# The Importance of Correct Punctuation



## reveal (Jun 24, 2005)

I stumbled across this today. Classic!   



> The best famous example of the necessity of the serial comma was in a dedication to a book:
> 
> *This book is dedicated to my parents, Ayn Rand and God.*
> 
> Now there's a kid with an attitude!


----------



## JimAde (Jun 24, 2005)

I've always been one who said you don't need that last comma (after all you say "Peanut Butter and Jelly" but not "Peanut Butter, and Jelly").

But I think you just made a convert.


----------



## der_kluge (Jun 24, 2005)

Isn't that technically correct?

If I said:

"I dedicate this book to my friends joe, bob and bill" wouldn't that be the same thing?

I mean, it would be indicating Ayn Rand and God were his parents if he had written something like "I dedicate this book to my parents - Ayn Rand and God"

How should it read?


----------



## reveal (Jun 24, 2005)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> Isn't that technically correct?
> 
> If I said:
> 
> ...




It should read "I dedicate this book to my parents, Ayn Rand, and God"

By omitting the comma before the "and," it reads that Ayn Rand and God are the writers parents.


----------



## reveal (Jun 24, 2005)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> Isn't that technically correct?
> 
> If I said:
> 
> ...




_Technically_, however, it _is _correct.

From the Gregg Reference Manual, 9th ed:



> When three or more items are listed in a series and the last items is preceded by _and_, _or_, or _nor_, place a comma before the conjunction as well as between the other items.






> *Note:* Some writers prefer to omit the comma before _and_, _or _, or _nor_ in a series, but the customary practice in business is to retain the comma before the conjunction.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Jun 24, 2005)

Drow name their children to punish the wrongs of their ancient enemy, the apostrophe.


----------



## reveal (Jun 24, 2005)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> Drow name their children to punish the wrongs of their ancient enemy, the apostrophe.


----------



## JimAde (Jun 24, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> _Technically_, however, it _is _correct.




Exactly.  I actually do it this way on the premise that when you have just two items in a list like "ham and eggs" you don't use a comma, so you should omit it in a longer list as well.

But Reveal's example gives me a reason to reconsider.  My way is certainly correct, but I'd never want to give the impression that Ayn Rand and God were my parents.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Jun 24, 2005)

JimAde said:
			
		

> I'd never want to give the impression that Ayn Rand and God were my parents.




Yeah.  Talk about being hard to shop for on Christmas .....


----------



## Tanager (Jun 24, 2005)

_Eats, Shoots and Leaves_ has an interesting chapter about commas that discusses the use of the Oxford comma. IIRC, ultimately, you can go either way as far as punctuating the original quote.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jun 24, 2005)

Hehehehehahahahaha!


----------



## Zander (Jun 26, 2005)

Speaking of the importance of correct punctuation, a recent poster on the London Underground (subway system) stated that if you see a suspicious bag (i.e. one that might contain a bomb) "Don't touch, ask other passengers if it belongs to them, tell a member of staff or inform the police."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 26, 2005)

And besides, touching a suspicious bag on the London Underground could get you jail time for some kind of sex crime.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jun 26, 2005)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> Isn't that technically correct?
> 
> If I said:
> 
> "I dedicate this book to my friends joe, bob and bill" wouldn't that be the same thing?



Technically it is correct, but you have to remember that the point of grammar and punctuation is to make things as clear as possible.

Change your example to, "I dedicate this book to my friends, Bob and Bill."  One reads that and gets the impression that Bob and Bill are friends of the author.  If you write it, "I dedicate this book to my friends, Bob, and Bill." then you get the impression that Bob and Bill are not included in 'friends.'  The first way is ambiguous, the second is much less so.  So while the first is 'correct' the second could be described as 'more correct' or 'better'.

Writing isn't just about correct grammar, it's also about lucidity and style.


----------



## Arbiter of Wyrms (Jun 26, 2005)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> Technically it is correct, but you have to remember that the point of grammar and punctuation is to make things as clear as possible.
> 
> Change your example to, "I dedicate this book to my friends, Bob and Bill."  One reads that and gets the impression that Bob and Bill are friends of the author.  If you write it, "I dedicate this book to my friends, Bob, and Bill." then you get the impression that Bob and Bill are not included in 'friends.'  The first way is ambiguous, the second is much less so.  So while the first is 'correct' the second could be described as 'more correct' or 'better'.
> 
> Writing isn't just about correct grammar, it's also about lucidity and style.



Exactly.  But people forget that clarity and style are, in the end, more important that convention.  It's a good thing they are, though, because almost no one follows grammatical convention all of the time, but there are some wirtiers who manage to be clear and sytlish all the same.

Your example, Jdvn1, "I dedicate this book to my friends, Bob and Bill," could be read either one of two ways: 1) The author has only two friends.  Their names are Bob and Bill.  He or she intends to dedicate this book to them.  This is called an appositive.  It is a restatement of the noun phrase for the sake of clarity.
2) The author wishes to dedicate the work to his or her friends, who shall remain unnamed, but also wishes to simultaneously dedicate the work to Bob and Bill, who are definately not his or her friends.  This is a serial list in which the author has unwisely opted to omit the optional, final comma.

The fact of the matter is that the final comma in a list is optional, but each author should try to be as consistent as possible.  This thread is the best argument I've seen for including the comma between the last two items in any list of more than two items.


----------



## Dakkareth (Jun 27, 2005)

In German there's no second comma in enumerations like 'Äpfel, Birnen und Orangen'. It doesn't confuse us either.


----------



## mojo1701 (Jun 27, 2005)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> Change your example to, "I dedicate this book to my friends, Bob and Bill."  One reads that and gets the impression that Bob and Bill are friends of the author.  If you write it, "I dedicate this book to my friends, Bob, and Bill." then you get the impression that Bob and Bill are not included in 'friends.'  The first way is ambiguous, the second is much less so.  So while the first is 'correct' the second could be described as 'more correct' or 'better'.
> 
> Writing isn't just about correct grammar, it's also about lucidity and style.




Then why not just say, "I dedicate this book to my friends: Bob and Bill," for the former example?


----------



## Mystery Man (Jun 27, 2005)




----------



## reveal (Jun 27, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> Then why not just say, "I dedicate this book to my friends: Bob and Bill," for the former example?




Since that is gramatically correct, then you could use it. The point, however, is the usage of the comma.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jun 27, 2005)

Arbiter of Wyrms said:
			
		

> Exactly.  But people forget that clarity and style are, in the end, more important that convention.  It's a good thing they are, though, because almost no one follows grammatical convention all of the time, but there are some wirtiers who manage to be clear and sytlish all the same.
> 
> You're example, Jdvn1, "I dedicate this book to my friends, Bob and Bill," could be read either one of two ways: 1) The author has only two friends.  Their names are Bob and Bill.  He or she intends to dedicate this book to them.  This is called an appositive.  It is a restatement of the noun phrase for the sake of clarity.
> 2) The author wishes to dedicate the work to his or her friends, who shall remain unnamed, but also wishes to simultaneously dedicate the work to Bob and Bill, who are definately not his or her friends.  This is a serial list in which the author has unwisely opted to omit the optional, final comma.



True.  That occured to me after I sent my post, but didn't know if it mattered.  The lack of the comma still makes the sentence ambiguous and including it is still better.  I did, however, want to be snarky right here and point out that it should be, "*Your *example, Jdvn1..."   I only mention that because it's this thread.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jun 27, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> Then why not just say, "I dedicate this book to my friends: Bob and Bill," for the former example?



There are multiple ways to write a sentence and have it mean the same thing.  The only point is that the author chose an unclear way.  Also, I think the dash is better than the colon, but maybe that's just a personal preference.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 27, 2005)

I remember making a post about this very subject a year or two ago -- let's see if I can find it.  Ah, the search feature!

Here it is.  Note that the context of this post was immediately after someone used the famous Ayn Rand & God example:



> Ah, the Oxford Comma. Interestingly, it was "invented" by the Oxford University Press, and thus is, historically, distinctly English, not American. It was introduced as the "house style" of the OEP. These days, it is the "house style" of the Harvard University Press, which explains its popularity in America, unlike in the UK where it has fallen out of favour.
> 
> Apparently (and I have no way of confirming this), it is common practice in American newspapers to omit the comma.
> 
> ...


----------



## Umbran (Jun 27, 2005)

Arbiter of Wyrms said:
			
		

> The fact of the matter is that the final comma in a list is optional, but each author should try to be as consistent as possible.




Yes, but with what should they be consistent? 

Note that this appeared in the dedication, which typically comes right in the front of the book.    It takes a bit of effort to be inconsistent when all you have so far is one sentence!


----------



## reveal (Jun 27, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Yes, but with what should they be consistent?
> 
> Note that this appeared in the dedication, which typically comes right in the front of the book.    It takes a bit of effort to be inconsistent when all you have so far is one sentence!




A way a writer presents information in one context is usually indicative of how he/she presents information in other contexts. This dedication, while simply a short sentence and not part of the actual story, denotes that the author chooses to omit the comma prior to the conjunction. It would not be surprising if the author did this throughout the rest of the book.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jun 28, 2005)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

>





Next time, decaf!


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jun 28, 2005)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> Next time, decaf!



Or some mead.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jun 28, 2005)

Frukathka said:
			
		

> Or some mead.




Or quit putting Stackers into the dwarven beer.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jun 28, 2005)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> Or quit putting Stackers into the dwarven beer.



hmmm......maybe some saltines?


----------



## Hijinks (Jun 28, 2005)

So here's my question:  is it now ok to use the semicolon followed by a "however" ?  As in the following sentence:

I used to be quite good at grammar; however, it's been a while.

In college, I learned never to do this; the semicolon is meant to separate two complete sentences, and if you're using "however," then you're already separating the sentences and it should be a comma.  The last I knew, Strunk & White was still saying ; + "however" was a no-no.  I keep seeing it everywhere, though.  One example is the author John Sanford; he does it quite a bit.  My best friend is also currently taking paralegal courses, and they encourage it.  Is it common usage now?


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jun 28, 2005)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> So here's my question:  is it now ok to use the semicolon followed by a "however" ?  As in the following sentence:
> 
> I used to be quite good at grammar; however, it's been a while.



Well, of course. It only makes sense.


----------



## reveal (Jun 28, 2005)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> So here's my question:  is it now ok to use the semicolon followed by a "however" ?  As in the following sentence:
> 
> I used to be quite good at grammar; however, it's been a while.
> 
> In college, I learned never to do this; the semicolon is meant to separate two complete sentences, and if you're using "however," then you're already separating the sentences and it should be a comma.  The last I knew, Strunk & White was still saying ; + "however" was a no-no.  I keep seeing it everywhere, though.  One example is the author John Sanford; he does it quite a bit.  My best friend is also currently taking paralegal courses, and they encourage it.  Is it common usage now?




What you learned is still correct; you only use semicolons to separate two complete sentences that are related. If you use the word however, however, you do not use the semicolon.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jun 28, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> What you learned is still correct; you only use semicolons to separate two complete sentences that are related. If you use the word however, however, you do not use the semicolon.



Exactly.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 28, 2005)

It was always my understanding that the comma was dropped in print materal (especially newspapers) to use less ink/space.


----------



## Abstraction (Jun 28, 2005)

Pet peeves:

And this is not the way to start a sentence.
Parentheses should be the option of last resort (and not used at every opportunity)!
By the way, if you must use parentheses, know how they interact with punctuation! (please.)
I make an exception for online, but in print please know the difference between inch marks, foot marks, apostrophes and quote marks.
There is only a single space after a period. I don't care what you like. *There is only a single space after a period!* If you learn nothing else, *THERE IS ONLY A SINGLE ING SPACE AFTER A ING PERIOD.* Please don't make me explain the long history behind this.
There, their, they're. If you don't know the difference, chop your fingers off then pluck your eyes.
Irregardless is not a word. Stop using it. You sound like an idiot.
The phrase is "for all intents and purposes." If you say/type "for all intensive purposes," just stick to shorter words. They're more your style.
You may type "it's" as a contraction for "it is", or you may type "its" which is the possessive of "it". There is no "its'". The apostrophe would be redundant in that case.

Okay, calming down now.


----------



## Goblyn (Jun 28, 2005)

I think the dedication sentence is confusing not because of the commas or lack thereof, but the fact that 'parents' and 'Ayn Rand and God' are different types of words. 'Parents' is referential; I don't know the name of this type of word, but it is not a proper noun as 'Ayn Rand' and 'God' are.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jun 28, 2005)

Abstraction said:
			
		

> There is only a single space after a period. I don't care what you like. *There is only a single space after a period!* If you learn nothing else, *THERE IS ONLY A SINGLE ING SPACE AFTER A ING PERIOD.* Please don't make me explain the long history behind this.



Actually, I didn't know this. I was taught otherwise because it was apparently convention to use two. Apparently the rule is to use two when typing on a typewriter and one when using a word processor, or otherwise on a computer. I was apparently taught the old way, so I have to make a concentrated effort to get used to this.


> With a typewriter, you sometimes use one space or two spaces following punctuation. With a computer, use only one space following periods, commas, semicolons, colons, exclamation points, question marks, and quotation marks. With a computer, the space needed after these punctuation marks is proportioned automatically.


----------



## Lady_Acoma (Jun 28, 2005)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> Actually, I didn't know this. I was taught otherwise because it was apparently convention to use two. Apparently the rule is to use two when typing on a typewriter and one when using a word processor, or otherwise on a computer. I was apparently taught the old way, so I have to make a concentrated effort to get used to this.



I was also taught the old way. In my day to day online chat or message board posts I do only use one.  But I believe I use two in formal documents.  Wow, I suddenly feel old and crotchety.


----------



## Abstraction (Jun 28, 2005)

Yes, using two spaces after a period is a something that died out thirty years ago as a necessity. Yet it is still being taught by typing teachers to this day.

Don't even get me started on kerning...


----------



## Dingleberry (Jun 28, 2005)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> My best friend is also currently taking paralegal courses, and they encourage it.



I would hope that the focus of paralegal training is "making it clear and understandable" as opposed to "follow strict rules of grammar and punctuation."  I draft contracts for a living, and I break the "rules" of English all the time to make things more understandable - serial commas, semicolons, punctuation in/out of quotation marks, whatever.


----------



## reveal (Jun 28, 2005)

Dingleberry said:
			
		

> I would hope that the focus of paralegal training is "making it clear and understandable" as opposed to "follow strict rules of grammar and punctuation."  I draft contracts for a living, and I break the "rules" of English all the time to make things more understandable - serial commas, semicolons, punctuation in/out of quotation marks, whatever.




If you use grammar and punctuation properly, the document should be clear and understandable; that's what proper usage allows for. The problem I find is that some people _don't_ use grammar and punctuation properly and, therefore, their written material becomes difficult to read.

Also, because you write contracts, you know that punctuation is still important. For example, my wife works for a large food company and sat in on a class for the salespeople. The instructor brought up an example of how proper grammar in a contract could make or break it. A person had written a contract in which some items, I don't remember the specifics, were to be split evenly amongst three people. The contract read to the effect of "The items will be split amongst Bob, Tom and Jim." The people supplying the items gave 50% to Bob; Tom and Jim were to split the other 50%. It went to court and the judge ruled in the suppliers favor. The judge said that the missing serial comma made it look like Bob should receive 50%, while Tom and Jim should receive the other 50%. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the ruling, I'm just pointing out that proper grammar should still be taken into consideration on all written documents.


----------



## Queen_Dopplepopolis (Jun 28, 2005)

Lady_Acoma said:
			
		

> I was also taught the old way. In my day to day online chat or message board posts I do only use one.  But I believe I use two in formal documents.  Wow, I suddenly feel old and crotchety.



 My high school grammar teacher would not let us slide if we did not have two spaces after each period.  Now in college, I have many professors that demand two spaces after each period.  

I wrote two major papers last semster, and each of my profs specifically noted on their grading sheet that two spaces are required after a period.

*shrugs*  It's one of those things that sits in the intersection of Wrong and Right on the Venn Diagram of grammar.


----------



## reveal (Jun 28, 2005)

Queen_Dopplepopolis said:
			
		

> My high school grammar teacher would not let us slide if we did not have two spaces after each period.  Now in college, I have many professors that demand two spaces after each period.
> 
> I wrote two major papers last semster, and each of my profs specifically noted on their grading sheet that two spaces are required after a period.
> 
> *shrugs*  It's one of those things that sits in the intersection of Wrong and Right on the Venn Diagram of grammar.




Using one or two spaces after the period is a matter of preference, as is the use of the serial comma; to say it's _wrong_ is a matter of opinion.

As before, I point to the _Gregg Reference Manual_, Ninth Edition:



> As a general rule, use one space after the period at the end of a sentence, but switch to two spaces whenever you feel a stronger visual break between sentences is needed. In all cases, the deciding factor should be the appearance of the breaks between sentences in a given document.


----------



## Queen_Dopplepopolis (Jun 28, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> Using one or two spaces after the period is a matter of preference, as is the use of the serial comma; to say it's _wrong_ is a matter of opinion.
> 
> As before, I point to the _Gregg Reference Manual_, Ninth Edition:



 It would be fun to take a grammar class on the college level.  Okay, maybe it wouldn't be _fun_, but it would be interesting.


----------



## reveal (Jun 28, 2005)

Queen_Dopplepopolis said:
			
		

> It would be fun to take a grammar class on the college level.  Okay, maybe it wouldn't be _fun_, but it would be interesting.




DUDE! THE WAY YOU USE A SEMICOLON BEFORE A SERIAL COMMA ROCKS!

That's probably how it would go in a college level grammar class.


----------



## Dingleberry (Jun 28, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> If you use grammar and punctuation properly, the document should be clear and understandable; that's what proper usage allows for.



The problem is that what constitutes "clear and understandable" in a legal document is not necessarily the same as it may be in other writings.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jun 28, 2005)

Queen_Dopplepopolis said:
			
		

> My high school grammar teacher would not let us slide if we did not have two spaces after each period.  Now in college, I have many professors that demand two spaces after each period.
> 
> I wrote two major papers last semster, and each of my profs specifically noted on their grading sheet that two spaces are required after a period.



Yes, I've had very similar experiences.  I don't think it's died out, yet, if so many professors require it.


----------



## diaglo (Jun 28, 2005)

you need to read  This Book


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 28, 2005)

Abstraction said:
			
		

> There is only a single space after a period. I don't care what you like. *There is only a single space after a period!* If you learn nothing else, *THERE IS ONLY A SINGLE ING SPACE AFTER A ING PERIOD.*



According to what authority?  All the style guides I've seen say that convention is to use two spaces, and although not necessary, it is at least as correct as using one space.


----------



## reveal (Jun 28, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> According to what authority?  All the style guides I've seen say that convention is to use two spaces, and although not necessary, it is at least as correct as using one space.




I've read a few books that state you must use a single space because of proportional fonts in word processors. I had a friend who was adamant that there was one space and he would not hesitate to tell people they were wrong. As I've stated before, it's a matter of opinion and not fact.

And if people are that angry about the spacing after a period, they really need to find a better hobby. 

And yes, you can start sentences with coordinating conjuctions, it's just preferred that you don't so you don't write sentence fragments. That, too, is a matter of opinion and not grammatical fact.


----------



## reveal (Jun 28, 2005)

Rules for Clear Writing

# Verbs has to agree with their subjects.
# Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.
# And don't start a sentence with a conjunction.
# It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.
# Avoid cliches like the plague. (They're old hat.)
# Also, always avoid annoying alliteration.
# Be more or less specific.
# Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.
# Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies.
# No sentence fragments.

# Contractions aren't necessary and shouldn't be used.
# Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.
# Do not be redundant; do not use more words than necessary; it's highly superfluous.
# One should never generalize.
# Comparisons are as bad as cliches.
# Don't use no double negatives.
# Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.
# One-word sentences? Eliminate.
# Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.
# The passive voice is to be ignored.
# Eliminate commas, that are, not necessary. Parenthetical words however should be enclosed in commas.
# Never use a big word when a diminutive one would suffice.
# Do not use multiple exclamation points NOR all caps for emphasis!!!
# Use words correctly, irregardless of how others use them.
# Understatement is always the absolute best way to put forth earth shaking ideas.
# Use the apostrophe in it's proper place and omit it when its not needed.
# Eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know."
# If you've heard it once, you've heard it a thousand times: Resist hyperbole; not one writer in a million can use it correctly.
# Puns are for children, not groan readers.
# Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.
# Even if a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.
# Who needs rhetorical questions?
# Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.
# The passive voice should never be used.
# Do not put statements in the negative form.
# A writer must not shift your point of view.
# Place pronouns as close as possible, especially in long sentences of 10 or more words, to their antecedents.
# Writing carefully, dangling participles must be avoided.
# If any word is improper at the end of a sentence, a linking verb is.
# Take the bull by the hand and avoid mixing metaphors.
# Avoid trendy locutions that sound flaky.
# Everyone should be careful to use a singular pronoun with singular nouns in their writing.
# Always pick on the correct idiom.
# The adverb always follows the verb.
# Be careful to use the rite homonym.

# And last...

# Proofread carefully to see if you any words out.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jun 28, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> According to what authority?  All the style guides I've seen say that convention is to use two spaces, and although not necessary, it is at least as correct as using one space.



I found it here:
http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/period.htm
and here:
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/spacing.asp
and here:
http://www.writing911.com/database/...fter-a-Period-or-Two-Weve-Got-the-Answer.html
which references this:
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/cmosfaq/cmosfaq.OneSpaceorTwo.html


----------



## reveal (Jun 28, 2005)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> I found it here:
> http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/period.htm
> and here:
> http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/spacing.asp
> ...




And according to the MLA:



> How many spaces should I leave after a period or other concluding mark of punctuation?
> Publications in the United States today usually have the same spacing after a punctuation mark as between words on the same line. Since word processors make available the same fonts used by typesetters for printed works, many writers, influenced by the look of typeset publications, now leave only one space after a concluding punctuation mark. In addition, most publishers' guidelines for preparing a manuscript on disk ask authors to type only the spaces that are to appear in print.
> 
> Because it is increasingly common for papers and manuscripts to be prepared with a single space after all punctuation marks, this spacing is shown in the examples in the MLA Handbook and the MLA Style Manual. *As a practical matter, however, there is nothing wrong with using two spaces after concluding punctuation marks unless an instructor or editor requests that you do otherwise.*




http://www.mla.org/style_faq3

Emphasis added by me. I think that's the best advice I've heard on this subject. As I've stated before, it's all opinion.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jun 28, 2005)

Hmmm, all interesting thoughts.


----------



## Lady_Acoma (Jun 29, 2005)

I personally try not to think, it hurts that squishy thing up in my head.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jun 29, 2005)

Lady_Acoma said:
			
		

> I personally try not to think, it hurts that squishy thing up in my head.



How does thinking hurt your brain?!


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 29, 2005)

The funny thing is if someone uses two spaces after periods on the message boards (or the web in general), it will be converted to one space.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jun 29, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> The funny thing is if someone uses two spaces after periods on the message boards (or the web in general), it will be converted to one space.



It is great isn'tt it?


----------



## Lady_Acoma (Jun 29, 2005)

Frukathka said:
			
		

> How does thinking hurt your brain?!



 :\ What is this brain that you speak of? :\


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jun 29, 2005)

Lady_Acoma said:
			
		

> :\ What is this brain that you speak of? :\



That mushy thing in your head!


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 29, 2005)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> I found it here:
> http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/period.htm
> and here:
> http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/spacing.asp
> ...



I had already read reveal's MLA source, which I consider much more authoritative than any of those.  I mean, who the heck is Grammar Book or Writing 911 anyway?


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 29, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> The funny thing is if someone uses two spaces after periods on the message boards (or the web in general), it will be converted to one space.



Yes, and it looks wrong, too.


----------



## reveal (Jun 29, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I had already read reveal's MLA source, which I consider much more authoritative than any of those.  I mean, who the heck is Grammar Book or Writing 911 anyway?




I think the problem with what we've been discussing is that there are _too_ many "grammar authorities" available on the interweb. Places like Grammar Book and Writing 911 try to help but just end up making it more convoluted because they're not all consistent.

I agree that the MLA is probably the best source on this matter and it would be great if everyone followed it but, alas, it's not going to happen.

And this is the reason that I do not get upset when other people use improper punctuation in writing.


----------



## reveal (Jun 29, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Yes, and it looks wrong, too.




Edit: Well, what do you now? I had no idea it would automatically strip out a space if you put two after the end of the concluding punctuation on this board. Huh.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 29, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> Edit: Well, what do you now? I had no idea it would automatically strip out a space if you put two after the end of the concluding punctuation on this board. Huh.



Yeah, its a "feature" of html -- I've tried to do all kinds of spacing on webpages unsuccessfully in the past.  Of course, with CSS you can pull some of that off now.


----------



## Warrior Poet (Jun 29, 2005)

Abstraction said:
			
		

> There is only a single space after a period. I don't care what you like. *There is only a single space after a period!* If you learn nothing else, *THERE IS ONLY A SINGLE ING SPACE AFTER A ING PERIOD.* Please don't make me explain the long history behind this.



You'd hate to get correspondence from me.  I'm a long-time user of two spaces post-period in academic and personal writing.  I was instructed that in journalism and print, for space considerations on page, only one space is used, but in other writing, two is acceptable (and even encouraged).  I'm even typing two spaces post-period in the composition of this post, *despite* knowing it will convert it to one, as Joshua Dyal indicated.

So, yeah, actually, I would care to hear the "long history" behind the number of spaces following end punctuation, or at least point me to a reference.

Warrior Poet


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 29, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Yeah, its a "feature" of html -- I've tried to do all kinds of spacing on webpages unsuccessfully in the past. Of course, with CSS you can pull some of that off now.




It's a good feature of HTML, though, for web design. HTML is designed to ignore whitespace, else HTML would be the ugliest language on the planet. We do not want a difference between

<img ....> <img ....> etc

and

<img ...>
<img ...>
etc

So the feature is actually very important. If you really need a space you can use   and it will make a space for you. (Too annoying to use for end of sentences, though.)


----------



## Abstraction (Jun 29, 2005)

Okay, the long and sordid history of two spaces, now one.

A long, long time ago in a place far, far away, they invented typewriters. Pretty much all typewriters before the electric ones had the exact same amount of space per letter. In other words, after you pressed the key, the arm swung up and struck the paper, then the machine advanced the carriage by a set amount. This means that every letter had exactly the same width, even though a capital W took up far more of this space than, say, a period. Because a period floated out away from the letter, especially if the letter in question was also a thin letter like a lower case l, then two spaces were necessary after the period so that one could identify the line break.

Since electrification of type, nearly all type is proportional spaced. Notice there are no big gaps in illicit, nor does the type run together in AVAIL? Notice how the period is tucked in to its sentence and completely related to it?

So the first reason for only a single space after a period is: because it's not needed. The type is _designed_ for only a single space.

There is an argument I hear a lot (especially at home), that a single or double-space is optional. Let me give you the second reason. Readability. If you use two spaces at the end of a sentence, it creates a gap. A gap that is greater than the gaps between words on the same line. This draws the eyes to it naturally, and makes it harder to read text as it causes your eyes to jump back and forth. You really should do everything that you can to ensure that people can read your work easily, or they will not read it at all.

By the way, this isn't just a hobby or fetish of mine. It's my job.

As for any of your professors who argue otherwise, just let have their email addresses. I'll sort it out.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jun 29, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I had already read reveal's MLA source, which I consider much more authoritative than any of those.  I mean, who the heck is Grammar Book or Writing 911 anyway?



I'm just mentioning where I found it.  The Chicago Manual of Style is pretty authoritative too, though.

I've always used two spaces myself, so I'm not deadset on either side.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 29, 2005)

Abstraction said:
			
		

> Since electrification of type, nearly all type is proportional spaced. Notice there are no big gaps in illicit, nor does the type run together in AVAIL?



Are you sure about that?    


			
				Abstraction said:
			
		

> There is an argument I hear a lot (especially at home), that a single or double-space is optional. Let me give you the second reason. Readability. If you use two spaces at the end of a sentence, it creates a gap. A gap that is greater than the gaps between words on the same line. This draws the eyes to it naturally, and makes it harder to read text as it causes your eyes to jump back and forth. You really should do everything that you can to ensure that people can read your work easily, or they will not read it at all.



That doesn't make any intuitive sense.  Judicious use of white space to better distinguish breaks is one of the prime hallmarks of readable text.


			
				Abstraction said:
			
		

> By the way, this isn't just a hobby or fetish of mine. It's my job.



Then in the context of your job, one space is correct.  Beyond it, you are not speaking authoritatively.


----------



## Abstraction (Jun 29, 2005)

Use of white space usually refers to the leading, or space between the lines, interparagraph space and just plain old using less of the page to place text into. It does not normally refer to putting extra spaces after a period because this causes your text not to flow smoothly for the reader.

EDIT: The context of my job is to know what professional standards are. Just like anything else, there are no standards for amateurs. So, yes, you may use two periods after sentence. I can't stop you. If you do, you are labeling yourself an amateur. I can say that authoritively.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 29, 2005)

Abstraction said:
			
		

> EDIT: The context of my job is to know what professional standards are. Just like anything else, there are no standards for amateurs. So, yes, you may use two periods after sentence. I can't stop you. If you do, you are labeling yourself an amateur. I can say that authoritively.



Unless you work for the MLA, or some other authoritative spokesgroup for professional standards, then no, you don't.  And incidentally, the MLA doesn't agree with you.


----------



## reveal (Jun 29, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Unless you work for the MLA, or some other authoritative spokesgroup for professional standards, then no, you don't.  And incidentally, the MLA doesn't agree with you.




I was about to say the same thing. The MLA has been around since 1883. You'd think they'd know what they're doing but, according to Abstraction, they don't. It's a shame, too. So many people rely on them to create professional looking papers. Those poor, silly amatuers.


----------



## reveal (Jun 29, 2005)

Abstraction said:
			
		

> EDIT: The context of my job is to know what professional standards are. Just like anything else, there are no standards for amateurs. So, yes, you may use two periods after sentence. I can't stop you. If you do, you are labeling yourself an amateur. I can say that authoritively.





And by stating something that flies in the face of a highly regarded, highly esteemed, professional organization like the MLA and trying to pass your opinion as fact, you are labeling yourself as pompous.


----------



## Dingleberry (Jun 29, 2005)

Abstraction said:
			
		

> I can say that authoritively.



Stuff like this cracks me up.


----------



## Hijinks (Jun 29, 2005)

> I would hope that the focus of paralegal training is "making it clear and understandable" as opposed to "follow strict rules of grammar and punctuation."




It's rather funny, actually.  My friend has been told for years of schooling (she's gone part-time to an internet school) that her writing is "fine," "great," and even "outstanding," when in reality it's pretty bad, by English major standards (which I was).  She would send me papers to edit; I'd edit and send them back asking her to please PLEASE please fix x thing and y thing because they are SO against grammatical standards, and she'd say things like "Oh, my teacher doesn't care about those things, he cares about the legal argument and blah blah."  I tried to tell her that her writing style would not fly in regular circles, but she'd continually tell me that it didn't matter, since legal writing is "so much different," and that she didn't need to learn to write "correctly."


NOW, though, she's having to take a composition class and she's sending me emails daily, begging me to help her with basic grammatical issues.  For example, this week I taught her about the passive voice and how to rewrite sentences with active verbs instead of passive.

It's kind of gratifying to see her eat her words.  Just a tad bit.


----------



## Dingleberry (Jun 29, 2005)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> I tried to tell her that her writing style would not fly in regular circles, but she'd continually tell me that it didn't matter, since legal writing is "so much different," and that she didn't need to learn to write "correctly."



Of course, certain legal writing (briefs, journal paper, etc.) requires that a HOST of additional rules be strictly followed.  I can't begin the count the number of hours I spent in years past working out the intricacies of the almighty Bluebook.


----------



## reveal (Jun 29, 2005)

Dingleberry said:
			
		

> Of course, certain legal writing (briefs, journal paper, etc.) requires that a HOST of additional rules be strictly followed.  I can't begin the count the number of hours I spent in years past working out the intricacies of the almighty Bluebook.




Court rules can take forever to look through and understand, that's for sure. (I'm assuming that's what you're talking about )


----------



## Dingleberry (Jun 29, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> Court rules can take forever to look through and understand, that's for sure. (I'm assuming that's what you're talking about )



That's definitely one of the better examples.


----------



## Dingleberry (Jun 29, 2005)

(Wow, 500 posts in 3 1/2 years.  Now I'm really rolling!)


----------



## Abstraction (Jun 29, 2005)

The MLA is hardly the authority. Person reads it, types it how they like, then submits it to a prepress professional. First thing prepress professional does? Universal search-and-replace for two spaces to one. Several other universal searches, too.

The authority in the design world is the Chicago Manual of Style. It was the Bible at the last advertising agency I worked at. It was referenced before, but I will post it again:

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/cmosfaq/cmosfaq.html

So, to summarize, all the available references about whether you can use two spaces after a period say one of two things. Either "Don't do it," or "Try not to do it." So please _stop_ saying that it's all just a matter of taste. It's all a matter of having taste.


----------



## sniffles (Jun 29, 2005)

Abstraction said:
			
		

> I can say that authoritively.




How about saying it authoritatively?   

This is an interesting thread.  I had in fact never heard of putting only one space after a period.  My English and creative writing instructors in college would have shot me for putting only one space.  I still automatically put two spaces; I think I would be hard pressed to stop hitting the space bar twice.  That's how I learned to type (30 years ago).

Now can we address my pet punctionational (is that a word?) peeve:  misuse of apostrophes?


----------



## reveal (Jun 29, 2005)

Abstraction said:
			
		

> So please _stop_ saying that it's all just a matter of taste. It's all a matter of having taste.




Remind me never to work for you. Apparently you will not let anyone have their own tastes and think that people who don't do it your way have none.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jun 29, 2005)

*Know your audience*

The first rule of composition is: Know your audience.

If you're a college student and you have one professor that wants 2 spaces after a period, they get a paper with 2 spaces after a period. If another professor wants only 1 space, they get a paper with just 1 space after each period. 

If I'm writing a research paper and I know the professor follows the MLA standards for research papers, that's what I follow. 

If I'm writing a paper for an academic journal, I follow their standards. 

If I'm submitting work to Steve Jackson Games, I will go to their website and meticulously follow every one of their suggestions and style guidelines.

It doesn't matter what you learned in high school or college english classes in the past if you get a bad grade in the present or get a manuscript turned down in the future.

Oh, sense I can't spell to save my life, I run everything through two spell checkers: an electronic one and a human one.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 29, 2005)

Abstraction said:
			
		

> The authority in the design world is the Chicago Manual of Style. It was the Bible at the last advertising agency I worked at. It was referenced before, but I will post it again:



Ah, so you _don't_ work for any organization that dictates standards, nor do you work for an organization that really has anything to do with the standards at all other than that they picked one and dictated it to you.  I see.


			
				Abstraction said:
			
		

> So, to summarize, all the available references about whether you can use two spaces after a period say one of two things. Either "Don't do it," or "Try not to do it." So please _stop_ saying that it's all just a matter of taste. It's all a matter of having taste.



Uh, no, I don't think I will.  Even I --who do not care overly much about formalized style guides-- realize that there are more than one competing standard in the world of publishing.


----------



## reveal (Jun 29, 2005)

sniffles said:
			
		

> How about saying it authoritatively?




He didn't say he was an expert on proper words.


----------



## reveal (Jun 29, 2005)

http://ucp.uchicago.edu:2001/search...&Collection=C90&ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&

Just to clarify:



> Q. Help. How many spaces do you leave after a colon in a manuscript?
> 
> A. One space after a colon. There is a traditional American practice, favored by some, of leaving two spaces after colons and periods. This practice is *discouraged* by the University of Chicago Press, especially for formally published works and the manuscripts from which they are published.




Emphasis mine. Notice it doesn't say "THERE IS ONLY ONE ING SPACE AFTER THE ING PERIOD!" It says it's _discouraged_.

Oh, the person who answers the question also says:



> So, in our efficient, modern world, I think there is no room for two spaces after a period. In the *opinion* of this particular copyeditor, this is a good thing.




Again, emphasis added. And, yes, the University of Chicago Press is the company that publishes the Chicago Manual of Style.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 29, 2005)

I just checked a bunch of novels, magazines, legal documents, and all sorts of other things around my house. Everything used single spaces after a sentence except one letter I found. Even all my D&D books I looked at (2E and 3E). Who actually still uses two spaces between sentences in print nowadays?


----------



## reveal (Jun 29, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I just checked a bunch of novels, magazines, legal documents, and all sorts of other things around my house. Everything used single spaces after a sentence except one letter I found. Even all my D&D books I looked at (2E and 3E). Who actually still uses two spaces between sentences in print nowadays?




I don't know of anyone who does. I don't in my writings. I prefer the single space.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jun 29, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I just checked a bunch of novels, magazines, legal documents, and all sorts of other things around my house. Everything used single spaces after a sentence except one letter I found. Even all my D&D books I looked at (2E and 3E). Who actually still uses two spaces between sentences in print nowadays?



 It's a subversive counter-culture of excessive spaces!


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jun 30, 2005)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> It's a subversive counter-culture of excessive spaces!



Heh heh. I gotta admit, this thread is a little topsy-turvy for me. Usually people are telling me in no uncertain terms that you use 2 spaces after a period, regardless of what them newfangled (is that a word?) computers do. This is the first time anyone's adamantly said 1 space. Of course, I didn't hear about putting 2 spaces after a period until after high school, and I took typing.


----------



## Abstraction (Jun 30, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Uh, no, I don't think I will.  Even I --who do not care overly much about formalized style guides-- realize that there are more than one competing standard in the world of publishing.




There is more than one competing standard. However, _all_ the ones quoted say to either not use two spaces, or that it is preferable to not use two spaces. Not one recommends it. So we seem to have unanimity from the style guidelines.

By the way, I have seen more than one person get fired from the places I have worked because they thought they could just do things their own way. I myself fired someone a couple months ago because she wouldn't follow guidelines.

If you wish to not follow guidelines, feel free. As the previous poster said (very well, too, I might add), if you are writing for a single person audience, then you must follow their guidelines. If you are writing, professionally, for mass market then you should really do yourself a favor and follow professional guidelines to only use one space after a period.

I really have done my best to give everyone the historical and design reasons behind why you used to use two spaces and now only use one. There is no contra-argument for using two spaces after a period. It is simply a very old convention that has no purpose but will not die.

On a related note, my wife is a biologist. I think you might be able to appreciate that when she teaches a group of students about evolution, which is central to the entire understanding of her coursework, she inevitably gets people who say: eh, it's just opinion. You can imagine how angry that makes her. Her entire schooling and training, built on a long tradition of science, dismissed as mere opinion. That's how I feel when people dismiss typographical and design standards as opinion/preference.


----------



## Abstraction (Jun 30, 2005)

sniffles said:
			
		

> Now can we address my pet punctionational (is that a word?) peeve:  misuse of apostrophes?




Yes. Another of my pet peeves. I really get angry about the misused apostrophe because, until about 3 years ago, I was one of the offenders. Let me see if I can find the link my proofreader gave me:

http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif


----------



## reveal (Jun 30, 2005)

Abstraction said:
			
		

> On a related note, my wife is a biologist. I think you might be able to appreciate that when she teaches a group of students about evolution, which is central to the entire understanding of her coursework, she inevitably gets people who say: eh, it's just opinion. You can imagine how angry that makes her. Her entire schooling and training, built on a long tradition of science, dismissed as mere opinion. That's how I feel when people dismiss typographical and design standards as opinion/preference.




We are not dismissing standards. What we have done is quoted to you various style guides, including one you touted as "the Bible," and you still refused to even acknowledge that it is a matter of opinion. Even the University of Chicago Press, which publishes your "Bible," states that it "discourages" the use of multiple spaces after periods. It does *not* state that it is unprofessional to use multiple spaces.

What we have been trying to say, and what you have been ignoring, is that punctuation is important. But because there are so many, many different guides out there, a person should find what their editor/professor/business prefers and use that style. My company has their own style guide; does that make them "wrong" if some of the styles it has decided upon to make our company's documentation and correspondence standard do not match what has been published in the Chicago Guide of Style or the MLA stylebook? Does it make every single piece of professional business documentation they have produced "amateurish?"

Regardless of what you think, not all people who do not follow the guidelines that you think are correct are less professional than you are. I highly doubt that every single professional, published author would agree with what you think is correct. But, according to your logic, this makes them amateurs. To think that way is just asinine.


----------



## Abstraction (Jun 30, 2005)

It's kinda funny that you mention professional, published authors. What do they know of printing standards? Mostly nothing. Really, there is no reason they should. They hand their work off to design and print professionals, who then do their job.


----------



## reveal (Jun 30, 2005)

Abstraction said:
			
		

> It's kinda funny that you mention professional, published authors. What do they know of printing standards? Mostly nothing. Really, there is no reason they should. They hand their work off to design and print professionals, who then do their job.




And with that, I'm done. I've tried to rationalize my argument but you choose to consistently ignore it and continue to espouse your opinions. This has officially become pointless.


----------



## bodhi (Jun 30, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> This has officially become pointless.




And we hadn't even gotten to the Nazis.


----------



## reveal (Jun 30, 2005)

bodhi said:
			
		

> And we hadn't even gotten to the Nazis.




Grammar Nazis?


----------



## mojo1701 (Jun 30, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> Grammar Nazis?




Better than the real ones.


----------



## reveal (Jun 30, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> Better than the real ones.




True, true.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jun 30, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> Better than the real ones.



Exxtemely true.


----------



## Warrior Poet (Jun 30, 2005)

Abstraction said:
			
		

> That's how I feel when people dismiss typographical and design standards as opinion/preference.



I'm not dismissing your standards.  I'm dismissing your imperious tone.

"Chewie, take the professor in the back and plug him into the hyperdrive."



			
				Dingleberry said:
			
		

> (Wow, 500 posts in 3 1/2 years. Now I'm really rolling!)



I'm catching up!  Where's my cane? (Seeing as how I must be an old convention that simply refuses to die   )

Warrior Poet


----------



## Abstraction (Jun 30, 2005)

Warrior Poet said:
			
		

> I'm not dismissing your standards.  I'm dismissing your imperious tone.




This discussion about spaces all started when I listed it as my worst pet peeve. Don't expect people to discuss pet peeves calmly. But thanks for understanding.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 30, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> And with that, I'm done. I've tried to rationalize my argument but you choose to consistently ignore it and continue to espouse your opinions. This has officially become pointless.



Actually, he had a pretty good point there, though.    

And I have a feeling that the world is --if I don't agree that it actually has yet-- migrating to a one space standard.  I should probably start trying to break the habit of typing two spaces now.


----------



## Warrior Poet (Jun 30, 2005)

Abstraction said:
			
		

> Don't expect people to discuss pet peeves calmly. But thanks for understanding.



Upon further reflection, I recognize that I was offsides in my post, and I apologize to you, Abstraction.  Though I disagree with the way you present your argument, such disagreement does not necessitate an uncivil response on my part.

Warrior Poet


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 30, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> you need to read  This Book




Or this one!

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...002-4702481-3398462?v=glance&s=books&n=507846


----------



## Abstraction (Jun 30, 2005)

Warrior Poet said:
			
		

> Upon further reflection, I recognize that I was offsides in my post, and I apologize to you, Abstraction.  Though I disagree with the way you present your argument, such disagreement does not necessitate an uncivil response on my part.
> 
> Warrior Poet




That's funny, because I didn't take you as uncivil. Just argumentative. That's different.


----------



## sniffles (Jun 30, 2005)

Abstraction said:
			
		

> It's kinda funny that you mention professional, published authors. What do they know of printing standards? Mostly nothing. Really, there is no reason they should. They hand their work off to design and print professionals, who then do their job.




Good point!!  I expect if we saw the uncorrected manuscripts of most novels we enjoy we'd discover that most authors don't know how to spell or punctuate properly (if there is a "proper" way to do either in our perpetually changing society).  

Another pet peeve of mine:  the utter and complete lack of quality proofreading in mass-market literature.


----------



## Abstraction (Jul 1, 2005)

sniffles said:
			
		

> Another pet peeve of mine:  the utter and complete lack of quality proofreading in mass-market literature.




Amen! It's not as if proofreaders are paid all that much. Unfortunately, just like good typesetting, quality is not an issue as much as throughput. This had led to, in my opinion, a terribly unfortunate circumstance of there being very few typesetters and proofreaders out there with experience and training. You can't believe the things I see that go to print that nearly make me flip. I'm not talking about the local pizza flyer, I mean prominent ads in major magazines. Apparently, nobody cares anymore.


----------



## Warrior Poet (Jul 1, 2005)

Abstraction said:
			
		

> That's funny, because I didn't take you as uncivil. Just argumentative. That's different.



Indeed, I was argumentative.  But there was no need for my cheap shot Han-to-C-3PO remark, for which I tender apology.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled argument!  (which I'm done with.  You type one, I'll type two, to-may-to, tom-ah-to.  It would be different if it were something truly egregious, like comma splice or improper apostrophe/possessive designation, which I suspect we'd agree on, he said, ending his sentence with a preposition.  Damn, I hate that)

Warrior Poet

(Incidentally, I work as a writer/editor/proofreader in direct mail catalog publishing, and in my professional career, I edit/format/write for one space following periods.  But in my personal work, I'll always type two, even knowing that html or an editor/type-setter will change it down the line.  Frankly, at some point, I think typing [and I learned to type with two spaces after periods] becomes hard-wired, and I'm way, way to old to rip out the walls and substitute 220 for my wheezing, cloth-insulated 110)


----------



## sniffles (Jul 1, 2005)

Abstraction said:
			
		

> Amen! It's not as if proofreaders are paid all that much. Unfortunately, just like good typesetting, quality is not an issue as much as throughput. This had led to, in my opinion, a terribly unfortunate circumstance of there being very few typesetters and proofreaders out there with experience and training. You can't believe the things I see that go to print that nearly make me flip. I'm not talking about the local pizza flyer, I mean prominent ads in major magazines. Apparently, nobody cares anymore.




I know exactly what you mean.  If I thought I could make a living at it I'd set myself up as a freelance proofreader; I read quite rapidly and could probably proofread quite a lot of material in a relatively short time.  But it would likely make me sick having to read all the grammatical errors.   

A friend of mine does some editing for game books, and oh the horror stories he tells of submissions he has to completely rewrite due to their poorly-written content...


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 2, 2005)

Warrior Poet said:
			
		

> Indeed, I was argumentative.  But there was no need for my cheap shot Han-to-C-3PO remark, for which I tender apology.



There's *always* a need for an attempt at a cheap joke.  Star Wars analogies are good.  My specialty is vaguely disturbing and uncomfortable metaphors that make people around me avert their eyes, change the subject, or look for a way to talk to someone else.


----------



## Bront (Jul 2, 2005)

I found this in an article I read.



			
				Chicago Sun Times said:
			
		

> News Scientist notes the following warning on a bottle of eye drops: "Do not use this product if you have heart disease, high blood pressure, narrow angle glaucoma or trouble urinating unless directed by a physician."




I sure hope there's a missing comma.


----------



## Hellefire (Jul 2, 2005)

Yes, both ways are technicaly correct. It is generally 'better' to avoid being vague, unless you mean to allude to a double meaning. On that note, this sign was posted in my home town when they transplanted some ducks into the local lagoon:


Please Don't Molest the Ducks.


We laughed about that a lot. Of course, I was 16 at the time too.

Aaron


----------



## Welverin (Jul 3, 2005)

Abstraction said:
			
		

> Irregardless is not a word.




Of course it is. People use it, it has meaning, and a distinct sound, thus it is a word.



> Stop using it. You sound like an idiot.




But that doesn't stop this from being true.


----------



## Arbiter of Wyrms (Jul 3, 2005)

Bront said:
			
		

> I found this in an article I read.
> Originally Posted by Chicago Sun Times
> News Scientist notes the following warning on a bottle of eye drops: "Do not use this product if you have heart disease, high blood pressure, narrow angle glaucoma or trouble urinating unless directed by a physician."
> I sure hope there's a missing comma.



Sorry, there's not.  This sentence is properly puctuated, though, to improve clarity, it might be reworked entirely:

"Unless directed by a physician, do not use this product if you have heart disease, high blood pressure, narrow angle glaucoma or trouble urinating."


----------



## Pielorinho (Jul 4, 2005)

JimAde said:
			
		

> I've always been one who said you don't need that last comma (after all you say "Peanut Butter and Jelly" but not "Peanut Butter, and Jelly").
> 
> But I think you just made a convert.




For lunch today, I fixed us some sandwiches:  egg salad, turkey and cheese, ham and peanut butter and jelly.

Just to buttress your faith .

Grammar and punctuation are not comparable to biology.  While I agree that the single-space-post-period is becoming the norm, and while I agree that there may be good reasons for this, there's no hard-and-fast nature to the rule, no objective reality reflected by the rule.  

If I tell someone that earthworms have spinal columns, I'm either correct or I'm incorrect:  my opinion on the subject is meaningless, irrelevant.  But if I tell someone that a single space follows a period, my opinion on the subject is one of the many opinions on the subject that collectively comprise the truth of the statement.

Daniel


----------



## Arbiter of Wyrms (Jul 4, 2005)

With English, opinions matter.  

French has an authority, the Academy, to arbitrate what is proper or improper French.

In English, we have conventions from editors, authors, grammarians, and from everyday speakers.  We all get an opinion, and there are more than a few ways to have your opinion be the "right" one, the one with which everyone else agrees:

1) Agree with the opinion of one or more of the published authorities on the subject.

2) Get someone else to mark you as an expert grammarian. (This is normally done by consistently using strategy number 1 for an extended period of time.)

3) Be loud, pushy, rude and critical of those who disagree with you.  Try to call their opinions ignorant.

4) Cook up a psuedo-linguistic rationalization for your error.  (This one is more common than you might think.)

5) Convince your friends and neighbors to adopt your "innovation." (e.g. new verb: to conversate; from conversation; from converse)


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Jul 4, 2005)

First, I'd like to thank God, for coming down and letting me know that way I was taught to type in class is completely wrong and I'm obviously an idiot for following an archiac way of typing. I also appreciate his offer of smiting those instructors who instruct me to use two spaces after the punctuation known as a period, if I am merely to give him thier email.

Now to met pet peeve regarding punctuation and spelling...

People who haunt internet boards in order to harp on people's grammar and spelling and punctuation and syntax mystaykes in order to feel superior.

Why?

Because there's better stuff they can do, and watching the same dog do the same trick eventually gets boring and then irrtating and then you want to have it put to sleep.

It's arrogance in the extreme.

And since we're harping about nitpicky stuff like this, here's my biggest pet peeve as it responds, in a way, to this thread.

Capitolizationatariumism.

What makes this sentence acceptable on enworld.

Let's help Jack off his horse.

Thanks, I'll be here all week, try the veal.


----------



## niolo (Jul 4, 2005)

I must agree with Abstractions points. Writers generally don't know printing conventions and they really don't need to know them. As a former proofer, designer, and production artist I've had to clean up text to prepare for print; which included removing extra spaces after periods. We also inserted the comma prior to the "and" in sequences, that being the method we chose for clarity.

Additionally, much of our grammar conventions ARE products of opinion which have become codified over the years. Why is a prepostion not supposed to begin a sentence, because someone deconstructed the word "pre" "position" to mean that it must come before another word. Not so. There are many instances of these in our language since English borrows a great deal from many other languages (try constructing a sentence comprised of only Anglo/Saxon words). History and opinion are buried in our words and grammar conventions.


----------



## Abstraction (Jul 4, 2005)

An opinion is something everybody has, everybody is entitled to, and can be anything. Grammar is a _convention_, which means that a large group all agree to do something the same way in order to proceed with less confusion. It may be your opinion to follow a period with four commas, but that is certainly not the convention.

Can we please be civil? This thread was started (not by me) as a way to simply vent a few grammar pet peeves. I do not recall anyone here running out and editing other peoples' posts as grammar police.

I am trying to stay out of this now. Why it has become so nasty, I don't know.


----------



## reveal (Jul 4, 2005)

Abstraction said:
			
		

> An opinion is something everybody has, everybody is entitled to, and can be anything. Grammar is a _convention_, which means that a large group all agree to do something the same way in order to proceed with less confusion. It may be your opinion to follow a period with four commas, but that is certainly not the convention.
> 
> Can we please be civil? This thread was started (not by me) as a way to simply vent a few grammar pet peeves. I do not recall anyone here running out and editing other peoples' posts as grammar police.
> 
> I am trying to stay out of this now. Why it has become so nasty, I don't know.




Actually, I started the thread because I thought the quote was a funny example of how incorrect punctuation can be amusing. 

I think the reason it became nasty was because you were the only person who posted their "pet peeves" and then tried to convince everyone else that it was the only correct way to do things because "you know better than the rest of us," even though we have shown you proof otherwise. You go back and forth between "it's just my opinion so what does it matter?" to "I am an authority on the subject, so this is how it should be."


----------



## Bront (Jul 4, 2005)

Arbiter of Wyrms said:
			
		

> Sorry, there's not.  This sentence is properly puctuated, though, to improve clarity, it might be reworked entirely:
> 
> "Unless directed by a physician, do not use this product if you have heart disease, high blood pressure, narrow angle glaucoma or trouble urinating."



Yes, but the lack of a comma can lead to some rather misleading interpretations


----------



## Abstraction (Jul 4, 2005)

I'm sorry that your thread got derailed. I hadn't meant for the discussion on spaces to happen at all. I was just venting. Seemed like a good thread at the time.

I really want to just let the discussion die, but your last statement is really just too much. EVERY bit of your "proof" actually confirms what I've been saying all along! Every guideline strongly recommends against a double space. Every time I point this out, you seem to interpret the guidelines to say, "Eh, do whatever you want".

Okay, that's it. I'm going over to some more positive threads, now.


----------



## Goblyn (Jul 4, 2005)

Well, here is a link to someone's pet peeve about the apostrophe --> http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif

Enjoy.


----------



## reveal (Jul 4, 2005)

Abstraction said:
			
		

> I'm sorry that your thread got derailed. I hadn't meant for the discussion on spaces to happen at all. I was just venting. Seemed like a good thread at the time.
> 
> I really want to just let the discussion die, but your last statement is really just too much. EVERY bit of your "proof" actually confirms what I've been saying all along! Every guideline strongly recommends against a double space. Every time I point this out, you seem to interpret the guidelines to say, "Eh, do whatever you want".
> 
> Okay, that's it. I'm going over to some more positive threads, now.




"Recommends" is the operative word. What you kept saying was "You MUST not use two spaces." That's it.



			
				Abstraction said:
			
		

> The context of my job is to know what professional standards are. Just like anything else, there are no standards for amateurs. So, yes, you may use two periods after sentence. I can't stop you. If you do, you are labeling yourself an amateur. I can say that authoritively.




This is an example. If you had said something like, "In my years of experience, I have seen many proofreaders label people as 'amateurs' if they use two spaces after a period," that would have been great advice. Instead, we get is something that says "If you use two spaces after a period, you are an amateur because I am an authority on the subject." This probably won't fly well with a lot of the pubslihed authors on here.


----------



## ZuulMoG (Jul 4, 2005)

Lady_Acoma said:
			
		

> I was also taught the old way. In my day to day online chat or message board posts I do only use one. But I believe I use two in formal documents. Wow, I suddenly feel old and crotchety.



One always uses two spaces after a period at the end of a sentence.  That's just how it's done.  If someone doesn't like that, they should have more of a reason than because they say so.  I enjoy typing two spaces after a sentence.  It makes me happy.  It makes everybody happy.  I don't see a problem.  Is there any valid rationale behind this bizarre insistence on single-spacing sentences?


----------



## Pielorinho (Jul 5, 2005)

ZuulMoG said:
			
		

> One always uses two spaces after a period at the end of a sentence. That's just how it's done. If someone doesn't like that, they should have more of a reason than because they say so. I enjoy typing two spaces after a sentence. It makes me happy. It makes everybody happy. I don't see a problem. Is there any valid rationale behind this bizarre insistence on single-spacing sentences?



I can't tell whether you're being tongue-in-cheek or not.  If you are, okay then.  If you're not, I think it's fair to say that the "one" in your first sentence is not a correct use of the third-person impersonal .

Personally, I tend to put two spaces after a period, because that's how I learned it, and when typing at 70 wpm, it's difficult for me to think about the punctuation and spacing.  It just happens.  I'm happy to rely on my computer to autocorrect it for me, and I'm very happy to adjust my autocorrect feature to match local customs.

The major thing I taught my students when I was a writing tutor was this:  KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE.  Presumably, you're writing in order to communicate concepts to the audience; and while punctuation can be noticeable when it's beautiful and part of the concept (see e.e. cummings's poetry for the classic example), punctuation and the like should never ever be visible as an impediment to that communication.  Try to know what the expectations are for the audience to whom you want to communicate:  if they'll notice your run-on sentences, or your use of archaisms, or your reliance on m-dashes, or your double-space post-period, then eliminate these things from your writing for that audience.  By doing so, you'll communicate your idea more effectively.

This applies no matter the audience.  I once tag-team-taught a ten-minute presentation on our humane society, alongside our director of animal control.  He spoke very correctly and accurately about such things as the fact that "Our local ordinance, at least within our jurisdiction, prohibits allowing animals off-leash except when on the owner's property."

The poor six-year-olds didn't know what had hit them:  they just stared at him with big round eyes, as if he were speaking Croatian.  Eventually I stepped in and said, "That's right:  if you have a dog, it has to stay in your yard or in your house.  Unless!  Unless it's on a leash!"  Not quite as accurate, and not conforming to standard grammar (like this sentence), but I was speaking to my audience.

Know your audience, and tailor your communication to them.  All else is salad forks.

Daniel


----------



## reveal (Jul 5, 2005)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Know your audience, and tailor your communication to them.  All else is salad forks.




I'm also a teacher. I think this is the first thing you learn when you start teaching. I consider it the golden rule.


----------



## sniffles (Jul 7, 2005)

Bump.  

Too bad Abstraction got all shirty and went off in a huff.  I kind of like him because he's pedantic, like me.   

Okay, this is not a punctuation peeve, but it's related.  I'm reading an article in Dungeon #124, and during the course of this adventure the author uses the word "ovular" at least twice to describe a shape.  I'm not even sure that's really a word, but I am sure it would be much preferable if he used "oval".  

In addition, at one point he describes something as a "stylistic arrow".  I interpret stylistic to mean a choice or decision, as in "the director of Sin City made the stylistic choice to film predominantly in black and white".  I think the descriptive phrase in the article should say "stylized arrow", because the object being described is designed to resemble an arrow but does not look exactly like an arrow.

Any takers for this argument?


----------



## Abstraction (Jul 7, 2005)

Well, maybe it was shaped like an ovum? Ovaries?


----------



## Hijinks (Jul 7, 2005)

How about the sign I saw in Walmart that said "Try some bananas, a highly nutritional food!"

What happened to "nutritious" ?

Anyone want to look up the current proper way to show plural possessive when the name ends in an S?  As in Paris's versus Paris' ?  Or Jones's versus Jones' ?  When I was in college - up to and including 2001 - Strunk and White said it should be Paris's or Jones's, yet most publications I read use Paris' or Jones'.  I prefer the former way rather than the latter - it just looks better to my eye - but I'd like to know the proper way.


----------



## reveal (Jul 7, 2005)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> How about the sign I saw in Walmart that said "Try some bananas, a highly nutritional food!"
> 
> What happened to "nutritious" ?
> 
> Anyone want to look up the current proper way to show plural possessive when the name ends in an S?  As in Paris's versus Paris' ?  Or Jones's versus Jones' ?  When I was in college - up to and including 2001 - Strunk and White said it should be Paris's or Jones's, yet most publications I read use Paris' or Jones'.  I prefer the former way rather than the latter - it just looks better to my eye - but I'd like to know the proper way.




Personally, I think it looks weird when it's Jones's. I prefer Jones' and the like.


----------



## Seonaid (Jul 7, 2005)

If you want better published material, convince publishers to be kinder to their proofreaders and copyeditors. I, for one, would like the ability to work from home so I'm not stuck in front of a computer my whole life. I also would like to be able to see "proofreading and copy editing" as a career, not a step to "better" editing jobs. (While this is personal, it is partially influenced by the publishing world's view.)

If you are talking about *plural* possessives, you do not use the second "s." If you're talking about singular, it depends almost exclusively on the style guide and clarity. I prefer Jones's, because I like systems that are consistent and if there is ever a situation where clarity would be compromised, the solution is already in place. However, I've used style guides that said to leave off the last "s."


----------



## Pielorinho (Jul 7, 2005)

I also prefer Paris's, but I don't raise a stink about it; Paris' isn't as clear, and I'm all about using punctuation to increase clarity.  For that reason, I believe punctuation marks should appear outside quotation marks whenever they're not part of the quotation; to put them inside is like "totally stupid, dude".

Daniel


----------



## IcyCool (Jul 7, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> Instead, we get is something that says "If you use two spaces after a period, you are an amateur because I am an authority on the subject." This probably won't fly well with a lot of the pubslihed authors on here.




Nah, they'll just peg him as an amateur and dismiss him off-hand.  

I have to admit though, two spaces after a period is what I was taught.


----------



## reveal (Jul 7, 2005)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> I have to admit though, two spaces after a period is what I was taught.




Me too. It took me _years _to drop the habit.


----------



## Seonaid (Jul 7, 2005)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> [P]unctuation marks should appear outside quotation marks whenever they're not part of the quotation; to put them inside is like "totally stupid, dude".



Oh, I *totally* agree! But nowhere have I ever seen that as correct.


----------



## sniffles (Jul 7, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> Personally, I think it looks weird when it's Jones's. I prefer Jones' and the like.




Based on popular usage, I suspect in a few years the correct form will be "Jone's", because no one knows how to use an apostrophe properly these days.


----------



## IcyCool (Jul 7, 2005)

sniffles said:
			
		

> Based on popular usage, I suspect in a few years the correct form will be "Jone's", because no one knows how to use an apostrophe properly these days.




No no!  It's proper spelling will be J0|\|3'5.  Oddly enough, the day this is formally adopted as proper spelling will also be the day that thousands of grammar teachers off themselves.


----------



## bodhi (Jul 8, 2005)

Seonaid said:
			
		

> Oh, I *totally* agree! But nowhere have I ever seen that as correct.




The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th Ed. describes it as "British style". There are a couple references here.

I use it because I'm a computer geek, and in code, it matters very much whether something is inside the quotes or outside. See Hacker Writing Style.


----------



## Seonaid (Jul 8, 2005)

Nice! I suppose I should have said that I've never seen it as correct in American English (which is "my" English). I have seen it used in things that were published outside of the country.


----------



## Pielorinho (Jul 8, 2005)

Indeed.  This was probably the hardest error for me to correct in students' papers when I was a writing tutor.  I usually compromised by explaining the rule to them (including its British variation, but not its hacker variation--I was unaware of the latter), telling them how stupid I thought the American version was, telling them that despite its stupidity, their professors might mark their paper down if they didn't use the American rule, and then leaving it up to them how to handle it.

Daniel


----------



## babomb (Jul 10, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> "We considered Miss Roberts for the roles of Marjorie, David's mother, and Louise."




Well, that could be confusing, I'll concede, but if "David's mother" were being used as an appositive, a semicolon should follow it: "We considered Miss Roberts for the roles of Marjorie, David's mother; and Louise."



			
				Hijinks said:
			
		

> So here's my question:  is it now ok to use the semicolon followed by a "however" ?  As in the following sentence:
> 
> I used to be quite good at grammar; however, it's been a while.




It was always okay. In fact, your example would be wrong WITHOUT the semicolon. _However_ doesn't connect the two clauses. 

I'll use this example: "The first part was easy; however, the second took hours." It looks like _however_ is connecting them, right? Suppose I rearrange it: "The first part was easy; the second, however, took hours." I haven't changed the meaning, but now _however_ clearly is not used to connect the clauses.



			
				reveal said:
			
		

> If you use the word however, however, you do not use the semicolon.




Just for extra clarity, I'm going to replace the first _however_:



> If you use the word _dog_, however, you do not use the semicolon.




This is a misleading example. _However_ appears to be connecting the clauses. If we remove "however", the real conjunction becomes clear:



> If you use the word _dog_, you do not use the semicolon.




_If_ is what connects these clauses, and a comma is needed because the subordinate clause is first. In reveal's original quote, _however_ serves the same purpose as in my example above ("The first part was easy; the second, however, took hours.").

Do you see the difference?

If you are using _however_ to mean "by contrast" or "nevertheless", punctuate the sentence exactly as you would if _however_ were not in the sentence. Then add _however_ in and surround it with commas. (It's pretty obvious, but if a semicolon's already there, you don't need a comma on that side.)

On the other hand, if you're using _however_ to mean "in whatever way", "to whatever degree or extent", or "in what way", you probably shouldn't have a semicolon next to it: "It was very clever, however he did it." Note that a semicolon in this example would change the meaning quite a bit!


----------



## CronoDekar (Jul 10, 2005)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> So here's my question:  is it now ok to use the semicolon followed by a "however" ?  As in the following sentence:
> 
> I used to be quite good at grammar; however, it's been a while.
> 
> In college, I learned never to do this; the semicolon is meant to separate two complete sentences, and if you're using "however," then you're already separating the sentences and it should be a comma.  The last I knew, Strunk & White was still saying ; + "however" was a no-no.  I keep seeing it everywhere, though.  One example is the author John Sanford; he does it quite a bit.  My best friend is also currently taking paralegal courses, and they encourage it.  Is it common usage now?




As somewhat off-point, I was always taught that this usage was correct -- that someone could use IC;IC or IC;however/nonetheless/etc., IC.  Though I was also taught that the hyphen and the colon could also be used to join sentences if they were similar, and a semicolon if they contrasted.  I always wondered about that last one since I only picked it up in one class.

But these were rules I picked up sometime in high school; none of my teachers in college really cared all that much.  They may have said "use MLA style" or whatnot but they didn't get picky about it.

And I was going to post this before I read babomb's last post.


----------

