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!

05-23-2011 , 01:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHFunkii
ʌ - as in "plus"
ə - as in "fur"
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
05-23-2011 , 02:02 PM
do those sound the same to you? say them out loud and try to isolate the vowel - if they sound the same to you then I dunno what to say
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
05-23-2011 , 02:59 PM
Every student paper I have ever graded has this mistake in it:

"Picasso once said, "turn it up to eleven".

Punctuation goes INSIDE the quotation mark, dammit. Almost ALWAYS.

Correct:

“Knowledge is power,” wrote Francis Bacon.

The only time it doesn't is when you use a semi-colon after someone has spoken - a rather rare occurrence:

The professor said, “Study hard”; then he dismissed us.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
05-23-2011 , 03:26 PM
I have a personal objection to that rule that I'm not sure is 'correct' or not, but is so much better in terms of clarity that I always do it. It usually comes up when I'm asking a question about a quoted statement, for example:

Why does Han Solo say, "Never tell me the odds"?

What's the correct way of punctuating that sentence?

edit: actually your second example is a good example - I understand that what you wrote is "correct", but it makes way more sense to me to put the comma on the outside, so that it becomes clear that his statement was a complete thought. One of the dumbest rules out there imo.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
05-23-2011 , 04:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHFunkii
One of the dumbest rules out there imo.
"I could jump on that bandwagon", I thought aloud while reading that post.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
05-23-2011 , 04:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHFunkii
I have a personal objection to that rule that I'm not sure is 'correct' or not, but is so much better in terms of clarity that I always do it. It usually comes up when I'm asking a question about a quoted statement, for example:

Why does Han Solo say, "Never tell me the odds"?

What's the correct way of punctuating that sentence?

edit: actually your second example is a good example - I understand that what you wrote is "correct", but it makes way more sense to me to put the comma on the outside, so that it becomes clear that his statement was a complete thought. One of the dumbest rules out there imo.
In your example, you correctly have the question mark outside the quotation marks because you--not Han--is the one asking a question. Compare with The boy raised his hand when the teacher asked "Does anyone know the answer?"
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
05-23-2011 , 05:22 PM
Dom, I'm pretty sure that the quotation marks/punctuation discussion already occurred earlier in this thread. The two styles are known as British and American styles. I, like NHFunkii, prefer the British style. Here's an excerpt from wikipedia:

Quote:
Punctuation
With regard to quotation marks adjacent to periods and commas, there are two styles of punctuation in widespread use. While these two styles are most commonly referred to as American and British (and some style sheets provide no other name), some American writers and organizations use the British style and vice versa. Both systems have the same rules regarding question marks, exclamation points, colons and semicolons. They differ on the treatment of periods and commas.
In the U.S., the standard style is called American style, typesetters’ rules, printers’ rules, typographical usage, or traditional punctuation, whereby commas and periods are almost always placed inside closing quotation marks.[8] This style of punctuation is common in the U.S. and Canada, and is mandated by the Chicago Manual of Style and other American style guides. The other standard style—called British style or logical punctuation[9]—is to include within quotation marks only those punctuation marks that appeared in the quoted material, but otherwise to place punctuation outside the closing quotation marks.[10] Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage provides a good example of the British-style rule: "All signs of punctuation used with words in quotation marks must be placed according to the sense."[11]
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
05-23-2011 , 06:20 PM
could non-native speakers please quit using "whilst" and "amongst" (at least in america)?
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
05-23-2011 , 06:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dominic
Every student paper I have ever graded has this mistake in it:

"Picasso once said, "turn it up to eleven".

Punctuation goes INSIDE the quotation mark, dammit. Almost ALWAYS.

Correct:

“Knowledge is power,” wrote Francis Bacon.

The only time it doesn't is when you use a semi-colon after someone has spoken - a rather rare occurrence:

The professor said, “Study hard”; then he dismissed us.
Not only is this post entirely American-centric (as already mentioned, British rules are different--more common sense, but requiring more judgement to apply--and Canadians follow either practice) but it is also wrong, even in terms of American rules. The colon as well as the semicolon goes outside quotation marks. (Neither occurrence strikes me as all that rare.)

And, as already pointed out, the question mark, and, I would add, the exclamation mark, go outside, unless part of the original quotation.

However (and ignoring his own problem with anomalous quotation marks in his first example), Dominic is quite right to say that his first example is wrong:

Picasso once said, "turn it up to eleven".

It is wrong following either British or American rules because "turn it up to eleven" is an independent clause, complete in itself, meaning that the comma should be placed inside the quotation marks.

Of course, as such, that sentence should probably read:

Picasso once said, "Turn it up to eleven."

But that opens up a larger issue, best ignored for now. ...
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
05-23-2011 , 06:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dominic
Every student paper I have ever graded has this mistake in it:

"Picasso once said, "turn it up to eleven".

Punctuation goes INSIDE the quotation mark, dammit. Almost ALWAYS.

Correct:

“Knowledge is power,” wrote Francis Bacon.

The only time it doesn't is when you use a semi-colon after someone has spoken - a rather rare occurrence:

The professor said, “Study hard”; then he dismissed us.
Punctuation rules are not my particular field of expertise, but I think that there is an extra quotation mark at the start of the first example. Is that what you are getting at? From the following arguments it seems like it's not, so I am not sure.

Secondly, if the rule is

Quote:
Punctuation goes INSIDE the quotation mark, dammit. Almost ALWAYS.

...

The only time it doesn't is when you use a semi-colon after someone has spoken
Shouldn't the comma after "The professor said" in the first example be inside the quotation marks? I think you were refering to the full stop at the end of the first example, but in the spirit of this thread I thought I had to point out that your explanation is not entirely consistent.


OT: This is still my favorite thread title in all of 2+2.

PS Any mistakes in this post can be attributed to my inferior command of the English language. As a foreigner I get the get-out-of-jail-free card on this one.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
05-25-2011 , 08:32 AM
Re punctuation coming inside the quotation marks: as others have noted, almost completely split between American and British treatments. But not completely split: some Americans choose the British method, viewing it as more logical. I have never encountered a Brit preferring the American approach.

Someone already quoted wikipedia to the effect that either way works. Correct, but there's more: wikipedia itself, which probably has more American than British editors, has a mild preference for the British way:
Quote:
On Wikipedia, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not. This practice is sometimes referred to as logical punctuation.
(Wikipedia Manual of Style, section 8.2.1)

(Note: I say it's a "mild" preference because the MoS goes on to state that using the rule does not reflect a preference with respect to punctuation, but rather the principle that they should make minimal changes to quoted material — but in fact using the method they do does constitute a choice, one they seem slightly to be ducking.)

I'm American, and I employ the British method in all writing.

Last edited by atakdog; 05-25-2011 at 08:40 AM.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
05-25-2011 , 08:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHFunkii
not sure if this is the place, but I guess this is the one place where I won't have to explain what I'm talking about. was having a brief argument in another forum cause someone posted that the words "rum" and "dumb" (m-w.com links) are pronounced ˈrəm and ˈdəm, respectively. I was certain that was wrong but was confused because I figured they must have copied and pasted it from somewhere, turns out they got it from m-w.com. Am I missing something here? I've been to a lot of parts of the country and never heard people pronounce these words this way (only "rʌm" and "dʌm"). The only thing I could think of was that it was some kind of british pronunciation, but I'm pretty sure M-W is supposed to have american pronunciations, and also the audio file on m-w.com pronounces them with a ʌ (again, unless I'm missing something). thoughts?
Seems odd to me — not only don't I say it with a schwa (my accent is primarily northern midwestern US, with bits and pieces from other parts of the country), I'm not sure I've heard anyone else do it either. In British English it's a rounder sound, and in Texas it would be more frontal but longer than a schwa. Maybe New England, but idk.


Edit to say: This is a pretty subtle distinction, and it could hinge on different, and perhaps changing, understanding of what the different sound symbols actually symbolize. In fact, it makes me wonder whether there has been a drift over the years in our understanding of what certain vowel symbols mean — because it's almost impossible for there not to have been such a change.

Last edited by atakdog; 05-25-2011 at 08:43 AM.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
05-25-2011 , 09:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by econophile
could non-native speakers please quit using "whilst" and "amongst" (at least in america)?
And afterwards, we could deal with "amidst."
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
05-25-2011 , 10:01 AM
Some of you guys might enjoy this. You can skim the initial sea of fragments and start reading at this line:

Quote:
Did you know that probing the seamy underbelly of U.S. lexicography reveals ideological strife and controversy and intrigue and nastiness and fervor on a nearly hanging-chad scale?
edit: Iirc, it's "nearly Lewinskian scale" in the original version.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
05-25-2011 , 10:21 AM
I remember reading that article for a writing class freshman year, in fact it's the only thing I remember from that class. my favorite part, which was pretty eye opening for me:

Quote:
I don't know whether anybody's told you this or not, but when you're in a college English class you're basically studying a foreign dialect. This dialect is called 'Standard Written English. ... From talking with you and reading your essays, I've concluded that your own primary dialect is [one of three variants of SBE (edit - standard black english) common to our region]. Now, let me spell something out in my official Teacher-voice: The SBE you're fluent in is different from SWE in all kinds of important ways. Some of these differences are grammatical — for example, double negatives are OK in Standard Black English but not in SWE, and SBE and SWE conjugate certain verbs in totally different ways. Other differences have more to do with style — for instance, Standard Written English tends to use a lot more subordinate clauses in the early parts of sentences, and it sets off most of these early subordinates with commas, and, under SWE rules, writing that doesn't do this is "choppy." There are tons of differences like that. How much of this stuff do you already know? [STANDARD RESPONSE: some variation on "I know from the grades and comments on my papers that English profs don't think I'm a good writer."]

Well, I've got good news and bad news. There are some otherwise smart English profs who aren't very aware that there are real dialects of English other than SWE, so when they're reading your papers they'll put, like, "Incorrect conjugation" or "Comma needed" instead of "SWE conjugates this verb differently" or "SWE calls for a comma here." That's the good news — it's not that you're a bad writer, it's that you haven't learned the special rules of the dialect they want you to write in. Maybe that's not such good news, that they were grading you down for mistakes in a foreign language you didn't even know was a foreign language. That they won't let you write in SBE. Maybe it seems unfair. If it does, you're not going to like this news: I'm not going to let you write in SBE either.

In my class, you have to learn and write in SWE. If you want to study your own dialect and its rules and history and how it's different from SWE, fine — there are some great books by scholars of Black English, and I'll help you find some and talk about them with you if you want. But that will be outside class. In class — in my English class — you will have to master and write in Standard Written English, which we might just as well call "Standard White English," because it was developed by white people and is used by white people, especially educated, powerful white people. [RESPONSES by this point vary too widely to standardize.]

I'm respecting you enough here to give you what I believe is the straight truth. In this country, SWE is perceived as the dialect of education and intelligence and power and prestige, and anybody of any race, ethnicity, religion, or gender who wants to succeed in American culture has got to be able to use SWE. This is How It Is. You can be glad about it or sad about it or deeply pissed off. You can believe it's racist and unjust and decide right here and now to spend every waking minute of your adult life arguing against it, and maybe you should, but I'll tell you something: If you ever want those arguments to get listened to and taken seriously, you're going to have to communicate them in SWE, because SWE is the dialect our country uses to talk to itself. African Americans who've become successful and important in U.S. culture know this; that's why King's and X's and Jackson's speeches are in SWE, and why Morrison's and Angelou's and Baldwin's and Wideman's and West's books are full of totally ass-kicking SWE, and why black judges and politicians and journalists and doctors and teachers communicate professionally in SWE. Some of these people grew up in homes and communities where SWE was the native dialect, and these black people had it much easier in school, but the ones who didn't grow up with SWE realized at some point that they had to learn it and become able to write in it, and so they did. And [INSERT NAME HERE], you're going to learn to use it, too, because I am going to make you.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
05-25-2011 , 10:36 AM
Someone should start a thread titled: Usage and Style nits unite together! Your head will most certainly literally explode apart.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
05-25-2011 , 11:29 AM
That's quite a well-written essay (though I take issue with a couple of his own constructions and usages). Too, the compilation of assorted malapropisms and other common linguistic travesties is quite fun, even if I have to admit I didn't read the entire list.

I've had to give a speech similar to the one quoted in 1965, to an LSAT class at a historically (and still) black college. It was slightly awkward, but there are ways to smooth such things.

The essay reminded me of a usage question I've wondered about: has got. The author, like some other educated writers and almost every uneducated one, uses the construction "has got" to mean "has" (and "have got" to mean "have"). I would pretty much rather have my eyes put out than be forced to say that someone "has got" something, but it crops up enough that I've come to wonder just how acceptable it is — and if, as seems to be the case, it's really quite acceptable, I wonder what charcterizes the subset of writers and speakers who eschew the construction. (Surely it's not just me...)

Accordingly: What say you, OOTian nits? The sentence "I have got a lot of work to do" is:
  • appalling
  • acceptable if informal
  • perfectly normal in all contexts
  • the only correct way to say it
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
05-25-2011 , 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by atakdog

Accordingly: What say you, OOTian nits? The sentence "I have got a lot of work to do" is:
[*]acceptable if informal
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
05-25-2011 , 11:58 AM
95% of the time I've ever seen (or heard) that construction it was apostrophic (e.g. "I've got a fish.")1, which, to me, sounds so much better. Maybe it's just an idiosyncrasy of my perception. Idk, without contraction, it's terrible (it sounds alien and I had to spend a few seconds parsing it), and with it, it's acceptable if informal (or if the writer can elegantly wield colloquial prose).

1 I guess one of the nice things about spoken English is that anyone prim enough to never contract anything is probably never ever ever using "have got" or "has got." (These are the same people who never drop the letter g and greet people by saying "good day, sir.")
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
05-25-2011 , 01:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by atakdog
Accordingly: What say you, OOTian nits? The sentence "I have got a lot of work to do" is:
  • appalling
  • acceptable if informal
  • perfectly normal in all contexts
  • the only correct way to say it
Does anyone ever use it that way? It seems to me that a contraction is used when saying it - "I've got a lot of work to do."
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
05-25-2011 , 02:21 PM
I think I've mentioned this once in this thread already, but I highly recommend Garner's A Dictionary of Modern American Usage (the book reviewed in the DFW essay posted above) for anyone that cares about writing. If you have a question about writing, chances are it's answered in ADMAU.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
05-25-2011 , 08:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Didace
Does anyone ever use it that way? It seems to me that a contraction is used when saying it - "I've got a lot of work to do."
I probably should have written it that way. Still, it's not always following a contraction: I think there's at least one 2p2 book in which I've been annoyed to find repeated uses of constructions along the lines of "... and what have you got?"

Actually, as I think more about it I realize there are two different usages of "have/has got" that I notice:
  1. "have got" in place of "got", as detailed above.
  2. "got" where I would say "gotten", as a present participle.
I think the latter is a US/Britain thing (Brits seem rarely or never to use gotten); I've always had the sense that the former is to some extent as well.

Edit: Found this:
Quote:
Here's what David Crystal says about The gotten/got distinction in
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language (p.311):

"Gotten is probably the most distinctive of all the AmE/BrE grammatical differences, but British people who try to use it often get it wrong. It is not simply an alternative for have got. Gotten is used in such contexts as
They've gotten a new boat. (= obtain)
They've gotten interested. (= become)
He's gotten off the chair. (= moved)
But it is not used in the sense of possession (= have). AmE does not allow
  • I've gotten the answer. or
  • I've gotten plenty.
but uses I've got as in informal BrE. The availability of gotten does however mean that AmE can make such distinctions as the following:
They've got to leave (they must leave) vs
They've gotten to leave (they've managed to leave)."
I'd add that Crystal's I've gotten the answer isn't starred if it means I have figured out the answer, rather than I have the answer.

The key is the overlap between the Possessive use of have and the Perfect use of have, plus the fact that one of the senses of get is come to have. If one has come to have a cold, for instance, then one has a cold, and the AmE usage of has got means that one is currently infested, due to the present relevance aspect of the Perfect. This is so common that kids regularly use got without have or even -'ve to mean have, and young kids even think it's the regular verb for possession, as witness such constructions as He gots new shoes.

Faced with the overwhelming interpretation of (ha)ve got as simply have, AmE has innovated a new past participle gotten to be used whenever other, non-possessive forms of get are intended.

If one is simply speaking of the acquisition of something, for instance, rather than the current possession, one says I've gotten ..... in AmE since I've got implies that one still has it, and therefore focusses on the current Possession rather than the Perfective acquisition. And all of the idiomatic uses of get, like the get-Passive of get married, the Inchoative become/come to be inherent in get tired, the Concessive of get to go that Crystal mentions, etc. use gotten as their participle. Whereas any construction, even an idiomatic one like have to (= must) where one can use have equally well, use got as the participle.

Last edited by atakdog; 05-25-2011 at 08:11 PM. Reason: tried to format quote as in original
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
05-25-2011 , 08:14 PM
Oh, that quote reminds me of the third use of "have got" that strikes me: "have got to" to mean "must".

Occasionally I find these "have got" constructions slipping into my own speech (though certainly never my writing), and I always want to hit myself when it happens. Maybe I ought to relax about it, but I don't intend to. Anyone here is hereby urged to slap me if he hears me utter the phrase in even the least formal context.
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
05-25-2011 , 08:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToTheInternet
95% of the time I've ever seen (or heard) that construction it was apostrophic (e.g. "I've got a fish.")1, which, to me, sounds so much better. Maybe it's just an idiosyncrasy of my perception. Idk, without contraction, it's terrible (it sounds alien and I had to spend a few seconds parsing it), and with it, it's acceptable if informal (or if the writer can elegantly wield colloquial prose).

1 I guess one of the nice things about spoken English is that anyone prim enough to never contract anything is probably never ever ever using "have got" or "has got." (These are the same people who never drop the letter g and greet people by saying "good day, sir.")
Never drop the g from what?
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote
05-25-2011 , 08:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by atakdog
Oh, that quote reminds me of the third use of "have got" that strikes me: "have got to" to mean "must".

Occasionally I find these "have got" constructions slipping into my own speech (though certainly never my writing), and I always want to hit myself when it happens. Maybe I ought to relax about it, but I don't intend to. Anyone here is hereby urged to slap me if he hears me utter the phrase in even the least formal context.
you've just gotta get over it
"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! Quote

      
m