and the other false.
Try this ;)
Dear John:
I want a man who knows what love is all about. You are generous, kind, thoughtful. People who are not like you admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me for other men. I yearn for you. I have no feelings whatsoever when we're apart. I can forever be happy—will you let me be yours?
Harriet
Dear John:
I want a man who knows what love is. All about you are generous, kind, thoughtful people, who are not like you. Admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me. For other men, I yearn. For you, I have no feelings whatsoever. When we're apart, I can forever be happy. Will you let me be?
Yours,
Harriet
John said Oli has missed the point.
John, said Oli, has missed the point.
John said Oli has missed the point.
John, said Oli, has missed the point.
Duh, I see what he meant. Now. :bawl:
Read-Only
08-07-07, 09:31 AM
John said Oli has missed the point.
John, said Oli, has missed the point.
I really, really like that example! And to undescore the importance of it, we've got several people here - for whatever reason (laziness, sloppiness, etc.) - will write it just as in the first example and think that they've said the second. ;)
That was good Sam, i loved every word of it.
John said Oli has missed the point.
John, said Oli, has missed the point.
Looks like a good example.:o
Fraggle Rocker
08-07-07, 09:46 AM
Without punctuation it means both things and both are correct. Show a similar example where one is true and the other false.I insist that without punctuation only the first meaning can be logically inferred. We do have orthographic conventions in English, after all. Commas can be omitted in casual writing. Colons: never. No one without an interest in language and a little extra time on her hands is going to even notice the second interpretation of that sentence.
mikenostic
08-07-07, 10:05 AM
John said Oli has missed the point.
John, said Oli, has missed the point.
Umm, correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the second sentence have quotation marks around 'John', and 'has missed the point.' in order to be correct? Fraggle?
Not if it's reported speech. :):D
mikenostic
08-07-07, 10:24 AM
Not if it's reported speech. :):D
If it was reported speech, Oli, it would have to be written as such:
Oli said John has missed the point.
If it was reported speech, Oli, it would have to be written as such:
Oli said John has missed the point.
Or: John, said Oli, has missed the point.
Stylistic differences.
Stops things getting boringly monotonous.
I was taught both at school.
mikenostic
08-07-07, 10:35 AM
Or: John, said Oli, has missed the point.
Stylistic differences.
Stops things getting boringly monotonous.
I was taught both at school.
I can't find any info about the way you structured it, but I'm not going to say you're wrong. Maybe it's one of those obscure rules that never gets taught anymore? :shrug:
All I know is that I would put quotes around the quoted speech in the sentence the way you structured it.
http://perso.orange.fr/absolutenglish-972/notes/grammar/reportedspeech.htm
Maybe it's one of those obscure rules that never gets taught anymore? :shrug:
Damn, story of my life: everything I know is old-fashioned :D
Damn, story of my life: everything I know is old-fashioned :D
Yeah me too.:(
mikenostic
08-07-07, 11:04 AM
Yeah me too.:(
Quick hijack; is your avatar a picture of you, Sam?
/hijack
Yeah, I'm emulating Orly and Luci. :)
i don't get it
Me neither..its rubbish.
Its the same tripe behind the well known example..A Bear Eats, Shoots and Leaves. Well if you feel that Bears commonly eat in restaurants, and then proceed to shoot fellow customers (presumably smokers :cool: ) it makes perfect sense (to pedantic clots).
Recently a well known Times columnist wrote a full page article using no punctuation whatsoever apart from full stops. Most people were half way through before they realised it...even without punctuation there was no problem whatsoever in understanding what it said.
Me neither..its rubbish.
Its the same tripe behind the well known example..A Bear Eats, Shoots and Leaves. Well if you feel that Bears commonly eat in restaurants, and then proceed to shoot fellow customers (presumably smokers :cool: ) it makes perfect sense (to pedantic clots).
Recently a well known Times columnist wrote a full page article using no punctuation whatsoever apart from full stops. Most people were half way through before they realised it...even without punctuation there was no problem whatsoever in understanding what it said.
Not a bear, a panda. A bear doesn't eat shoots and leaves.:p
Quick hijack; is your avatar a picture of you, Sam?
/hijack
SAM is my friend :p
Not a bear, a panda. A bear doesn't eat shoots and leaves.:p
See..i told you it didnt make sense!
See..i told you it didnt make sense!
It does if you remember that pandas eat eucalyptus shoots and leaves.
Shoots are fresh new plant growth, they can include stems, flowering stems with flower buds, leaves ;)
It does if you remember that pandas eat eucalyptus shoots and leaves.
;)
No you misunderstand..it was the title of a best seller by an english linguist..and a very tedious one.
A Bear eats shoots and leaves was the TITLE of her best-selling book. Lynn Truss?
No you misunderstand..it was the title of a best seller by an english linguist..and a very tedious one.
A Bear eats shoots and leaves was the TITLE of her best-selling book. Lynn Truss?
Honey, I own that book, look again. Its a Panda!
http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51SAW7BZY7L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg
And its an awesome book!
Actually SAM you are just as pedantic because a Panda is a Bear..so in what respect is it not a bear?
Jeezus..I'm not used to such literal, autistic, semantic stringencies on my forum..its a bit more freeform and spontaneous..I'll get used to things. Somehow.
Actually SAM you are just as pedantic because a Panda is a Bear..so in what respect is it not a bear?
Jeezus..I'm not used to such literal, autistic, semantic stringencies on my forum..its a bit more freeform and spontaneous..I'll get used to things. Somehow.
Humph!:mad:
This is ONLY the Linguistics forum.
Actually SAM you are just as pedantic because a Panda is a Bear..so in what respect is it not a bear?
Jeezus..I'm not used to such literal, autistic, semantic stringencies on my forum..its a bit more freeform and spontaneous..I'll get used to things. Somehow.
A panda is a bear, but a bear is not neccesarily a panda. Get it?
Honey, I own that book, look again. Its a Panda!
http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51SAW7BZY7L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg
No its not..its a panda bearing arms.
Its very very silly and most unlikely.
Listen Kiddo...when the next school massacre is perpetrated by a Panda Bear then I'll take you seriously...until then keep your counsel.
Listen Kiddo...when the next school massacre is perpetrated by a Panda Bear then I'll take you seriously...until then keep your counsel.
:confused: :crazy:
No its not..its a panda bearing arms.
Its very very silly and most unlikely.
Yeah, thats the joke
Eats, shoots and leaves.
vs
Eats shoots and leaves.
Haha?
:confused: :crazy:
I think his point is that since everyone knows that pandas don't shoot guns, no reasonable person would ever actually make the mistake of interpreting that sentence as saying that the panda ate, shot a gun, and then left. Therefore the punctuation really isn't necessary.
I think his point is that since everyone knows that pandas don't shoot guns, no reasonable person would ever actually make the mistake of interpreting that sentence as saying that the panda ate, shot a gun, and then left. Therefore the punctuation really isn't necessary.
In that case perhaps, but a lack of attention to punctuation could turn costly. ;)
http://shrewdnessofapes.blogspot.com/2006/08/see-i-told-you-punctuation-matters.html
A grammatical blunder may force Rogers Communications Inc. to pay an extra $2.13-million to use utility poles in the Maritimes after the placement of a comma in a contract permitted the deal's cancellation.
The controversial comma sent lawyers and telecommunications regulators scrambling for their English textbooks in a bitter 18-month dispute that serves as an expensive reminder of the importance of punctuation.
...Language buffs take note — Page 7 of the contract states: The agreement “shall continue in force for a period of five years from the date it is made, and thereafter for successive five year terms, unless and until terminated by one year prior notice in writing by either party.”
Rogers' intent in 2002 was to lock into a long-term deal of at least five years. But when regulators with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) parsed the wording, they reached another conclusion.
The validity of the contract and the millions of dollars at stake all came down to one point — the second comma in the sentence.
Had it not been there, the right to cancel wouldn't have applied to the first five years of the contract and Rogers would be protected from the higher rates it now faces.
leopold99
08-07-07, 02:10 PM
i don't get it
you would not believe the nonsense i had to put up with when i first came to this board, over punctuation.
i now give a decent attempt to punctuate my sentences, but ah, i still need to CAPATOLIZE (man, don't start) certain words.
Fraggle Rocker
08-07-07, 04:22 PM
Umm, correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the second sentence have quotation marks around 'John', and 'has missed the point.' in order to be correct? Fraggle?Yes.John, said Oli, has missed the point.This is simply incorrect. "John has missed the point," is a direct quote and must be enclosed in quotation marks. In speech we use tone of voice and other dynamics to distinguish between the sentences:William said I'm an idiot for turning down a date with your brother. William said, "I'm an idiot for turning down a date with your brother."In writing we don't have those oral tools so we have to use quotation marks. Yes, I understand that in the example posted about John and Oli there's not much room for misunderstanding. Nonetheless we have to be consistent in our punctuation or reading becomes less intuitive and it slows everybody down.It does if you remember that pandas eat eucalyptus shoots and leaves.You're thinking of koalas, which are marsupials. They live in Australia where eucalyptus grows. Pandas live in China and eat bamboo. Pandas are indeed ursids (members of the bear family) but this was not known for certain until quite recently, through DNA analysis. When I was a kid the possibility was accepted that they might be members of the raccoon family.you would not believe the nonsense i had to put up with when i first came to this board, over punctuation. i now give a decent attempt to punctuate my sentences, but ah, i still need to CAPATOLIZE (man, don't start) certain words.Capitalization is a form of punctuation and it is one of the most important forms. Capital letters are the most visible signals that help us parse sentences. They are far bigger than periods and therefore are a stronger signal that a new sentence is starting.
Every language using the Roman alphabet (or a related one like Greek or Cyrillic) has its own conventions for capitalization. In German, with its complicated grammar, nested subordinate clauses and mile-long sentences, all nouns are capitalized. This helps identify the key words in the sentence without the nuances of speech. Most languages don't capitalize words derived from the names of countries like americano. English as usual takes its own unique path and capitalizes "French wine," but not "french fries." Egotists that we are, we capitalize the pronoun "I," when so many other languages politely capitalize "you."
But all languages that have capital letters use them for the first word of the sentence. It is neither difficult to learn nor time-consuming to do. Just locate the SHIFT key on your computer and practice with it for a few minutes. You can hit it with the opposite hand from the one that's typing the letter so it doesn't slow you down. It is a highly appreciated courtesy to the reader, much more so than proofreading one's own work and correcting the occasional (and original) spelling error such as "capatolize."
If you can navigate all the ridiculous menus in commercial software that require you to hit Function keys while holding down CONTROL or COMMAND (and Macintoshes have only one of each, on the left hand), you have the ability to learn to use the SHIFT KEY.
BTW, of all the subforums on this website, you picked the wrong place to call anything related to proper language "nonsense." :mad:
Yes.This is simply incorrect. "John has missed the point," is a direct quote and must be enclosed in quotation marks.
Wahey - I'm outdated: (although I will check my copy of Oxford English Use and Abuse).
The one I was taught (and it was regarding punctuation) was:
"The pupil said the teacher is a fool", which, punctuated gave, "the pupil, said the teacher, is a fool".
Old-style grammar school - nobody uses the old ways any more :bawl:
Umm. addition. I just googled and English as spoken/ used by the English (and taught as a second language) does do it:
Indirect Speech (also referred to as 'reported speech') refers to a sentence reporting what someone has said. It is almost always used in spoken English.
* If the reporting verb (i.e. said) is in the past, the reported clause will be in a past form. This form is usually one step back into the past from the original.
For example:
o He said the test was difficult.
o She said she watched TV every day.
o Jack said he came to school every day.
No quote marks.
Maybe a difference between English and American English?
In indirect speech, the exact meaning of the speaker's words is given, but the exact words are not directly quoted.
Dean said that he didn't know what to do.
From:
http://english.unitecnology.ac.nz/resources/resources/exp_lang/speech.html
An resource for English teachers (from New Zealand by the .nz. address!).
Wahey - I'm outdated: (although I will check my copy of Oxford English Use and Abuse).
The one I was taught (and it was regarding punctuation) was:
"The pupil said the teacher is a fool", which, punctuated gave, "the pupil, said the teacher, is a fool".
Old-style grammar school - nobody uses the old ways any more :bawl:
Umm. addition. I just googled and English as spoken/ used by the English (and taught as a second language) does do it:
No quote marks.
Maybe a difference between English and American English?
From:
http://english.unitecnology.ac.nz/resources/resources/exp_lang/speech.html
An resource for English teachers (from New Zealand by the .nz. address!).
I have to agree with Oli here, that's how we learned it too. Our grammar bible was Wren and Martin; its an excellent comprehensive resource for the intricacies of English grammar and composition.
Not so easy to get online, it would seem, though its standard for Indian schools
http://www.amazon.com/High-School-English-Grammar-Composition/dp/8121904005
I think his point is that since everyone knows that pandas don't shoot guns, no reasonable person would ever actually make the mistake of interpreting that sentence as saying that the panda ate, shot a gun, and then left. Therefore the punctuation really isn't necessary.
Yes, but isnt that like... missing the point ? ;)
leopold99
08-07-07, 09:40 PM
BTW, of all the subforums on this website, you picked the wrong place to call anything related to proper language "nonsense." :mad:
a bit touchy about your forum ay?
anyway, capitalization, for me, is more of a pain than, say, commas and apostrophes. at least i know how to break up a sentence to convey the meaning.
Fraggle Rocker
08-08-07, 12:40 AM
She said she watched TV every day. No quote marks.
Maybe a difference between English and American English?No, it's just a confusing principle to explain. That is obviously an indirect quote! If it were a direct quote, it would be
She said, "I watch TV every day."
It would be in the first person, it would be in the present tense, and it would have quotation marks.
And the punctuation is vital to understanding. If you write...
She said I watch TV every day.
...then she is talking about your habits, not hers.a bit touchy about your forum ay?Well sure. The "New Moderator Syndrome." :)
But this is indeed where people come to discuss language seriously, and people who discuss language seriously aren't likely to think that any of its fine points are nonsense. To walk in and say so is not the best way to introduce oneself to the community.
shorty_37
08-08-07, 01:19 AM
What bothers me more than punctuation is BAD SPELLING.
Fraggle Rocker
08-08-07, 01:39 AM
What bothers me more then punctuation is BAD SPELLING.They're both evidence of the same lack of respect for civilization. They announce to the world that you were out getting stoned or playing videogames while the other kids were paying attention in school.
shorty_37
08-08-07, 01:43 AM
They're both evidence of the same lack of respect for civilization. They announce to the world that you were out getting stoned or playing videogames while the other kids were paying attention in school.
you forgot to mention having sex:bugeye:
one_raven
08-08-07, 01:58 AM
What bothers me more then punctuation is BAD SPELLING.
Ahem... "than", not "then".
Sorry, I HAD to! :)
shorty_37
08-08-07, 02:02 AM
Ahem... "than", not "then".
Sorry, I HAD to! :)
remind me not to post in this thread anymore....lol
allisone417
08-08-07, 02:34 AM
i don't get it
lols
No, it's just a confusing principle to explain. That is obviously an indirect quote!
Nope: example of reported speech :)
Apologies for not posting the link I got it from, and I can't find it now (busy at work). :(
Fraggle Rocker
08-08-07, 08:10 AM
Nope: example of reported speech :)I'm not sure what the difference is between "reported speech" and "indirect quotation," except perhaps that one is a subset of the other. My primitive high school in the Wild West didn't go into such subtleties fifty years ago because they concentrated on teaching us how to protect ourselves from stampeding buffalo and ornery Injuns. Nonetheless, in both cases quotation marks are not only inappropriate but incorrect, because:They are not a faithful word-for-word transcription of what the speaker said. They change the meaning of the sentence.In cases where both of these conditions are satisfied, quotation marks may be optional, although other conditions also apply such as not using the conjunction "that."
Apologies: I misread your previous post as suggesting that reported speech SHOULD have quotes around it (my fault - hectic time at work).
Yes, but isnt that like... missing the point ? ;)Well, the entire point of that sentence is that it’s supposed to be an example of why punctuation is necessary – but clearly in that particular example punctuation isn’t actually necessary.
Yeah, it's possible to construct sentences that are ambiguous without punctuation, but it almost always trivially easy to construct sentences that convey exactly the same meaning but are not ambiguous. Punctuation can transform an ambiguous sentence into an unambiguous sentence, but it's generally not necessary to construct ambiguous sentences in the first place.
For example:
William said I'm an idiot for turning down a date with your brother. William said, "I'm an idiot for turning down a date with your brother."
Trivially easy to avoid. Simply replace the first sentence with or "William called me an idiot..." or even "William said that I'm an idiot...".
Fraggle Rocker
08-08-07, 12:32 PM
Trivially easy to avoid. Simply replace the first sentence with or "William called me an idiot..." or even "William said that I'm an idiot...".Well... The construction, "William said THAT I'm an idiot," is losing ground rapidly in colloquial spoken American English. The two meanings of
William said I'm an idiot.
in speech are so easily distinguished. If the words are run together, it's an indirect quote and William was talking about me. If William was talking about himself and it's a direct quote, there will be a pause after "said" and a stress on "I'm." This is faithfully transcribed by the comma and quotation marks in writing, so Americans (who tend to write very informally even when it's not quite approprate) are more likely to write it that way as a reflection of our speech patterns. You are far more likely to see an American write
-- William said he's an idiot.
rather than
-- William said that he's an idiot.
And of course, even though the incredibly intelligent and well-educated members of SciForums are so young that they grew up with their hands on a keyboard, many of them can't actually find their way around a keyboard. So you'll encounter
-- william said im an idiot
with no punctuation at all, and you'll be left to puzzle out the meaning. Which will be very easy, because it's obvious which of the two people typed that stooopid sentence. :)
Captain Kremmen
08-09-07, 12:55 AM
An English professor wrote these words
"A woman without her man is nothing"
on the chalkboard and asked his students to punctuate it correctly.
All of the males in the class wrote:
"A woman, without her man, is nothing."
All the females in the class wrote:
"A woman: without her, man is nothing."
I don't think that the second solution is good punctuation.
A colon is used in a list, or where a definition or explanation follows.
http://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/elc/studyzone/410/grammar/colons.htm
In this case it is being used where a full stop would be better.
"A woman. Without her, man is nothing"
I don't think that the second solution is good punctuation.
A colon is used in a list, or where a definition or explanation follows.
http://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/elc/studyzone/410/grammar/colons.htm
In this case it is being used where a full stop would be better.
"A woman. Without her, man is nothing"
What is the function of a colon?
Captain Kremmen
08-09-07, 01:07 AM
What is the function of a colon?
Now there's a question.
one_raven
08-09-07, 01:12 AM
What is the function of a colon?
The colon has two main functions: absorption of water and minerals, and the formation and elimination of feces.
You should know this: you are a biologist.
The colon has two main functions: absorption of water and minerals, and the formation and elimination of feces.
You should know this: you are a biologist.
Which is why a woman needs one before the man can appear in the sentence.:D
one_raven
08-09-07, 01:22 AM
Which is why a woman needs one before the man can appear in the sentence.:D
That's the last time this piece of shit offers you help with your colon-related problems. :mad:
That's the last time this piece of shit offers you help with your colon-related problems. :mad:
Ah you have obviously attained the pinnacle of self realisation. :worship:
one_raven
08-09-07, 01:41 AM
Ah you have obviously attained the pinnacle of self realisation. :worship:
Or simply Sam-realization.
Or simply Sam-realization.
Better known as Samskara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samskara)? :p
What is the function of a colon?
In the interest of punctuation (and regardless of the joys of anal retention)
The following classification of the functions that a colon may have, given by Luca Serianni for Italian usage,[1] is generally valid for English and many other languages:
* syntactical-deductive: introduces the logical consequence, or effect, of a fact stated before
* syntactical-descriptive: introduces a description; in particular, explicits the elements of a set
* appositive: introduces a sentence with the role of apposition with respect to the previous one
A colon may also be used for the following:
* introduction of a definition
A: the first letter in the Latin alphabet
Hypernym of a word: a word having a wider meaning than the given one; e.g., vehicle is a hypernym of car
* separation of the chapter and the verse number(s) indication in many references to religious scriptures, and also epic poems; it was also used for chapter numbers in roman numerals
John 3:14–16 (or John iii:14–16) (cf. chapters and verses of the Bible)
The Qur'an, Sura 5:18
* separation when reporting time of the day (cf. ISO 8601)
The concert finished at 23:45
This file was last modified today at 11:15:05
* separation of a title and the corresponding subtitle
Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
* separation of clauses in a periodic sentence
* Colons can also be used to designate a list, such as, "He provided all of the ingredients: sugar, flour, eggs and butter."
Please note the highlighted definition.
one_raven
08-09-07, 02:24 AM
* syntactical-deductive: introduces the logical consequence, or effect, of a fact stated before
* syntactical-descriptive: introduces a description; in particular, explicits the elements of a set
That's what I demonstrated in my above example.
Captain Kremmen
08-09-07, 05:14 AM
Better known as Samskara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samskara)? :p
In the interest of punctuation (and regardless of the joys of anal retention)
Please note the highlighted definition.
I see. "Introduction of a definition"
Here's a good one.
A college professor was asked to give a reference to an employer for a lazy former student.
He didn't want to lie so he wrote the following.
"You will be lucky if you can get him to work for you."
Fraggle Rocker
08-09-07, 08:21 AM
The highlighted definition is "Introduction of a definition." Boldface, to be precise--these days when we say "highlighted" we mean the surrounding blank space is yellow, as defined by those yellow "highlighting" markers sold in every office supply store. :)
I don't think that fits this case very well, because even if the sentence were written by The Last Militant Feminist, I think she of all people would not say that "without her, man is nothing" is a definition of the word "woman."
I have perused the first two pages of Google hits on "colon." The closest I can come to our example is:"The machine was always breaking down: it was old."However, the rule which this exemplifies is very specific:"A colon tells the reader that what follows is significant to the preceding clause."A clause is very close to a complete sentence: it must contain a subject and a verb. The previous sentence is a textbook example of a clause. The phrase, "a woman," is not a clause: it is merely a phrase. (To coin another example--I'm just full of them today. :)) (Notice that a semicolon would have worked just as well, and in first the sentence in parentheses I could have used a colon, but a dash worked just as well.)
Nonetheless, I see this usage of colons often enough and in reputable enough sources that I have picked it up, and my writing is often reviewed by people who are at least as well educated and at least as pedantic about writing as I am. I don't have any style manuals with me here in my home-away-from-home. Until someone can reference one, I think we're going to have to settle for the lame explanation that English is a democratic language that is always in flux and what's "correct" is determined by consensus.
one_raven
08-09-07, 02:45 PM
http://www.writingcenter.emory.edu/colonsemi.html
To introduce an appositive, use the colon as follows:
There is one impediment to my graduation: failing all my classes.
[Remember, an appositive is a word, phrase, or noun-clause placed beside another of the same grammatical construction in order to identify or explain it.]
To introduce an independent clause that modifies a prior independent clause, use the colon as follows:
Elvis lives: he was spotted yesterday buying a slushy at the 7-Eleven.
Fraggle Rocker
08-09-07, 03:05 PM
I don't think that's a very good piece of writing for a place that calls itself the "writing center." "Failing all my classes" is a verb-clause and therefore is not of the same grammatical construction as "impediment to my graduation," which is a noun-clause.
In the second example, the clause "he was spotted yesterday buying a slushy..." does not modify the clause "Elvis lives." It explains it and is a second example of the first rule.
Nonetheless, the essence of their definition of an appositive would be okay if they simply leave out the phrase "of the same grammatical construction." And using a colon to introduce an appositive is what we're talking about. The phrase, "without her, man is nothing," may not define "woman," but in the context it is an explanation of one of her key attributes, and therefore it is an appositive deserving of a colon. :)
Captain Kremmen
08-09-07, 04:32 PM
I don't think that's a very good piece of writing for a place that calls itself the "writing center." "Failing all my classes" is a verb-clause and therefore is not of the same grammatical construction as "impediment to my graduation," which is a noun-clause.
In the second example, the clause "he was spotted yesterday buying a slushy..." does not modify the clause "Elvis lives." It explains it and is a second example of the first rule.
Nonetheless, the essence of their definition of an appositive would be okay if they simply leave out the phrase "of the same grammatical construction." And using a colon to introduce an appositive is what we're talking about. The phrase, "without her, man is nothing," may not define "woman," but in the context it is an explanation of one of her key attributes, and therefore it is an appositive deserving of a colon. :)
What you said earlier may be the case. It may be current usage. It looks horrible if you are not familiar with it, but things change.
Fraggle Rocker
08-09-07, 05:46 PM
What you said earlier may be the case. It may be current usage. It looks horrible if you are not familiar with it, but things change.Hey, I'm the old guy here! You kids don't get to talk that way. :)
Captain Kremmen
08-10-07, 06:47 AM
Hey, I'm the old guy here! You kids don't get to talk that way. :)
I use the exclamation mark in the same way that you do, to emphasise that I am joking.
We are probably a similar age, given our usages and prejudices, and the pedants before us would have disapproved!
I dislike the use of a colon to emphasise a full stop.
It should be less forceful than a full stop to my reckoning.
But if that is the way that it is being used, so be it.
We can't be King Canutes, forcing back the tide.
[thread hijack]
I use the exclamation mark in the same way that you do, to emphasise that I am joking.
We are probably a similar age, given our usages and prejudices, and the pedants before us would have disapproved!
I dislike the use of a colon to emphasise a full stop.
It should be less forceful than a full stop to my reckoning.
But if that is the way that it is being used, so be it.
We can't be King Canutes, forcing back the tide.
you're 62? :eek:
I've been going under the impression that you were a teenager, given your er, um, youthful posts.
[/thread hijack]
Captain Kremmen
08-10-07, 07:37 AM
[thread hijack]
you're 62? :eek:
I've been going under the impression that you were a teenager, given your er, um, youthful posts.
[/thread hijack]
By youthful, you mean posts that disagree with you, you old Rhino!
Not quite 62,
but I'm younger now than when I was ten years old.
I had a very influential English teacher, who taught me both cynicism and punctuation.
It was a double-period.
btw. Take a day off. You can't spend every day battling against the evil hoardes.
By youthful, you mean posts that disagree with you, you old Rhino!
Not quite 62,
but I'm younger now than when I was ten years old.
I had a very influential English teacher, who taught me both cynicism and punctuation.
btw. Take a day off. You can't spend every day battling against the evil hoards.
Whats a day off?:p
Glad you're enjoying the second childhood.
I had great English teachers, all of them. Loved the language, loved teaching it, instilled a love for reading and writing well in us. I have been lucky.
Captain Kremmen
08-10-07, 07:51 AM
I had great English teachers, all of them. Loved the language, loved teaching it, instilled a love for reading and writing well in us. I have been lucky.
If you get a good English teacher , it's the equivalent of having good parents.
They set you up for life.
Fraggle Rocker
08-10-07, 07:57 AM
If you get a good English teacher , it's the equivalent of having good parents. They set you up for life.Any good teacher.
If you were born after 1945 but before 1965, you're a Baby Boomer. That puts you in a different generation from us War Babies, young feller. :)
Is there a term for those born after 1965?
one_raven
08-10-07, 08:04 AM
Is there a term for those born after 1965?
Spoiled brats.
Actually SAM you are just as pedantic because a Panda is a Bear..so in what respect is it not a bear?
Jeezus..I'm not used to such literal, autistic, semantic stringencies on my forum..its a bit more freeform and spontaneous..I'll get used to things. Somehow.
Actually I think I've invented a new word there...
Pandantic
Someone who is pedantic but only concerning punctuation.
I'm going to add that to my lists.
A Microbe
A very small dressing gown for children.
A Tadpole
Someone born here but with a Polish parent.
A Weevil
A small devilish child. (see Damien).
Captain Kremmen
08-10-07, 08:24 AM
Any good teacher.
If you were born after 1945 but before 1965, you're a Baby Boomer. That puts you in a different generation from us War Babies, young feller. :)
Any good teacher. You are right there.
No, I wasn't born before the terrible Winter of 1948, so I'm definitely a baby boomer, Old Timer.
We'll both outlive all these spoiled weevils (post 1965, see below)
They've no sense or punctuation about them at all.
Is there a term for those born after 1965?
Well 1965 saw the advent of thee Beatles so Weevils seems a plausible term. Ermm we'd expect the Dynasty/Dallas generation...overly money oriented, conservative and with a peculiarly dire taste in music (mainly with synthesisers).
Fraggle Rocker
08-10-07, 09:40 AM
Is there a term for those born after 1965?In the USA they're called Generation X. Although the boundary is not precise, it's often pushed to 1961. The term is also used in other countries.We'll both outlive all these spoiled weevils. They've no sense or punctuation about them at all.Pehaps you're confusing "punctuation" with "punctuality." We will die "punctual" deaths. :)
superstring01
08-11-07, 12:46 AM
Gen X is 1965 to 1980... ish.
Gen Y is 1980 to 1995... ish.
Who's after "Y"... and don't say "Z"... because it Ain't!
~String
one_raven
08-12-07, 10:37 PM
I've heard it called Generation "Me".
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.