What's the rule? Do you ever double-up to close the second one in grammar? I know that using nested parentheticals at all is probably not the best or most accepted option, but let’s say you do decide to use them… Example: I was walking down the street (Mulberry Street (the one on the east side of town) and witnessed a car accident. OR I was walking down the street (Mulberry Street (the one on the east side of town)) and witnessed a car accident. Which would be the more correct option?
I have generally been avoiding parentheses altogether lately, and opting for the en dash instead. I just can't recall ever seeing guidance on closing the nested parentheses. I got an email today that closed them with a single parenthesis, and although it was asthetically pleasing, it seemed incorrect to me.
The logical way is to close all parentheses, like it's done in math and programming. Every parenthesis stands on its own. And I do believe a parenthesis is indicated by both brackets; "()". I disagree with you that it looks more pleasing the other way (example 1). It feels like something is missing and, of course, something IS missing Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I know. I was wondering if my experience with programming was the reason it looked wrong to me. Well, by glancing at the paragraph in the email, it wasn't immediately clear that there was something missing... Effective teaching techniques at Bloom levels 3 and 4 include: discussion, debate, problem-solving, scenario-based instruction such as inductive reasoning (moving from a set of specific facts to a general conclusion (e.g., moving from observations to a theory) and deductive reasoning (moving from a general premise to a more specific conclusion (e.g., starting with a theory and confirming (or not) that theory) It has two different sets: inductive reasoning (moving from a set of specific facts to a general conclusion (e.g., moving from observations to a theory) and deductive reasoning (moving from a general premise to a more specific conclusion (e.g., starting with a theory and confirming (or not) that theory) The sentence is a train-wreck, I know, but using the parentheticals correctly would result in: Effective teaching techniques at Bloom levels 3 and 4 include: discussion, debate, problem-solving, scenario-based instruction such as inductive reasoning (moving from a set of specific facts to a general conclusion (e.g., moving from observations to a theory)) and deductive reasoning (moving from a general premise to a more specific conclusion (e.g., starting with a theory and confirming (or not) that theory)).
I try to use different 'kinds' of parentheses [like this] to differentiate where its not clear, but that may be from programming as well where () {} [] are all used for specific purposes. Come to think of it the only 'common' symbol I haven't seen used in one programming language or another is ~.
Thats usually what I do as well. I close all parenthesis separately, but I don't recall ever using more than two sets
I think (in relation to this discussion) that the use of multiple closed parentheses (where this relates to any opened parthensis (which would be represented by this "(" symbol (while a closed parenthesis would be represented by this ")" symbol))) is a practice that should be followed. Alternatively we should just try to write better English. For parenthetic statements gone mad (but without the parenthesis) you really should read almost any part of Stephen Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Off-Topic William McGonigal and William Shakespeare take part in a competition in Heaven to produce a two line poem about a bow-legged man. McGonigal's effort: "See him coming down the street, His legs so wide, his knees don't meet." Shakespeare offered: "What manner of a man is this That wears his balls in parenthesis?"
You are not expected to use nested parentheses at all in prose. Strunk & White is utterly silent on the subject; there's no snarky little section on the least offensive way to use them if you absolutely insist. The only references I can find pertain exclusively to technical writing. In math, of course, you enclose your inner group (in regular parentheses), the next outer group is [in square brackets] and the outer group is {in whatever the heck they call these things}. If the expression you're trying to write is more deeply nested than that, you need to advocate for Polish notation, which is entirely positional and does not use any form of bracket. 3 2 + 8 * 6 7 + - 1 3 / ^ 3 = is the same as {[(3+2)*8]-(6+7)}^(1/3)=3 In computer programming we simply (nest(regular(parentheses(as deep(as we want))))). But only a computer is going to read this and it is incapable of losing track of the levels of nesting. Remember that punctuation was invented to substitute for the non-phonemic components of spoken language such as pauses, speed, volume and pitch. Anything you write had better correspond precisely to something you could say out loud. You could not possibly get away with saying something like, "My father's friend (the one who came to dinner that time you were here (the week between my birthday and Christmas) and made the whole family angry with his diatribe about politics) and his wife (the redhead with the little dog who soiled my aunt Maria's (the one in the purple hat) favorite chair) are coming back next week."
My wife talks like that ALL THE TIME. (She's in a English and Gender Studies Master's program, aiming for her PhD next, because she's going to be a professor.)
Candy is dandy (for purposes of an early romantic encounter) but liquor is quicker (at getting inhibitions lowered and short circuiting any careful rational evaluation of you as a mating partner (but none of this should be construed as obviating the need for careful informed and rational consent at every stage of the procedure (including immediate deescalation procedures as per paragraph 19\Z83 (which is adapted from (and completely compatible with) IETF RFC 1122 §3.2.2.3) upon receiving a negative reply))).
You make a very good point. I tend to over-use parantheticals, sometimes venturing into double nested ones. This may require some rethinking on my part. Where does the "--" fit into this. As in: My friend James--who lives next door--was over last night for a few beers. (Somehow, Tiassa has found a way to make the nifty "long dash" and avoid the "double dash") ~String
That's called an em dash because in printer's jargon it is one em wide. The width of an em is exactly the font size, e.g. in 12-point type an em is 12 points wide. It's so named because that is the width of a lower-case m in some of the most common fonts. I don't know how you get an em dash in this character set and I don't bother. If you type two consecutive hyphens in MS Word and they are flush with the adjoining words, it will convert them to an em dash. An en dash is exactly half the width of an em dash, which makes it noticeably wider than a hyphen in printer's fonts, but not necessarily in word processing, e-mail or browser fonts. En dashes are used in mathematical and other technical writing. But to get back to the em dash, I had to look it up, since on reflection I realized that in my writing a pair of em dashes is virtually equivalent to parentheses. The Wikipedia article on dashes has a long section on the em dash, but I didn't find it very helpful. Its use varies from one language to the next and in some it's used in place of quotation marks. But in English it seems to be a drifter with no steady, assigned job. You can read the article for yourself but I came away with the impression that its most proper usage in English is exactly my own convention: two of them are equivalent to parentheses and there isn't really any good reason to use one by itself. I may stop using it and stick to the parens. If I encounter a sentence in which I feel that em dashes would be more expressive, you'll be the first to hear about it.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
