Grammar issues (again)....

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by VydorScope

What is the difference in en-dash and em-dash?

Gmw gave you the answer but omitted one important aspect: the use for each dash .

The em-dash is generally used to offset text; the en-dash is used in number ranges and when you are adding a prefix or suffix to an already hyphenated compound. In the instance of the hyphenated compound, the reason for using the en-dash rather than another hyphen is to make it clear that you are calling for an action other than that normally expected with the compound. (I'm sure that is clear as mud!) For example (- = hyphen; -- = en-dash; --- = em-dash):

1. non--anti-inflammatory is used rather than non-anti-inflammatory because it is clearer that the compound anti-inflammatory needs to be seen as a single "word"
2. "It is better---probably for everyone---that he not be telephoned." Here the em-dash is used to set off explanatory, but unnecessary to the sentence text.

It would be incorrect to use en-dashes in lieu of the em-dashes in #2, just as it would be incorrect to replace the en-dash in #1 with an em-dash.

[VydorScope]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Gmw gave you the answer but omitted one important aspect: the use for each dash .

The em-dash is generally used to offset text; the en-dash is used in number ranges and when you are adding a prefix or suffix to an already hyphenated compound. In the instance of the hyphenated compound, the reason for using the en-dash rather than another hyphen is to make it clear that you are calling for an action other than that normally expected with the compound. (I'm sure that is clear as mud!) For example (- = hyphen; -- = en-dash; --- = em-dash):

1. non--anti-inflammatory is used rather than non-anti-inflammatory because it is clearer that the compound anti-inflammatory needs to be seen as a single "word"
2. "It is better---probably for everyone---that he not be telephoned." Here the em-dash is used to set off explanatory, but unnecessary to the sentence text.

It would be incorrect to use en-dashes in lieu of the em-dashes in #2, just as it would be incorrect to replace the en-dash in #1 with an em-dash.

Number ranges? As in "He could get 5-10 in the big house for that murder" ? I would have used hyphen there.

Also, in number two,

"It is better---probably for everyone---that he not be telephoned."

I would have done

"It is better, probably for everyone, that he not be telephoned."

(actually I would not use that word order at all, but this is comma vs --- question so ignoring that)

Why use --- vs , there?

Thanks!

[gmw]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Gmw gave you the answer but omitted one important aspect: the use for each dash . [...]

But I did, I did. I linked to it in Wikipedia rather than try to reproduce the various characters here.

I just realised that the link I posted last time jumped half-way down the article. This link takes you to the top of the article where there is the neat summary I mentioned in my previous post.

In particular, that link shows you that it is permitted in some styles/guidelines to use en-dashes to set off text, but they are spaced. So your example two can legitimately use en-dash if written like this:

"It is better -- probably for everyone -- that he not be telephoned."

Which, incidentally, is how I prefer to set off text (when using dashes). I personally never liked the em-dash (without spaces) variation. The link I supplied gives more details about the various styles/guidelines that prefer the different forms.

[Alyssa Miranda]

can be to the writer. It hadn't occurred to me to consult it before opining on the use of the dash in a previous post, and when I clicked on gmw's link I found 13 or so pages devoted to the subject, including 35 references. When you consider that this is just one of about 40 punctuation marks you can find discussed in Wikipedia, you appreciate how useful it can be in answering usage questions when they come up.

With respect to the "em" versus "en" dash controversy, apparently the positions can be passionately held. The Canadians, for example, dismiss the "em" dash as being nothing more than a "padded and corseted aesthetic of Victorian typography." Another tidbit I found interesting is the use of the "horizontal bar," or "quotation dash," to introduce quoted text. I first encountered this in reading Joyce's Dubliners (tried to use italics here but the software wouldn't let me), and wondered why he didn't use quotation marks like everybody else. That this use of the dash was common in Ireland at the time could explain that.

Of more than historical interest is a final tidbit noted in the Wikipedia article, namely the potential typographical havoc that can result from the use of the "em" dash without spaces (the grotesque justifications you occasionally encounter in Word come to mind), and a way to avoid it by using "thin," "hair," or ""zero-width" spaces, none of which I knew existed until reading the Wikipedia article.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by VydorScope

Number ranges? As in "He could get 5-10 in the big house for that murder" ? I would have used hyphen there.

This is a matter of style. It is not mandatory that an en-dash be used in number ranges, but many publications do, particularly journals. The point I was making is that an en-dash is used in number ranges but an em-dash is not.

Originally Posted by VydorScope

Also, in number two,

"It is better---probably for everyone---that he not be telephoned."

I would have done

"It is better, probably for everyone, that he not be telephoned."

(actually I would not use that word order at all, but this is comma vs --- question so ignoring that)

Why use --- vs , there?

I was not saying that the em-dash was the only alternative, just that the em-dash is used in this situation and the en-dash is not. That you would use commas indicates how much emphasis you want the reader to assign to the set-off phrase. The em-dash indicates greater emphasis than the comma. You could also have put the set-off phrase in parens rather than using commas or em-dashes.

Bottom line is that if I were writing the sentence, I wouldn't have used the set-off phrase at all, and I probably would have written: "It is best not to telephone him." In any event, I am not a writer (as you probably can tell), so my examples were not intended to have literary merit.

The point is that the dashes are used differently, not that they have to be used at all, just that if they are used they should be used correctly.

[Andy Farman]

I have two test readers, one zips through and enjoys it but points that it was not perfect grammatically or in its punctuation, but it is still a good read.

The second will state it is a good story ruined by an error in grammar and a semi colon.

Therefore it does not matter that the first reader enjoyed it so much, but that the second reader did not.

It is the reviews of the second reader who will hurt the book.

[MacEachaidh]

Am I the only one who sees a problem with the opening clause of the OP's sentence?

The voice in her brain felt like it was dying makes "the voice in her brain" the subject of the verb — i.e. that the voice in her brain was doing the "feeling". Surely this is wrong? If *she* is the one doing the feeling, as she is also feeling the loss in strength from her leg wound, then it should be either

It felt like the voice in her brain was dying or She felt like the voice in her brain was dying.

And also ... I don't mean to nitpick, but the sentence seems to be based around two mismatched metaphors. The voice in her brain is draining in strength, but her leg is draining blood; the construction makes it sound like the blood from her wound is draining in strength, which makes no real sense to me.

What about:
It felt like the voice in her brain was dying, its strength draining as the dark blood drained from her freshly-opened leg wound ?

Originally Posted by rhadin

Actually, the problem is the mix of tenses. I think I would write the sentence like this:

This puts everything in the present tense. Presumably, the sentence is reporting something that is currently happening, not something that happened in the past; at least that is what draining, dying, and leaking imply.

No, the "felt" puts the sentence in the past, and "is dying" should be "was dying", or else you do have a mix of tenses. The question is not one of tense but of aspect — whether you choose to use the continuous aspect (an action that was continuing at the time the sentence refers to) or the perfect (completed) one. They don't technically need to agree, and in sentences like this a continuous aspect in the primary clause implies a continuous aspect in the other part of the sentence, even when that uses a perfect aspect. So you could say that the blood "leaked", rather than "was leaking", and it still implies a continuing action.

[Andy Farman]

....however, whilst grammatical purists debate a line on a free Blog, 'Fifty Shades of Grey' with its terrible punctuation is making its author, the Tracey Emin of literature, very rich and famous.

So does it matter if 'was' is 'is' if the reader is happy?

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Andy Farman

....however, whilst grammatical purists debate a line on a free Blog, 'Fifty Shades of Grey' with its terrible punctuation is making its author, the Tracey Emin of literature, very rich and famous.

So does it matter if 'was' is 'is' if the reader is happy?

I think the point is that, while good grammar may not rescue a lousy story, bad grammar may destroy a good story. The writing does not have to be perfect, but it does have to be good enough for a story to stand a chance. ... Of course, what constitutes "good enough" will remain forever open to debate.

ETA: And I believe that some would argue that the standards of "good enough" are steadily dropping.

[MacEachaidh]

Originally Posted by Andy Farman

So does it matter if 'was' is 'is' if the reader is happy?

I'm not sure of the point of your question.

Does it matter if you don't use dovetail joints to assemble a chair, and only use glue instead? No, of course not; the chair still holds together ... as long as only skinny people sit on it.

Does it matter if some readers are thrown out of the story by parts of sentences that conflict with each other? No, I guess not, as long as some others just keep reading and never question it anyway. But is that what you really want in words you either read or write yourself?

I guess you can always put a disclaimer in the frontispiece, saying "Never mind if some of this doesn't actually make sense — I'm sure you know what I meant".

[Andy Farman]

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

I guess you can always put a disclaimer in the frontispiece, saying "Never mind if some of this doesn't actually make sense — I'm sure you know what I meant".

If this were Facebook I'd steal that!

Good title for a TV quiz show, though.

Seriously, I do agree with you. There is the proper way, and then there is txt.