The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Let's debate grammar.
Drez
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I was going to make a Help/Advice thread, but I thought: hey, why not squabble over it instead.
So, first, maybe someone can help me. I am now thoroughly confused by punctuation, specifically with regards to quotation marks. I'm only going to discuss double-quotes for now:
Dialogue is simple. In almost all cases, the punctuation is enclosed within the double-quotes.
- Sally said, "hello!"
- "I see you hiding that shotgun behind your back," said the burly demon.
- "But where, oh where, has my little dog gone?"
Right? Right. I don't think there's an argument there. But what about double-quotations that reference a title or something? Because I've seen authors use either-or of late and, as a writer that's been out of school for awhile, I'm getting confused. Do serial commas go within the double-quotes, or outside? Does a conjunctive comma (is that the right term?) go inside or out? I've seen both styles in popular books:
and
And for series:
Or
And where does the period go? Are both right?
Next, lets talk about the evolution of language, when is a word "grammatically correct" as far as usage goes (and yes, word choice/usage is a part of correct grammar)? I had an argument with someone as to whether "all right" was more correct than "alright". I suggested that, while "all right" precedes the newer "alright," both are just as grammatically valid.
The above, too, is an example of my first question. Should the comma after "alright" be within the double-quotes or right after?
I also got into a rather heated discussion with this same person about the serial comma being used before "and". (P.S. There's another good example: period BEFORE or AFTER the double-quotes in "and"?) From what I read, using the serial comma before and is more prevalent in America and less so in England. Or maybe it was the reverse. I argued that prevalence in this case was irrelevant with regard to grammatical validity. I personally like the symmetry provided by the serial comma before "and" but he suggested that it was "less correct".
Does prevalence have anything to do with grammatical validity? Up to "archaic" or "obsolete", of course. I would argue that using archaic or obsolete words, phrases, idioms, or meanings would be incorrect unless used properly in a period piece.
Another point for discussion: is it just me, or is the prevalence of online blogging and chatting, and the fact that it's been popular for well beyond a decade now, is having an adverse effect on literacy, especially with regard to spelling and grammar? I just...sometimes I weep at the things I read. Like, GameFAQs. You have people writing really intricate walkthroughs and formulae that literally blow my mind...I mean I was a math/comp sci major and sometimes I just don't understand some of the fucking statistics that your random GameFAQer figures out. And yet these people seem to have a writing literacy on par with grade schoolers. I don't get it.
Last, the word "a lot" - I'm starting to see "alot" creep back into text. Did I miss something, or is "alot" still not a word?
So, first, maybe someone can help me. I am now thoroughly confused by punctuation, specifically with regards to quotation marks. I'm only going to discuss double-quotes for now:
Dialogue is simple. In almost all cases, the punctuation is enclosed within the double-quotes.
- Sally said, "hello!"
- "I see you hiding that shotgun behind your back," said the burly demon.
- "But where, oh where, has my little dog gone?"
Right? Right. I don't think there's an argument there. But what about double-quotations that reference a title or something? Because I've seen authors use either-or of late and, as a writer that's been out of school for awhile, I'm getting confused. Do serial commas go within the double-quotes, or outside? Does a conjunctive comma (is that the right term?) go inside or out? I've seen both styles in popular books:
Tom pulled out his copy of "Hamlet", putting it immediately on the table.
and
Tom pulled out his copy of "Hamlet," putting it immediately on the table.
And for series:
There were three buttons with a label below each one. John had to squint to make them out: "start", "stop", and "emergency".
Or
There were three buttons with a label below each one. John had to squint to make them out: "start," "stop," and "emergency".
And where does the period go? Are both right?
Next, lets talk about the evolution of language, when is a word "grammatically correct" as far as usage goes (and yes, word choice/usage is a part of correct grammar)? I had an argument with someone as to whether "all right" was more correct than "alright". I suggested that, while "all right" precedes the newer "alright," both are just as grammatically valid.
The above, too, is an example of my first question. Should the comma after "alright" be within the double-quotes or right after?
I also got into a rather heated discussion with this same person about the serial comma being used before "and". (P.S. There's another good example: period BEFORE or AFTER the double-quotes in "and"?) From what I read, using the serial comma before and is more prevalent in America and less so in England. Or maybe it was the reverse. I argued that prevalence in this case was irrelevant with regard to grammatical validity. I personally like the symmetry provided by the serial comma before "and" but he suggested that it was "less correct".
Does prevalence have anything to do with grammatical validity? Up to "archaic" or "obsolete", of course. I would argue that using archaic or obsolete words, phrases, idioms, or meanings would be incorrect unless used properly in a period piece.
Another point for discussion: is it just me, or is the prevalence of online blogging and chatting, and the fact that it's been popular for well beyond a decade now, is having an adverse effect on literacy, especially with regard to spelling and grammar? I just...sometimes I weep at the things I read. Like, GameFAQs. You have people writing really intricate walkthroughs and formulae that literally blow my mind...I mean I was a math/comp sci major and sometimes I just don't understand some of the fucking statistics that your random GameFAQer figures out. And yet these people seem to have a writing literacy on par with grade schoolers. I don't get it.
Last, the word "a lot" - I'm starting to see "alot" creep back into text. Did I miss something, or is "alot" still not a word?
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
Drez on
0
Posts
Lastly.
Periods at the end of a sentence go inside quotation marks.
Periods and commas go inside the quotes if you are North American, and outside the quotes if you're British. In all cases, semicolons and colons go outside the quotes, as do exclamation marks and question marks, unless you want to keep the punctuation of the original source and it happens to be one of those marks.
The serial comma before "and" or "Oxford comma" is unnecessary unless confusion would arise without it. Usually this means that a stronger separation must be made between the last two items. Either way is valid, but it's contentious enough that some people will flat out declare you wrong if you do it one way or the other.
"Alot" is definitely not a word.
I just cannot see how "red, blue and green" is not confusing given any or even no context. It makes SENSE to me, but I just don't see how it is preferable to "red, blue, and green."
I understand the argument is that the comma and "and" are redundant to each other but...I can't see how someone can prefer "red, blue and green" to "red, blue, and green." I don't know. It's branded on my brain.
"The popsicles are available in red, blue and green."
There is no way to read this sentence such that "blue and green" actually means "blue-green." Such a reading would be incorrect. In order to say that, you'd have to write "The popsicles are available in red and blue and green," which is confusing because you don't know where the items are serialized. In that situation, you would want the Oxford comma: "The popsicles are available in red, and blue and green." However in such a situation, where there are only two items in the series, the comma usage becomes much more situational.
Combining the last two items in a series with the "and" between them would require an additional "and" before them, because they would become the last item. This is why the Oxford comma is usually unnecessary.
I should have clarified. To me "red, green and blue" is visually confusing because it lacks the symmetry that the unnecessary comma adds. Grammatically, it may be unnecessary, but I think it is visually important. A series without the comma is actually pretty jarring for me.
I don't have any supportive research, so this is a gut opinion, but I disagree. The existence of, say, Firefox's auto-spellchecker is a massive detriment to literacy because people no longer have to learn how to spell: they can rely on a spellchecker in most cases.
I also believe that rampant illiteracy, readily available and constantly consumed by others, reinforces incorrect grammar. The internet and blogs exacerbate the problem to an astounding degree. You see "alot" all over the place, and others see it, and then you start to doubt the rules you've been taught - or worse, for those are not very well educated in English already - well they pick up and emulate the incorrect grammar that they see.
They tend to follow rules but more the rules of spoken communication than formal writing.
Edit: With that out of the way, I've always wondered about footnotes before and after commas and periods. How is that handled?
Hamlet is a bad play[1].
or
Hamlet is a bad play.[1]
I tend to use the former, because it doesn't seem right that the period or comma has anything to do with the footnote.
Swedish style: He said "hello".
And then we also have various interesting rules for goose eyes and angled paragraphs on which I'll expand later with plentiful quoting from my typography books, since I'm very much a typography geek. Back later.
I've wondered about the quotes thing for a while. My high school journalism teacher said that punctuation always goes inside the quotes, and I can see that for something like periods or commas. But what about question marks? Like if I ask someone:
Hey, have you read "To Build a Fire"?
or
Hey, have you read "To Build a Fire?"
To me, the first seems more correct, because the purpose of quotes is to capture something exactly. The second one seems to say that the title of the story is "To Build a Fire?", which is incorrect. However, this sort of rule would put most periods and commas outside of the quotes as well, which goes against common usage.
Blah, my brain!
since the quoted title of the book is separate from the question. English mostly sticks punctuation inside the quote, but I can't say if that's the formal writing rule for it.
Ah, that was the name of it. Couldn't quite remember. Need to get that one since I'm a sucker for these things. :P
I can't confirm this, but I've heard that placing punctuation inside the quotes is American style, and the English/Australian style is to place it outside the quotes. Confirm, deny? I've always placed them outside of the quotes, because placing them inside could lead to confusion as to what the actual text of the quote is.
I've had professors tell me that the phrase is correct and wrong. The arguement always comes down to the comma between 'fries' and 'and'. It's never been the sole source of a poor grade so I've never had to argue the point with them. It seems to be on a person-to-person basis. I personally neglect placing a comma between the two words.
I use the serial comma, but I can understand why one would go without it. I've never understood the rationale for putting punctuation inside quotes, though. I do it because it's what is recognized here as correct, but it makes much less intuitive sense to me than putting them outside the quotation.
It really depends on what style you're following. Some styles recommend others do not.
For example, AP Style says this about the comma
IN A SERIES: Use commas to separate elements in a series, but do not put a comma before the conjunction in a simple series: The flag is red, white and blue. He would nominate Tom, Dick or Harry.
Put a comma before the concluding conjunction in a series, however, if an integral element of the series requires a conjunction: I had orange juice, toast, and ham and eggs for breakfast.
Use a comma also before the concluding conjunction in a complex series of phrases: The main points to consider are whether the athletes are skillful enough to compete, whether they have the stamina to endure the training, and whether the have the proper mental attitude.
And as far quotations go it says
PLACEMENT WITH OTHER PUNCTUATION: Follow these long-established printers' rules:
--The period and comma always go within the quotation marks.
--The dash, the semicolon, the question mark and the exclamation point go within the quotation marks when they apply to the quoted matter only. They go outside when they apply to the whole sentence.
I would probably use a comma for the "ham and eggs" bit without making the conscious decision to do so. However, I would write that sentence as "orange juice, toast, ham and eggs" in the first place. To me it's still a list even though "ham and eggs" are considered one item (the main course).
In English English, an organization is seen as inherantly plural because it's a group of people, not some sort of Borg-ish hivemind. For comparison, does the sentence "Those tourists is lost." sound correct to you? Probably not.
No.
So there are different styles of English, and these have different social standings. And then there's clarity, ease of parsing, lack of ambiguity. Then add to the pot the fact that these different kinds of English have different standings with different groups (I talk posh when I'm in an interview, and not-so-posh when some bloke in the pub wants to kick my head in. My written netglish probably makes FAQers think I'm 100 years old and an arrogant snob). Also clarity is more or less valued in certain situations (report writing versus novel writing).
So it's all this giant tension between variables which can never be resolved - you just have to try to choose the best for each situation (which will of course be influenced by your own personality, education, social grouping etc).
There's no such thing as grammatically valid or correct. There's just groups and perception and your place in all of that.
No, but "That group are lost" doesn't sound right either.
There is so much in wrong information that's being passed off as fact that I am literally seeing "red."
Evil M, you had multiple things wrong in your post. The New Yorker, one of the bastions of pedantic grammar(1), puts everything work of art in quotation marks, and saves Italics for publications, with only the byname in italics, i.e., The New York Times
That's what's really wrong with grammar - the people who think they know what they are talking about, yet have no fucking clue: the people who say "which" when they should be saying "that;" the people who will never use the same word in a sentence twice; the people who don't know what a split infinitive is, or, worse, the people who think they do when they do not know that it can sometimes be used correctly.
(1) For God's sake, they spell it zoölogy.
"I'd like to thank my parents, Ayn Rand, and God."
If you take out the serial comma, then the sentence becomes ambiguous--it's not clear whether the author's parents are Ayn Rand and God, and she's thanking them, or if the parents are distinct from Ayn Rand and God, and she's thanking each of the three groups distinctly.
I use the serial comma because it reads better to me, in addition to its being necessary in the odd corner case.
Also, as poshniallo quite correctly pointed out, grammar is pretty flexible between dialects. One of the funny things about linguists is they tend to be among the least snobby people in the world when it comes to calling speech wrong. It's also one of the cool things about them.
So you're kidding, then? Coz no-one I know who can read and write is as stupid as that.
Example:
"It was nice to see James's hat getting so much use after his death."
I don't believe it's necessary, it verges on redundant.
The problem is that you will always find a group which considers itself to use 'correct' grammar, but which has different ideas on citations, titles etc.
The only solution is to make sure you find out how the person/people you are writing for think it should be done, and do it that way.
Mind you, like everyone, I have my blind spots here. I love split infinitives, and can't help using them even when people tell me not to, because I think hating split infinitives makes professors seem like dinosaurs. But then, I imagine my 'academic' writing uses a slightly less formal register than others, because of my social background.
Actually, it's not whether or not the word ends in "s". It's apostrophe-s for singular possessives (James's hat), and s-apostrophe for plural possessives (The boys' hats).
It's a style thing.
It ticks me off when I see stuff on Wikipedia like "Modest Mouse is an American indie rock band blah blah blah."
No, Modest Mouse are an American indie rock band. There are six people in the band. If there's only one person in the band then you can say "is", like "Iron and Wine is really good."