Grammar and Punctuation Civil Disobedience 2

[KornGeek]

(Forgive my rambling. It's getting late, but I thought this might be fun.)

Are there any grammar or punctuation (or even spelling) rules that you know, but choose not to follow?

For me, a big one is the rule regarding punctuation and quotation marks at the end of a sentence. The rule states that the punctuation should go inside the quotation marks, but I usually put it outside.

The way I decide where the punctuation goes has to do with whether it was part of what I was quoting or not. For instance I will punctuate as follows:

She told me to "Use punctuation the right way."
and
She told me to use punctuation "the right way".

In the first instance, I'm quoting a sentence, so I include the punctuation. In the second instance, I'm quoting a fragment, so I put the punctuation outside the quotes.

Even though I've always been taught that the punctuation should go inside the quotes, I feel that it makes your intentions more clear doing it my way.

What rules do you deliberately disobey?

 

[guitarzan]

Dave,

if your pronunciation of a leading-"h" word involves a silent "h" (thus taking on the vowel sound), then "an" is the appropriate indefinite article.

I agree that "honor" should clearly be preceded with "an", since it starts with a silent "h", and the short "o" sound at the start of honor requires the "an".
But when the H ISN'T silent, as in "an historic whatever", its pretty convoluted:

http://www.grammartips.homestead.com/historical.html

If the second syllable is accented, then you can (optionally) use "an", as in "an historical".
But it also gets into whether the first syllable gets secondary stress ("an hotel" = bad) or tertiary stress ("an historic" = acceptable)

"A historic" is considered acceptable, so I'm not being much of a rebel here, but if the word starts with an H and that H ain't silent, I'm using AN!!!

 

[Stella740pl]

SantaMufasa,

I cannot agree that using qualifiers with "unique" makes the writing substandard in all cases. Sometimes, probably.
I think that, unless we are talking about a database key, a uniqueness may, in some cases, be qualified.

Let's see the Fredric Jameson's example: "The great modern writers have all been defined by the invention or production of rather unique styles." If you think about it, it is not the word "unique" qualified there, but the author's confidence/knowledge about the subject. Instead of asserting that "The great modern writers have all definitely invented or produced unique styles.", Fredric Jameson is saying a less confident phrase: "I wouldn't be 100% sure, as I cannot say that I read all the writers of all times to compare, but I believe that all great modern writers invented or produced styles that might be unique."
Does it make sense to you?

I don't know about "slightly unique", and even not sure about "very unique", but I can understand what "somewhat unique" means. It means that the subject discussed is "unique in some ways and not unique in others", rather than um... “absolutely unique”.

Also, I remember a thread, or, possibly, a link, that I don't seem to find now. I will try to state it myself.
If you are talking about a collector's item, and there are only a few dozen of them in the world, you would probably call it "very rare", or, possibly, "exceptionally rare". But if there are only 2 or 3 of them in the world, I would say, we can call it "nearly unique", or "almost unique", as "exceptionally rare" just doesn't cut it anymore. In this case, the only item in the world would make it into "absolutely unique" category, to emphasize on the fact that it is really unique. (Like, say, not just a unique key across your database, but an "absolutely unique" key among all the databases in the world, if that would be possible. :-D Pardon my example, please.)

 

[SantaMufasa]

Guitarzan,

I agree that the link presents an unnecessarily convoluted concoction of "rules" (involving which syllable has primary, secondary, and tertiary stress)...Geez, reading that link created Primary Stress for me! The primary and secondary authors of the content on that page appear to be self-proclaimed experts on the topic at hand.

English is already the least consistent, and one of the most difficult, languages on earth without adding unnecessarily to the pile of crud through which learners must plow.

Most "Theologians of English" will agree that "A" versus "An" when preceding an "H" is subject to your personal choice of pronunciation of the "H"-word in question (regardles of stress or number of syllables). Here are some examples (with pronunciation options, as I see them, instead of article-spelling options:

"ai" is the pronunciation of a long "a";
"uh" is the conventional-American, typically sub-standard pronunciation for the indefinite article, "a"; and
"uhn <'H'-word sans the 'H'"> or alternately
"an <'H'-word sans the 'H'">: either are typical pronunciations of words beginning with 'H', but with a silent or "very soft" H
:

1. Receiving the Academy Award was "ai onor".
2. Receiving the Academy Award was "uh onor".
3. Receiving the Academy Award was "uh-nonor" (or "an-onor").
(Option 3 is universally typical.)

1. Let's go get "ai hamburger".
2. Let's go get "uh hamburger".
3. Let's go get "uh-namburger" (or "an-amburger").
(Options 2 or 3 are typical in the U.S.)

1. This is "ai historic" occasion.
2. This is "uh historic" occasion.
3. This is "uh-nistoric" (or "an-istoric") occasion.
(We hear Options 1, 2, and 3 in the U.S., and all are acceptable.)

So, IMHO, "a" or "an" in front of an "H" word depends upon one's pronunciation, and one can justify the "a" or the "an" as a result of an acceptable pronunciation.

It has been an honor sharing these thoughts with you.<grin>


Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]

 

[philhege]

Thank you, Dave.

And please accept my most funereal mea culpa for misspelling both my high school AP English teacher's last name (it's Kavanaugh) and the name of the curmudgeon grammarian, Mr. James Kilpatrick.

One of these days, I'm going to send the "different than" gripe to his Court of Peeves, Crotchets & Irks. It'd be interesting to hear his ruling. ;^)

Phil Hegedusich
Senior Programmer/Analyst
IIMAK

http://www.iimak.com

-----------
I'll have the roast duck with the mango salsa.

 

[Welshbird]

Hi Santa - Hmm slightly unique.

I agree, an odd concept.

I may hae to try and invent an explanation ('an', a'? Na.. AN EXPLANATION!)

This thread is slightly unique, in that it seems none of us has found it even slightly offensive yet! ha... but in all other respects it is much like many other threads.

So it has some uniqueness, and other attributes which are not so unique..

(I'm tying myself in knots here as I agree that the concepts of uniqueness is that it is unique. But somehow slightly unique doesn't sound wrong in the way that very unique does.... Maybe I should go and fight with my date formates in SQLLDR for a while, and come back and post when I have more time and a spare bit of brain that isn't grumbling at my data!)

x





Fee

The question should be [red]Is it worth trying to do?[/red] not [blue] Can it be done?[/blue]

 

[CajunCenturion]

==&gt; But somehow slightly unique doesn't sound wrong in the way that very unique does
I think there is an explanation[blue][sup]1[/sup][/blue] for that. When you look at descriptive attributes, they generally sit on a scale, and qualifiers move you along that scale. A key factor is the initial position on the scale. Intensifiers, such as 'very' and 'slightly' indicate the amount and direction of movement along the scale.

In this case 'slightly' takes away from the attribute.
[tt]
|-------------------- Happy --------------------|
&lt;-- slightly very --&gt;
[/tt]
That's works fine when the attribute in question has an initial position somewhere in the middle. But an attribute may start on one extreme. In this case, 'slightly' indicates a positive movement, but less movement than 'very'.
[tt]
|Colorful --------------------------------------|
slightly --&gt; very --&gt;
[/tt]
But what about the other extreme? Perhaps, unique has an initial position on the far end of the scale which is why 'slightly' is ok, but 'very' is not. Since the initial position is on the far end of the scale, qualification can only move in one direction.
[tt]
|--------------------------------------- Unique|
&lt;-- slightly
[/tt]

[blue][sup]1[/sup][/blue] - I say explanation because although I think that explains that feeling, it's not one I share. I think it's rational, understandable, and defensible; but it based on the assertion that the given attribute is relative in nature. Happiness is relative; there are degrees of happiness. Colorful is relative; you can have no color or lots of color. These kinds of attributes are subjective and relative, both in degree and perceived starting position.

On the other hand, some may feel certain attributes are absolute and objective and put uniqueness in that category; you're either unique, or you're not. You're either pregnant or you're not. In cases of absolute attributes, intensifiers should not be used.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[Welshbird]

I can see that point of view CC.

I'm not sure I completely agree though:

Whilst you are either pregnant or you are not, initially you are slightly pregnant, and later you are hugely pregnant. the amount doesn't take away from the fact that this is how it is!

I guess that as one attribute could be unique, but others not, the thing in question could be unique in some areas and not others, hence being 'slightly unique', as most characteristics are fairly usual.



Fee

The question should be [red]Is it worth trying to do?[/red] not [blue] Can it be done?[/blue]

 

[CajunCenturion]

==&gt; Whilst you are either pregnant or you are not, initially you are slightly pregnant, and later you are hugely pregnant. the amount doesn't take away from the fact that this is how it is!
Exactly. You are or you're not, and the amount doesn't take away from that fact. Yet that's exactly what the phrase 'slightly pregnant' or 'hugely pregant' attempts to do and that's the heart of the grammatical issue. Based on sentence structure, the adverbs 'slightly' and 'hugely' modify pregnant, and either you are or you aren't.

What does change over the term are the effects of pregnancy, and those adverbs are meant to apply to the effects, but the effect doesn't appear within the sentence, hence, you have the adverbs, but not the objects to which they apply.

You're not slighly pregnant, you're slightly effected by the pregnancy. (You could be affected too, but that's a different issue )
You're not hugely pregnant, you're hugely effected by the pregnancy, and your significant other is hugely affected.

That being said, we all know what is meant by the phrases.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[SBerthold]

Concerning the OP (I haven't yet read all 87 previous postings):

She told me to "Use punctuation the right way."
I do not remember seeing it done like that (not the period, but the complete sentence).

But I have seen it like this:
She told me to use punctuation the right way.
with out a quote.

And also like this:
She told me, "Use punctuation the right way."
using a commä and dropping the "to".

Is the first wäy really also correct?

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> Is the first wäy really also correct?
Yes, if you're not quoting her. If you are quoting her, then what she said should be in quotes.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[drlex]

Would somebody kindly recall (or look up) the correct term for the singular/plural treatment of a noun based on its context?

The Cabinet are divided by the first issue, but is united on the second.

Currently unable to reach Wiki and/or Fowlers and it's beginning to irk me.
many thanks,
lex

soi la, soi carré

 

[CajunCenturion]

drlex - May I suggest that you start a new thread to deal with the treatment of collective nouns. It's worthy of its own thread.

Thanks.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[philhege]

drlex,

It's the ol' collective noun conundrum. The term you're looking for is agreement, IIRC.

Phil Hegedusich
Senior Programmer/Analyst
IIMAK

http://www.iimak.com

-----------
I'll have the roast duck with the mango salsa.

 

[drlex]

Phil,
Thanks - tip o'the hat to you.
CC,
Sorry - thought the query could hang off the reference to the noun duality a few posts up and hence not worthy of a new thread.

soi la, soi carré

 

[MeGustaXL]

im terrible when it comes to punctuation never putting in commas full stops or anything i even shun the use of capital letters at the start of sentences if im making a list you can bet therell be no way to distiguish between the first second third etcetera items in the list and if i happen to make a quote like she said use punctuation the right way then its a sure bet that i dont follow the rules at all ever as for starting a new paragraph on the next line well thats for people with enogh spare time to press the return key at the end of each paragraph i simply havent got the time or inclination to follow any such so called rules what does the team think

Chris

If yer see a Rook on 'is own, im's a Crow. If yer sees a flock o' Crows, them's Rooks - My Uncle Cecil

 

[MeGustaXL]

if my memory serves didnt somebody write a whole book like that you know without punctuation of any kind back in the day when people had time to read and such

Chris

If yer see a Rook on 'is own, im's a Crow. If yer sees a flock o' Crows, them's Rooks - My Uncle Cecil

 

[MeGustaXL]

hey i just reread my last two posts out loud and it totally sounds like a valley girl except with a deep voice because im not a girl let alone from the valley but you know what i mean its just a you know totally cool way of expressing yourself

Chris

If yer see a Rook on 'is own, im's a Crow. If yer sees a flock o' Crows, them's Rooks - My Uncle Cecil

 

[SilentAiche]

MeGustaXL,

Your paragraph without punctuation reminded me of something that happened years ago (pre-MS Office) when a co-worker sent our secretary a 30-page prosecution report to "clean up."

She opened the file and created a cover sheet, page numbers, table of contents, etc. At some point she noticed a consistent misspelling and decided to use Global Replace. It didn't go well.

By hitting Enter too soon, she managed to delete every "single space" in the document. Yep - all the words ran together. Difficult to read, but much shorter.

Thank goodness for the previous day's system backup!

Tim

[purple]__________________________________
[small] "Attention to health is life's greatest hindrance." - Plato

"Plato was a bore." - Friedrich Nietzsche

"Nietzsche was stupid and abnormal." -Leo Tolstoy [/small][/Purple]

 

[flapeyre]

We had an in-office contest, and a list of the winners was distributed by e-mail in the form of a Word document. However, the author inadvertently ran spell check over the whole thing, including the names, with verification turned off. The results were hilarious.

Feles mala! Cur cista non uteris? Stramentum novum in ea posui!

 

[Welshbird]

I've just received some data from another group company, and I've found that of the 1.3 million rows, the 'unique key' is duplicated in 29,000 cases.

Does this constitute 'not very unique' or just 'slightly unique' or just carp do you think?

Doncha just love Mondays?

Fee

The question should be [red]Is it worth trying to do?[/red] not [blue] Can it be done?[/blue]