What Do You Look Like? (V12)

[STM]

It's not the way I write normally, and I'm all for taking on constructive criticism, I'm just pointing out that while it may not be a preferable way to use the comma, it was effectual and certainly not 'wrong'.

I know what I'm talking about here, writer or not because if you write about grammar being 'wrong' in an exam, you lose marks. The term 'wrong' or 'incorrect' no longer carry any weight in linguistic studies. Let me see if I can dig up something from one of my old AS text books.

E:

Right:

Christine A. Halt and Thomas N. Huckin:
One of the most frustrating things about using commas is that so many uses of them are "judgment calls." That is, depending on the meaning you want to convey, you might choose to use a comma, or you might choose not to. Consider, for example, the following sentence:
1. Jill jumped up and down when she heard the news.

Can you hear a slightly different shade of meaning in the following sentence?

2. Jill jumped up and down, when she heard the news.

And what about,

3. When she heard the news Jill jumped up and down.

Or,

4. When she heard the news, Jill jumped up and down.

The differences are in emphasis, created by the pauses that the commas force the reader to make. Grammatically, a comma is not necessary in the first pair of sentences, but is in the second. Some readers might even consider sentences 2 and 3 to break a rule.

I can find more if you like, I didn't even have to get any text books.

[Manco]

I know what I'm talking about here, writer or not because if you write about grammar being 'wrong' in an exam, you lose marks.

This sentence does not flow properly at all.

[STM]

Perhaps, I'm not trying to be scrupulous. Moreover you're ignoring the topic at hand now, no doubt because I've backed up my argument with a sufficient amount of evidence.

[OANST]

It's not the way I write normally, and I'm all for taking on constructive criticism, I'm just pointing out that while it may not be a preferable way to use the comma, it was effectual and certainly not 'wrong'.

Again, that's just not true. There are most certainly incorrect ways to use punctuation. Let me give you an example: Harry was a, joint account manager. See that? It's wrong.

[STM]

Unless you were writing discourse in which the person was thinking before they spoke:

John's eyes shifted to the left and he pondered for a moment, "Harry was a, joint account manager."

It's not wrong, it's non-standard.

[OddjobAbe]

That's what I used to tell my maths teacher!

[STM]

The thing with maths is there's generally a right or wrong answer. English is more namby-pamby and down to personal interpretation.

[OANST]

Unless you were writing discourse in which the person was thinking before they spoke:

John's eyes shifted to the left and he pondered for a moment, "Harry was a, joint account manager."

It's not wrong, it's non-standard.

That's what an ellipses is for.

[Manco]

Perhaps, I'm not trying to be scrupulous. Moreover you're ignoring the topic at hand now, no doubt because I've backed up my argument with a sufficient amount of evidence.

In the exact same text you quoted:

Grammatically, a comma is not necessary in the first pair of sentences, but is in the second.

[STM]

That's observant of you, but you've conveniently left out:

Some readers might even consider sentences 2 and 3 to break a rule.

It's all down to interpretation. There's no authoritarian body that denotes when the use of commas is right or wrong. If you and OANST have a problem with it, grow enough prominence amongst literary circles to declare yourselves head of some sort of Grammar Law Body and publish your new rules. It can be a fun little summer project for you guys.

[OANST]

Perhaps, I'm not trying to be scrupulous. Moreover you're ignoring the topic at hand now, no doubt because I've backed up my argument with a sufficient amount of evidence.

You have offered no evidence to back up your claim. Until you offer up evidence pertaining to the way you used the comma, which you haven't, then you have not offered sufficient evidence, or evidence of any kind.

[Manco]

That's observant of you, but you've conveniently left out:

It's all down to interpretation. There's no authoritarian body that denotes when the use of commas is right or wrong.

Grammatically, a comma is not necessary

In linguistics, grammar is the set of structural rules that govern the composition of clauses, phrases, and words in any given natural language.

Your book is contradicting itself.

[STM]

Eh, obviously you're not going to learn anything new today. You could do English pupils everywhere a huge favour though, go to the various examination boards such as OCR, Edexcel and AQA, and yell at them red faced that they're wrong to detract marks from exam papers that declare they've found grammar mistakes rather than instances of non-standardisation. I think there's an entire generation here that will find themselves at an enormous detriment if you don't do something.

[OddjobAbe]

The thing with maths is there's generally a right or wrong answer. English is more namby-pamby and down to personal interpretation.

No shit, but you have to write the way it is generally understood as acceptable, especially on something like a public message board. There may not be a solid right or wrong, but if it's quirky and "non-standard", it's wrong, depending on the context you wrote it in - as a message on a forum in this case.

I know what you're getting at, but if you take that theory to certain extremes, it's going to be incomprehensible, and if it's incomprehensible, it's wrong, because then why did you set out to write it in the first place?

[Manco]

Eh, obviously you're not going to learn anything new today. You could do English pupils everywhere a huge favour though, go to the various examination boards such as OCR, Edexcel and AQA, and yell at them red faced that they're wrong to detract marks from exam papers that declare they've found grammar mistakes rather than instances of non-standardisation. I think there's an entire generation here that will find themselves at an enormous detriment if you don't do something.

I think school children have a bigger problem with writing than just grammar.

On the other hand, have you considered that perhaps “non-standard” is in fact synonymous with “wrong and stupid”? Because the phrase reminds me of the popular phrase among bad artists – “it’s my style!”

[OANST]

Eh, obviously you're not going to learn anything new today. You could do English pupils everywhere a huge favour though, go to the various examination boards such as OCR, Edexcel and AQA, and yell at them red faced that they're wrong to detract marks from exam papers that declare they've found grammar mistakes rather than instances of non-standardisation. I think there's an entire generation here that will find themselves at an enormous detriment if you don't do something.

Unfortunately, you are misusing the English language, and being an absolute cunt about it. So here's a website that lists incorrect ways to use a comma. Learn something new today, you smarmy shit.

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/607/02/

In fact, your usage of it is so wrong that there are no examples of it being either right, or wrong anywhere on the internet. It's so far from what's considered acceptable that no one seemed to have realized that anyone would have been stupid enough to use it that way.

[STM]

Rather than being unnecessarily truculent, I might point out that this is the way I've been taught, this is what has been drilled into my head since I was 15, as far as I'm concerned it's this way or not at all. I'm being deathly serious here, if you have a problem with anything I've said, take it up with the examination boards that teach this. I'm done.

[OANST]

Rather than being unnecessarily truculent, I might point out that this is the way I've been taught, this is what has been drilled into my head since I was 15, as far as I'm concerned it's this way or not at all. I'm being deathly serious here, if you have a problem with anything I've said, take it up with the examination boards that teach this. I'm done.

What happened to your reams of proof that you used it correctly? Come on, man. Learn me something new! I is too dumb to figure it out on my own.

Let's be clear. No one taught you to use a comma like that. Anyone who did should be stripped of their license to teach.

[STM]

No, I mean, they taught us about non-standardisation, and that there isn't a 'wrong' way to use a comma. I still stand by the principal that you can put a comma anywhere in a sentence and I can justify it. There's no point in being any more forward about it because you're not going to believe me unless I physically send Stephen Fry to your door to explain it to you in person.

[Manco]

What happened to your reams of proof that you used it correctly? Come on, man. Learn me something new! I is too dumb to figure it out on my own.

Let's be clear. No one taught you to use a comma like that. Anyone who did should be stripped of their license to teach.

I think you mean “reems”, thank you very much.

No, I mean, they taught us about non-standardisation, and that there isn't a 'wrong' way to use a comma. I still stand by the principal that you can put a comma anywhere in a sentence and I can justify it. There's no point in being any more forward about it because you're not going to believe me unless I physically send Stephen Fry to your door to explain it to you in person.

Well I, can certainly see your point about commas. You can absolutely use, them, anywhere in a sentence. It really doesn’t, matter.

Here’s the simple version: as OANST’s links show, commas are used to break up sentences into chunks – clauses, list items, etc.

When writing dialogue, you can also make an argument that commas could be inserted to emulate the way a person’s speech flows (e.g. “well doc, I was, eh, y’know, diggin’ a hole”). That is the justification for your writing of “I simply pointed out that you, are not.”

The mistake being made here is that it isn’t dialogue. It’s a forum post, it reads as written text.

Your use of the comma breaks the sentence. If it was spoken aloud, the emphasis would be made by stressing the word “you”, as in “I simply pointed out that you are not!”; it would not be made by just adding a pause. And since you declined to add emphasis to your text and instead inserted a comma, it reads as an awkward pause in a single clause.

Thank, you and goodnight.

[STM]

I think you mean “reems”, thank you very much.



Well I, can certainly see your point about commas. You can absolutely use, them, anywhere in a sentence. It really doesn’t, matter.

Here’s the simple version: as OANST’s links show, commas are used to break up sentences into chunks – clauses, list items, etc.

When writing dialogue, you can also make an argument that commas could be inserted to emulate the way a person’s speech flows (e.g. “well doc, I was, eh, y’know, diggin’ a hole”). That is the justification for your writing of “I simply pointed out that you, are not.”

The mistake being made here is that it isn’t dialogue. It’s a forum post, it reads as written text.

Your use of the comma breaks the sentence. If it was spoken aloud, the emphasis would be made by stressing the word “you”, as in “I simply pointed out that you are not!”; it would not be made by just adding a pause. And since you declined to add emphasis to your text and instead inserted a comma, it reads as an awkward pause in a single clause.

Thank, you and goodnight.

Reems is a real word! It's just...a monster in the Bible...and not what I meant it to be.

Let's just agree to disagree, we're all right. There really are no winners, let's all take up the Olympic spirit. Bahahah.

All right, I'll admit that your argumentation here proves I didn't use the comma adequately, Hell I never denied I didn't use it well, or I don't think I did, but nevertheless it's not 'wrong', which is the only point I've been trying to make.

[Manco]

It is wrong. It’s wrong because you haven’t used it in the right context, as my previous post explains.

In the right context, a comma could probably be inserted somewhere abnormal (like speech). The problem is that setting up that context is difficult to pull off without it reading awkwardly – and if it reads awkwardly, that makes it wrong. This is the point.

[STM]

We should all just agree to adopt the stance on grammar accept before the Baroque/Renaissance eras, i.e. there wasn't one. Some texts had no grammar at all. Wouldn't that just be so much easier to read?

[Wings of Fire]

I reckon we should all write like Dr Seuss.

[OANST]

I reckon that this is going to be split off into it's own thread even though the conversation is effectively over. Which is what always happens.

[MeechMunchie]

We should all just agree to adopt the stance on grammar accept before the Baroque/Renaissance eras, i.e. there wasn't one. Some texts had no grammar at all. Wouldn't that just be so much easier to read?

No way, we'd all sound like johnnyk89.

Thank, you and goodnight.

Thanks, Manco and Goodnight!

[Jordan]

More than a page full of arguments that stemmed from a fucking comma. I'm literally in awe. I used to enjoy looking at people's faces in this thread.

[MA]

jesus wept post some fucking mugs

[Nate]

I reckon that this is going to be split off into it's own thread even though the conversation is effectively over. Which is what always happens.

No, I can't be fucked. No more grammar discussion, please!

Now let's all talk about the fact that Scrabtrapman used the word 'truculent' and no-one called him out on it.

[STM]

I thought someone might eventually. To which I had a reply already prepared. The need never arose however. Much to my upset.