Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! "Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode!

07-06-2012 , 10:27 PM
















"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
07-06-2012 , 10:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Kid
I only eat regular hot dogs.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
07-06-2012 , 10:52 PM
You're missing out then.

I know that one's not really a typo or a grammatical mistake, but I snuck it in anyway.

ETA Maybe it was, on second thought! The sign writer might have meant:

Quote:
WE HAVE DEESE OL'
HOT DOGS
TWO FOR $TWO

Last edited by New Kid; 07-06-2012 at 11:00 PM.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
07-07-2012 , 11:44 AM
Diesel hot dogs are the new fashion rage.

"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
07-07-2012 , 09:22 PM
Grammar freaks, I have a question. My Mom has been using the word "irregardless" a lot lately for some weird reason and it is annoying the hell out of me. What's the difference between irregardless and regardless? They're essentially the same, right?
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
07-07-2012 , 09:33 PM
I feel like this was a plant put here to unify us after the oh v. zero debacle.

Last edited by LKJ; 07-07-2012 at 09:34 PM. Reason: Irregardless is not a proper word, but its widespread misuse does garner it entries in many dictionaries.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
07-08-2012 , 11:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eltbus
Grammar freaks, I have a question. My Mom has been using the word "irregardless" a lot lately for some weird reason and it is annoying the hell out of me. What's the difference between irregardless and regardless? They're essentially the same, right?
Here's the invaluable Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style, AKA "Garner's":
Quote:
irregardless: a semiliterate portmanteau word from irrespective and regardless, should have been stamped out long ago. But it's common enough in speech that it has found its way into all manner of print sources—e.g.: “Irregardless [read Regardless] of the Big Ten outcome, Knight said he is gratified with IU's improvement over last season” (Louisville Courier-J.). Although this widely scorned nonword seems unlikely to spread much more than it already has, careful users of language must continually swat it when they encounter it.

How to cite this entry:
"irregardless" The Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style. Bryan A. Garner. Oxford University Press, 2000. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of Toronto Libraries. 8 July 2012 <http://www.oxfordreference.com.myaccess.library.utoronto. ca/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t26.e1304>
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
07-08-2012 , 02:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToTheInternet
I only eat regular hot dogs.
I prefer premium hot dogs.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
07-08-2012 , 02:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrEleganza
That's not an I, it's an L. It means, "Like, duh, obviously" or "LOL duh obviously." I don't see it used outside Twoplustwo.
I learned it long before I ever posted on 2+2.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
07-08-2012 , 03:51 PM
So, my Mom is a dolt. Thank you!
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
07-08-2012 , 05:17 PM
I saw this and immediately thought it was another mindless error, but it was in an upscale restaurant after all...apparently there is a vegan animal-friendly alternative.

&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
07-08-2012 , 05:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexM
I prefer premium hot dogs.
I only eat unleaded ones.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
07-08-2012 , 05:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kvitlekh
I saw this and immediately thought it was another mindless error, but it was in an upscale restaurant after all...apparently there is a vegan animal-friendly alternative.
They put it in quotation marks, so you shouldn't have looked twice.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
07-08-2012 , 06:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kvitlekh
I think the quotes are fine here because it calls out the coined name and indicates that they didn't just misspell foie gras.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
07-08-2012 , 07:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kvitlekh
I saw this and immediately thought it was another mindless error, but it was in an upscale restaurant after all...apparently there is a vegan animal-friendly alternative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GusJohnsonGOAT
They put it in quotation marks, so you shouldn't have looked twice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewOldGuy
I think the quotes are fine here because it calls out the coined name and indicates that they didn't just misspell foie gras.
Dude, I hear you're leaving the cover sheet off your TPS reports.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
07-09-2012 , 08:47 AM
On run on sentences:

They had meatballs on sale at the store, so I bought a pound.

or;

They had meatballs on sale at the store. I bought a pound.

Is the comma in the first example superfluous?

Does starting a sentence with "So...", when "So" indicates "the result:", make the sentence incomplete without the cause clause? Is "so" governed by the same rules as "and" or "but"? I really dislike sentences that start with "and" or "but", unless it's by a second party who is interjecting, interrupting, or continuing a thought that has been presented by the first party.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
07-09-2012 , 10:12 AM
I don't see why that comma would be superfluous. It's inserting a pause and creating an opening for a new subject and predicate. I would use the comma every time.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
07-09-2012 , 11:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob148
On run on sentences:
Which your examples weren't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob148
Is the comma in the first example superfluous?
"[Independent clause], [coordinating conjunction] [independent clause]" is the standard, but sometimes you can drop the comma for rhythm/voice reasons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob148
Does starting a sentence with "So...", when "So" indicates "the result:", make the sentence incomplete without the cause clause?
No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob148
Is "so" governed by the same rules as "and" or "but"?
In general, yes.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
07-09-2012 , 02:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToTheInternet
Which your examples weren't.
I thought that maybe the one without a comma would be a run on. Also I wanted to lead into my next example without the post getting out of hand:

When you go to the store, you need to bring money and you have to wear clothes, because you won't be allowed to buy anything if you don't.

When you go to the store, you need to bring money and you have to wear clothes. ("This is" is implied) Because you won't be allowed to buy anything if you don't.

I think the first is a run on, but I like it better than the second. Because now I'm using "because" to start the sentence when I feel that if I'm going to make it a compound sentence, then the "because" should be in the same sentence as the "why". But when speaking, there is nothing to indicate where the current sentence ends. Or where the next sentence begins, besides a pause in speech. When creating a sentence out of our imagination, nobody has said it yet. So there's nothing to tell us which sentence should be compounded except the conjunction "itself".

In before, "But Bob, "itself" is not a conjunction!!"
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
07-09-2012 , 03:31 PM
Run-on sentence has a specific meaning, and it doesn't refer to all sentences that are long or have a lot going on or anything like that. That's a common misconception.

You can prefer the first (the standard way to write it) for many reasons, but the idea that the "because" must be in the same sentence as the "why," which I'm getting the sense you believe, shouldn't be one of those reasons.

Last edited by ToTheInternet; 07-09-2012 at 03:41 PM.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
07-09-2012 , 04:18 PM
I'm quick to rush into the waiting arms of the semicolon when I feel sentences getting too long.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
07-09-2012 , 06:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob148
When you go to the store, you need to bring money and you have to wear clothes, because you won't be allowed to buy anything if you don't.

When you go to the store, you need to bring money and you have to wear clothes. ("This is" is implied) Because you won't be allowed to buy anything if you don't.

I think the first is a run on, but I like it better than the second. Because now I'm using "because" to start the sentence when I feel that if I'm going to make it a compound sentence, then the "because" should be in the same sentence as the "why". But when speaking, there is nothing to indicate where the current sentence ends. Or where the next sentence begins, besides a pause in speech. When creating a sentence out of our imagination, nobody has said it yet. So there's nothing to tell us which sentence should be compounded except the conjunction "itself".

In before, "But Bob, "itself" is not a conjunction!!"
The first example does feel crowded, but the second one isn't an option (in my opinion) because counting on "This is" to be implied leaves you with, "Because you won't be allowed to buy anything if you don't," which isn't a sentence.

Some alternatives:

Quote:
You need to bring money and you have to wear clothes when you go to the store; you won't be allowed to buy anything if you don't.
(As LKJ suggested. I too am a semicolon addict.)

Quote:
You need to bring money and you have to wear clothes when you go to the store, because you won't be allowed to buy anything if you don't.
I'd even eliminate either "have to" or "need to," which might help ease that "run on" feeling you're getting (which, as Toothy said, is just a sentence with a lot going on in it):

Quote:
You need to bring money and wear clothes when you go to the store, because you won't be allowed to buy anything if you don't.

Last edited by New Kid; 07-09-2012 at 06:45 PM.
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
07-09-2012 , 10:28 PM
"Now" you're "talking."

Basically what I'm looking for is the longest, correctly constructed sentence without a semicolon, colon, adjective, adverb, or any type of ridiculously long noun or prepositional phrase.

Challenge!!
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
07-10-2012 , 01:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob148
So there's nothing to tell us which sentence should be compounded except the conjunction "itself".

In before, "But Bob, "itself" is not a conjunction!!"
1. The period goes inside the quotes if you are American.

2. I believe that the inner quotes should be like 'this.'
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote
07-10-2012 , 08:34 PM
&quot;Grammar&quot; and &quot;Punctuation&quot; nit's unite! You're &quot;head&quot; will literally explode! Quote

      
m