Do grammatical errors bother you?

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by gca3020

Well played ShortNCuddlyAm; well played. Here is what I meant to write:


P.S. If an author types out a manuscript, is it still correct to say he or she "penned" it?

Only if the author puts it in a fenced enclosure.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mrscoach

No, the American rules do NOT say to put all punctuation within the quotes. punctuation only goes IN the quotes if it goes with the actual quote, otherwise it goes OUTSIDE of the marks. In the example given it wasn't even a quote, so the comma goes after the quotation marks.

You obviously are in a better position than I to judge this, but this is what Wiki says on the subject (emphasis mine):

n the U.S., the standard style is called American style, typesetters' rules, printers' rules, typographical usage, or traditional punctuation, whereby commas and periods are almost always placed inside closing quotation marks.[10] This style of punctuation is common in the U.S., Canada, and in the U.K. in fiction and journalism.[11]

The other standard style—called British style or logical punctuation[12]—is to include within quotation marks only those punctuation marks that appeared in the quoted material, but otherwise to place punctuation outside the closing quotation marks.

Examples

When dealing with words-as-words, short-form works and sentence fragments, the styles differ:

* "Carefree," in general, means "free from care or anxiety." (American practice)
* "Carefree", in general, means "free from care or anxiety". (British practice)

Do you believe this to be wrong?

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Only if the author puts it in a fenced enclosure.

From Wordnet

# pen - a writing implement with a point from which ink flows
# pen - an enclosure for confining livestock
# pen - playpen: a portable enclosure in which babies may be left to play
# pen - penitentiary: a correctional institution for those convicted of major crimes
# pen - write: produce a literary work; "She composed a poem"; "He wrote four novels"
# pen - female swan

penning - writing: the act of creating written works; "writing was a form of therapy for him"; "it was a matter of disputed authorship"

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

[HarryT]

And, of course, "pen" comes from the Latin word "penna", which means "feather". A pen was originally a feather.

[Lo Zeno]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

Thank you. It's not the first time that a non-native English speaker has taught me a thing or two about my mother tongue.

Keep in mind that it's entirely possible that what I was taught is... obsolete.
Outside of England, the so-called English Courses are actually "Courses of Academic English Language used by Shakespeare, Blake and other authors who died at least one century ago".

You know, in my textbook "ace!" was still described as an exclamation widely used by young people to mean "wonderful, amazing, stupifying".
When I used it in a real-world dialog, the other person said to me "dude, that's SO 1970!"

[bjones6416]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You obviously are in a better position than I to judge this, but this is what Wiki says on the subject (emphasis mine):



Do you believe this to be wrong?

I have no expertise in this other than my own high school (and college) classes umpteen years ago, but yes, I was taught to always put the punctuation inside the quotation marks, even if it looks wrong. (The American practice, according to your reference.) I believe that the Army correspondence regulation also requires that it be done that way. And thinking back on it, that may well be where I'm getting my information since I had far more years writing for the Army than I did writing for school!

[boxcorner]

Edited by boxcorner

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

We should celebrate the fact that English is not cast in stone. I am glad that English doesn't have an equivalent to the Académie française. Consequently, English has been free to evolve and expand. Surely the rules that govern it need to evolve too, to keep pace. My guess is that the rules will always lag behind somewhat. I guess there will always be people like me who deplore some of the changes and welcome others. Clearly, standards are important, but they need to adapt with the times. For example, consider the changes in the way people are addressed in business correspondence. The trend has been from formal to informal. Also, open punctuation is increasingly being accepted as the norm. However, there was a time when there were few standards, for example in the way words were spelled. Imagine how difficult learning, or teaching it, must have been back in those times.

Here is a very interesting article on the history of English spelling.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

We should celebrate the fact that English is not cast in stone. I am glad that English doesn't have an equivalent to the Académie française. Consequently, English has been free to evolve and expand. Surely the rules that govern it need to evolve too, to keep pace. My guess is that the rules will always lag behind somewhat. I guess there will always be people like me who deplore some of the changes and welcome others. Clearly, standards are important, but they need to adapt with the times. For example, consider the changes in the way people are addressed in business correspondence. The trend has been from formal to informal. Also, open punctuation is increasingly being accepted as the norm. However, there was a time when there were few standards, for example in the way words were spelled. Imagine how difficult learning, or teaching it, must have been back in those times.

I made the point in another thread about something quite different, but it's germane here: there are rules which are prescriptive - which tell you what you and shouldn't do, and rules which are descriptive - which describe what is actually going on. Many of the grammar police seem to think that only the first sort apply to language, and grammar in particular, but in fact a grammar of a language is a description of the regularities present in a language and, as such, will always be a snapshot of how the language works at the time when the grammar was written. A language will always have a grammar, but it may not be the one you were taught donkey's years ago, or the one you think it should have. But that's language for you - damn nerve if you ask me - only way there seems to be of stopping such changes is to stop using the language, (as I wrote that last sentence it was constructed as an observation rather than a piece of advice, but on reflection...)

[boxcorner]

Edited by boxcorner

[boxcorner]

Edited by boxcorner

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

Thanks. I'm fortunate enough to have the hardback version of this encyclopedia by David Crystal, which is similarly instructive. It's the kind of book that I really enjoy dipping back into, from time-to-time.

I have a love/hate relationship with David Crystal. He writes a lot of good stuff, but he also has views that I vehemently disagree with (such as his claim that "traditional" definitions of verb tenses don't apply to English).

[SeaBookGuy]

Originally Posted by Lo Zeno

Keep in mind that it's entirely possible that what I was taught is... obsolete.
Outside of England, the so-called English Courses are actually "Courses of Academic English Language used by Shakespeare, Blake and other authors who died at least one century ago".

You know, in my textbook "ace!" was still described as an exclamation widely used by young people to mean "wonderful, amazing, stupifying".
When I used it in a real-world dialog, the other person said to me "dude, that's SO 1970!"

It must be British as I've have never heard anyone say that, and if i did it would sound more like 1940's to me!

[boxcorner]

Edited by boxcorner

[mrscoach]

Harry, I would have gone with the British version of the two "Carefree" examples if given a choice, so I think wiki isn't entirely accurate on this. And since I am currently studying English I feel I know what I am talking about. To me the comma and period go with the sentence, not the quoted material. And that is how we were teaching it last year.

No wonder we see so many mistakes in books, if there are VERY fluid rules to follow.

I'm not bothered by small mistakes in books, but when misplaced commas change a meaning or make that meaning unclear I become irate. Or they use the wrong words, or even tenses of words.