What's this thread got to do with toobs? Here's an interesting article I found today.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2007-07-30-cruel-web_N.htm
This type of thing seems to have gotten worse over the years.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2007-07-30-cruel-web_N.htm
This type of thing seems to have gotten worse over the years.
poynton said:
It's not incorrect. It may be unnecessary, but there's nothing wrong with it being there. IMO it looks wrong without it. I also spell colour with a u.
While we're nitpicking, someone just used your instead of you're a few posts back. Not mentioning any names (mostly because I'm too lazy to go back and look).
I have to admit, though, that my sentence structure is often incorrect, and tends to be more in line with the way I would speak, as opposed to what I know is correct. I think that's generally pretty acceptable, as long as it still follows most of the rules of English, and doesn't slow down the reader.
The speed bump analogy is a good one, though I find that tends to fit better in cases where the writing is generally good, until your jolted by there incorrect use of a homophone.
Some posts I would describe more as the potholed back alley, requiring you to go slow the whole way to avoid damaging your car, or in this case, brain.
-Nick
EC8010 said:
Yes, I was attempting to demonstrate the speed bump effect. I assume it was very jarring.
Aengus said:
I agree wholeheartedly, but will surely try and make up for ignorantly replacing it with an adjective by excessively filling this sentence with adverbs, while dearly hoping I use them all correctly.
It's definitely a common problem which I often notice in my own speech and writing. Unfortunately it's so ingrained that even more often I don't notice.
-Nick
Browning to our American friends.Cal Weldon said:
How is it incorrect? I've never seen a rule from any authoritative source stating the correct usage, but merely style guides suggesting one or the other. Apparently, one of the biggest arguments against the "Oxford comma" is that it's not especially common to use it. By that argument "LOL" should soon become an official part of our language.
There are cases where it can cause more problems than it solves (an interjection in the middle of a list, for example), but in my opinion, these cases are usually rather awkwardly constructed sentences to begin with, and probably better off restructured for better readability, as they usually won't be clear regardless.
In most other cases it will make things clearer, or it will make no difference. Using it is not incorrect, even when arguably unnecessary, and generally adds some readability.
So, any opinions on the use of parentheses?
-Nick
Cal Weldon said:It is incorrect as it is redundant. Just as it is incorrect to use more than one of any punctuation mark in a row.
Know what I mean???
That analogy is a little bit off. An unnecessary optional punctuation mark is quite different from an incorrect extra one.
If you still insist that it's incorrect, maybe you should look it up. I'm sure there's plenty of information available. If not under "Oxford comma", then perhaps under "serial comma"..
)
Has anybody mentioned split infinitives yet? I'm too lazy to check but, if they haven't, I'd just like to say that split infinitives annoy me - perhaps they shouldn't, but they do! Ever since I learned about the splitting of infinitives from my English teacher at school, I've been painfully aware of it and I cringe every time it occurs.
Its most well-known manifestation was probably in the introduction to Star Trek: ". . . to boldly go . . ." but one hears it everywhere, and some of the most common offenders are the very people one might expect to know better, like politicians and journalists, e.g. ". . . to better serve . . .". Maybe that's why I wouldn't feed, let alone pay, pollies and journos.
P.S. Not sure: did I sneak a few Oxfam commas in there?
Its most well-known manifestation was probably in the introduction to Star Trek: ". . . to boldly go . . ." but one hears it everywhere, and some of the most common offenders are the very people one might expect to know better, like politicians and journalists, e.g. ". . . to better serve . . .". Maybe that's why I wouldn't feed, let alone pay, pollies and journos.
P.S. Not sure: did I sneak a few Oxfam commas in there?
Split infinitives, but concatenated punctuation marks
I'm not so sure about split infinitives - where they improve readability without causing any real ambiguity, I can live with them. What was Churchill's remark: "p with such nonsense I will not put.", or words to that effect? And I know the style guides do not approve of those three punctuation marks ('.",') concatenated - but in this context they make sense to me (and who else really counts?).*
Regards.
Aengus
*Hah! Four in a row, if you include the asterisk. And even the style guides approve of '"...'. Deal with it.
I'm not so sure about split infinitives - where they improve readability without causing any real ambiguity, I can live with them. What was Churchill's remark: "p with such nonsense I will not put.", or words to that effect? And I know the style guides do not approve of those three punctuation marks ('.",') concatenated - but in this context they make sense to me (and who else really counts?).*
Regards.
Aengus
*Hah! Four in a row, if you include the asterisk. And even the style guides approve of '"...'. Deal with it.
Another "write right" thread...cool.
Two (apparently unrelated, but not) points:
--The University of North Carolina, where I went to school, had a seemingly arcane and bizarre requirement while I was there...you had to be able to tread water for five minutes before graduation. Period. No float...no graduate.
--The University of South Carolina, where I now work, has a preposterous number of employees who never made it beyond high school. I'm not talking custodial staff, I'm talking people in technical positions. Sadly, the majority of these folks are incapable of writing a single, literate sentence. Given that some of these same people are in written communication with the outside world, it is an ongoing embarrassment to a (supposed) institute of higher learning in that we look like a bunch of ignorant rednecks to the rest of the civilized world. It has gotten so bad that the head of the division I work for had to rather sharply remind people that they should write coherently when on the job. And people complained!
No, the points are not unrelated. A well-rounded individual can--and should be--competent in all the fundamentals. I hope that most would agree that writing is indeed fundamental.
So is the ability to save oneself from drowning, you would think, but UNC recently quit requiring people to float.
The world really is going to hell in a handbasket.
Grey
Two (apparently unrelated, but not) points:
--The University of North Carolina, where I went to school, had a seemingly arcane and bizarre requirement while I was there...you had to be able to tread water for five minutes before graduation. Period. No float...no graduate.
--The University of South Carolina, where I now work, has a preposterous number of employees who never made it beyond high school. I'm not talking custodial staff, I'm talking people in technical positions. Sadly, the majority of these folks are incapable of writing a single, literate sentence. Given that some of these same people are in written communication with the outside world, it is an ongoing embarrassment to a (supposed) institute of higher learning in that we look like a bunch of ignorant rednecks to the rest of the civilized world. It has gotten so bad that the head of the division I work for had to rather sharply remind people that they should write coherently when on the job. And people complained!
No, the points are not unrelated. A well-rounded individual can--and should be--competent in all the fundamentals. I hope that most would agree that writing is indeed fundamental.
So is the ability to save oneself from drowning, you would think, but UNC recently quit requiring people to float.
The world really is going to hell in a handbasket.
Grey
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.