the whole entire shirt was made of cotton. Then i cut it into two equal halves.

Another redundancy endorsed by ppl who ought to know better -- when teaching basic math/statistics examples, elem. school teachers in phoenix arent allowed to use the term "dice". Instead they refer to them as "six-sided cubes"

Yes it's redundant. Sometimes redundancy (why isn't it redundance?) adds emphasis. Much like your use of "completely", which adds little if anything in the way of literal meaning to your sentence.

I didn't read any of this thread but what do you do when you have a sentence and a question.

I'm buying a gun did i tell you

I'm buying a gun; did I tell you?

I'm buying a gun. Did I tell you?

Or do you just have to be lame and make it

Did I tell you I'm buying a gun?

This

Or this:

I prefer the latter, and don't see why it would be lame.

Seems weird that did I tell you can be its own thing

Even so, the sentence "Col. McAssface hasn't reported for duty since his testicle ruptured" would be correct by this logic. It implies the passage of time as well as causation.

PJ, why couldn't you use the semi-colon? I realize it's not a stark contrast, but it's a quick change in thought, seemingly. Eh?

It's a style choice. I don't like switching from declarative to interrogative in the same sentence, separating with a semicolon.

Reading this sentence I realise how poor my knowledge of correct use of punctuation is, I don't understand what you just said at all PJ.

How much are you guys in the US/Canada taught at school regarding correct use of English? Either there are lots of very intelligent and literate people in this thread, or you are taught much more about our language than English people.

I'm 31 now, but growing up in the UK everybody had English lessons until they were 16, but I can't remember being taught anything about correct use of the semicolon (I always thought semicolon was hypehnated). In fact, I can't remember being taught much about correct use of punctuation and grammar from around age 12 onwards. English lessons usually involved reading/writing poetry, or studying books like Of Mice and Men or Henry V.

Any plans for 09' ?

My all-time nit is the misuse and overuse of "arguably", especially "arguably one of the".

Oh ****, this ****ing tilts me beyond all redemption.

This one doesn't tilt me, but is still an interesting exercise in proper writing by American journalism standards, so I thought I would make it a quiz question.

I was taught this in high school and it was reinforced in Journalism 101 in college.

If you need to write a number in a sentence you are writing for a newspaper, should you write the number, or spell it out? Show your work.

If the number is less than one hundred, it should be written out; if it is one hundred or greater, it can be written numerically.

If the number begins a sentence, you're supposed to write it out, or re-phrase the sentence.

Neither of these are correct by my training but Turd is warmer (haw!).

I find this thread to be shallow and pedantic.

obv posting this to autosubscribe

Why don't you just say what the supposed rule is instead of making everyone play some ******ed guessing game?

It's not ******ed; it's fun, someone knows the answer and will not have to guess.

ddubois is right. Turd is off by a factor of ten.

Google (the verb) "define: arguably" for a really good definition.

Yeah, you know the answer. Just tell us.

For what it's worth, I am pretty sure that he's right about it starting a sentence being spelled out.

Your being a tool.

None of them is correct unless you are in the process of buying the gun. The way you typed it sounds like you are going to buy the gun in the future, so you should say "I'm going to buy a gun [...] D/did I tell you?"

Yes; ten or less, write it out. You can write the number if it's 11 or more.

The New York Times style guide does not agree with you.

"In general, spell out the first nine cardinal and ordinal numbers in ordinary copy. . . . Use figures for numbers above nine."