Quick Grammar Banter

[Sage]

Also, an apostrophe is used to make a word plural when it is addressed as the word itself. For example, "There's is a lot of good's in your essay, Billy."

Um, what? And you just said "There is is…" (And even "There is…" would be wrong, since there is plural, thus, there are.)

Commas are a bit obnoxious to explain. I'll be cheap though and type the main rules straight out of The Elements of Style:

1. In a series of three or more terms with a single conjunction, use a comma after each term except the last.
2. Enclose parenthetic expressions between commas.
3. Place a comma before a conjunction introducing an independent clause.

My explanations:

1. This is a fairly obvious rule to most native English speakers.
   
   Write Bob, Suzy, and Anthony
   instead of
   Bob, Suzy and Anthony (notice the missing comma after Suzy).​
2. Okay, parenthetic means a side note that adds more information to what's happening – something that could be enclosed in parentheses. So, say you have:
   
   The table, which is made of the finest wood, was able to withstand the earthquake.​
   In this case, which is made of the finest wood is the parenthetic expression. It could just as easily have been written:
   
   The table (which is made of the finest wood) was able to withstand the earthquake.​
   Note that the sentence can be written without its parenthetic expression:
   
   The table was able to withstand the earthquake.​
   So, parenthetic expressions simply add more information to the sentence – the sentence still functions and makes sense without one. There are more rules to get into (especially concerning dates and titles), but I think I'll just leave it at that.
3. This is the rule that is the most used, and probably where most of the confusion surrounding commas comes from. First, a little terminology: An independent clause is a sentence fragment (or a whole sentence itself) that contains at least a subject and a verb. So, she went to the store is an independent clause. Now, a conjunction is a linking word: and, but, or, for, both, neither, etc. So if you have stuff, then a conjunction, then an independent clause, you have to put a comma before the conjunction. Example:
   
   He went to work, and she went to the store.​
   And is the conjunction, she went to the store is an independent clause, so a comma goes before and.

There's another rule that I can't find in the book for some reason. Anyway, it's: Use a comma to separate a subordinate clause and the main clause. Actually, this rule is probably used even more than the previous rule (by me, anyway ). A subordinate clause is a clause that doesn't make any sense without the main clause. For example, which is the way he went doesn't make any sense by itself, since you don't know what which is. So:

There are tracks going into the woods, which is the way he went.​

There are tracks going into the woods is the main clause (note: it can stand by itself – it is a complete sentence), which is the way he went is the subordinate clause.

The subordinate clause can also go in front:

Before she left, she made sure the lights were off.​

She made sure the lights were off is the main clause, since it can stand by itself as a complete sentence. Before she left is the subordinate clause, since it doesn't make any sense by itself (before she left – yeah, so what about before she left?).

Phew! Does that clear up anything?

 

[Famine]

Um, what? And you just said "There is is…" (And even "There is…" would be wrong, since there is plural, thus, there are.)

There are a house in New Orleans, they call The Rising Sun

 

[Sage]

Oops, my bad! I meant goods is plural, not there. Dur!

 

[Pupik]

And for the love of trees, people, those things that stop the car are BRAKES, not breaks.

I deal with that one every day; it drives me up a wall, and into the break room. At that point, I don't need to use the brakes. The proper use of a comma (when used to list more than three items) always bugs me as well.

There are a house in New Orleans, they call The Rising Sun

It's been the ruin, of many a young boy (and god, I know, I'm one).


Any notes on semi-colon usage, Sage?
* Note the use of a question mark after the bold tags, indicating Sage? is not a member on this forum...for now.

 

[Sage]

I was thinking about covering that, but I figured it might scare some people. But, since you requested it:

A semicolon (;) is used to join two independent clauses to form a single compound sentence – usually for the sake of showing a relationship between them. For example:

I am hungry; I will go eat lunch.​

Each of those clauses could be separated into individual sentence; instead, it's better to combine them. Observe:

I am hungry. I will go eat lunch.​

This looks like something written by a kindergartner.

Also, a semicolon is sometimes used when you have an adverb (accordingly, besides, therefore, thus, etc.) separating two independent clauses instead of a conjunction (in which case you'd use a comma). For example:

He didn't want to sleep; besides, he had a few thoughts to work out.​

The dash (–) sometimes serves a similar function to the semicolon – when used as such, it's typically seen as less formal. For the most part though, a dash is used to show an abrupt shift in thought, or, as I commonly use it, to create a long appositive or summary. For example:

I was scared – no, terrified – at the prospect.

She did not wish to eat – it was much too early.

The increasing reluctance of the sun to rise, the extra nip in the breeze, the patter of shed leaves dropping – all the evidence of fall drifting into the winter were clearer each day. [size=-3](From The Elements of Style)[/size]​

Notice how in the last one, the part after the dash explains the significance of the first part of the sentence.

 

[PS]

** It's not that, Sage. It's this: "—" .

An actual dash is Alt+0151, whereas the short little line thingy on your keyboard is just a conjoining line...thingy. Note that there are also no spaces in between real dashes.

 

[Pupik]

Okay, it's good to know I'm using it properly; I've been know to over-use ellipses, so the semi-colon works well in place of "..." in many cases.

On the other hand, the use and misuse of grammar by some of our long-time members leaves a definite "fingerprint" on their posts.

 

[Sage]

** It's not that, Sage. It's this: "—" .

An actual dash is Alt+0151, whereas the short little line thingy on your keyboard is just a conjoining line...thingy. Note that there are also no spaces in between real dashes.

Ah, that's what you think. I did indeed type a dash – an "en" dash.

Hyphen: -
En-dash: –
Em-dash: —

"The short little line thingy on your keyboard" is a hyphen. Whether you choose to use an en-dash or an em-dash is simply a matter of style – both are typographically correct, as long as you put spaces around an en-dash and no spaces around an em-dash. I prefer to use an en-dash, because it's better proportioned in most fonts (except Trebuchet). Also, the em-dash came around during the Victorian era, which was a harsh age for typography – they're the same people who decided it would be a good idea to stuff two spaces between sentences. So, I generally try to avoid anything related to Victorian typography.

 

[Seanman]

I knew the sentence didn't sound right........

 

[GilesGuthrie]

Ooh, Sage...

It's not often that I have to do this, but I need to pick you up on a couple of things:

Firstly, you complain of people who use apostrophes for pluralisation. I agree. Your example of "good's" is absolutely a correct instance of your point. However, "PM's" is not. Because "M's" is an abbreviation of "Messages", so the apostrophe is appropriate. If you rewrote it "P M's", you may view it differently. Personally, I hate the apostrophe there, and grammarians seem equivocal as to whom is in the right. However, few grammarians are prepared to state that the apostrophe in the pluralisation of an abbreviation is flat wrong.

Secondly, your comment on the use of commas in lists appears counter-intuitive. You quote The Elements of Style in saying "In a series of three or more terms with a single conjunction, use a comma after each term except the last.", then you explain this by saying "Write Bob, Suzy, and Anthony
instead of
Bob, Suzy and Anthony (notice the missing comma after Suzy)."

It is my contention that this is the opposite of what The Elements of Style is saying. I believe that there should not be a comma prior to the "and" in the sentence, although (again) few grammarians will stake anything significant on this, preferring instead to be open to either usage.

Where I think you may have been going is in the distinction between the use of "and" and the use of "&". Most people who care not for language think that the two are more or less interchangeable.

But, how would you write an order for a popular British meal: Fish and Chips and Salt and Vinegar?

To test this, how do you say it? You probably use the shortened "and", "'n'" after "Fish" and again after "Salt". See this is the difference betwen the word "and" and the symbol "&". If you shorten it to 'n', write &, thus: "Fish & Chips and Salt & Vinegar". This facilitates a correct parsing of the sentence, grouping "fish" with "chips" and "salt" with "vinegar". Mathematically, this would be "(fish + chips) + (salt + vinegar)"*.

So, in your example, if "Bob and Suzy" were a single unit as a pair, you would be right, but then there should be an "and" in front of "Bob", and there should be an ampersand after "Bob".

* I know that this parses the same mathematically however you write it due to the properties of the Sum function. The use of brackets denotes the preferential processing that mathematics expresses

 

[Sage]

Firstly, you complain of people who use apostrophes for pluralisation. I agree. Your example of "good's" is absolutely a correct instance of your point. However, "PM's" is not. Because "M's" is an abbreviation of "Messages", so the apostrophe is appropriate. If you rewrote it "P M's", you may view it differently. Personally, I hate the apostrophe there, and grammarians seem equivocal as to whom is in the right. However, few grammarians are prepared to state that the apostrophe in the pluralisation of an abbreviation is flat wrong.

I see what you mean, and I've pondered that too, but I've always read that initialisms should not have an apostrophe for pluralization – otherwise, would CD's indicate possession, or would it indicate pluralization?

And if there's no hard rule on it yet, then let's make it one!

Secondly, your comment on the use of commas in lists appears counter-intuitive. You quote The Elements of Style in saying "In a series of three or more terms with a single conjunction, use a comma after each term except the last.", then you explain this by saying "Write Bob, Suzy, and Anthony
instead of
Bob, Suzy and Anthony (notice the missing comma after Suzy)."

It is my contention that this is the opposite of what The Elements of Style is saying. I believe that there should not be a comma prior to the "and" in the sentence, although (again) few grammarians will stake anything significant on this, preferring instead to be open to either usage.

Ah, I think you misread the quote. Notice how it says "…use a comma after each term except the last". E.g.:

Bob, Suzy, and Anthony went to the mall.​

There is a comma after every term except the last one. You're suggesting that there should be a comma after every term except the last and second-to-last.

Where I think you may have been going is in the distinction between the use of "and" and the use of "&". Most people who care not for language think that the two are more or less interchangeable.

Well, this isn't where I was going, but it's good that you touched on it, because this definitely annoys me too. Yup, ampersand = showing unity in a pair, especially when another and would get in the way. This seems to be something that nobody knows about for some reason.

 

[Event]

Note to self: Do not read this thread.

 

[Evolution.]

I ain't dun need naw grammer lezzons.

I iz a ful bluded redneck.so i iz a gud speiler natrally.

*hides behind bush from Sage*