 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2004Comma Usage in Salutation
In browsing earlier posts, I came across the "Hi John" posting. The various combinations offered are as follows: 1. Hi John 2. Hi, John I always thought the correct punctuation for this salutation should be as follows: Hi, John, Am I right or wrong? Many thanks, Dan > I always thought the correct punctuation for this salutation should be as > follows: > Hi, John, You were misinformed. Hi and cognates (Hello etc.) are not standard greetings for letters: and where there are no standards there can be no correct or incorrect punctuation. -- Don Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) > > I always thought the correct punctuation for this salutation should be as > > follows: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > It would seem to me that the rule for direct address, which states that an addressee's name should be set off with commas, applies here. Your reference to "standard" cognates sounds a bit vague or perhaps a bit imperious to me. You also attempt to generalize the problem with the so-called non-standard greetings to the entire salutation. This is a leap of logic I do not feel is justified. The direct address rule is explicit and unambiguous. It is standard and applicable here. Certainly, a person's name and the direct address rule that applies to it are "standard, are they not? There's also the fact that it is an accepted salutation in an informal communique, such as an email, in which case, the use of offsetting the name with a comma would be appropriate. However, as Adrian points out, in a simplified block writing style, punctuation is eliminated in salutations and closings. In other words, it depends on the environment in which you're writing. :) Chris McCabe > > > I always thought the correct punctuation for this salutation should be > as [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > unambiguous. It is standard and applicable here. Certainly, a person's name > and the direct address rule that applies to it are "standard, are they not? > In browsing earlier posts, I came across the "Hi John" posting. The various > combinations offered are as follows: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Am I right or wrong? I write: Hi John I also write: Dear sir Yours faithfully and so on, all comma-less. This is as a result of a typing course I did many years ago. What's the point of a comma if you're going to hit the carriage return at least twice anyway? Adrian > > In browsing earlier posts, I came across the "Hi John" posting. The > various [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Adrian A person's name, or pet name, should be set off by commas when it is used to address that person in dialogue. "Hi, John." "Have you seen Dave, John, in the last half-hour?" Certain words can become part of the address: "Darling Mary, what have you done?" The salutation of a letter is written "Dear [name]" and should end with a comma when the letter is personal, with a colon when the letter is business. The complimentary close always has a comma after it. This is the way I was taught: grade-school English class, high-school typing class, every etiquette or secretarial book I've seen -- and [mumble] years as a secretary. Even the casualness of email and chat needs a comma: "Hi, John." Lately, I've been seeing "Hey John, what's happening?" in novels. And I've added this missing comma (between "hey" and "John") to my ever-growing list of pet peeves. Cece > > > In browsing earlier posts, I came across the "Hi John" posting. The > various [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Cece I was told our friend the comma tells us when we can breathe. "Hi, John," - imo - has one too many places to breathe in it. I may start to hyperventilate even before I get to the more important body of a message. > I was told our friend the comma tells us when we can breathe. "Hi, > John," - imo - has one too many places to breathe in it. I may start > to hyperventilate even before I get to the more important body of a > message. Unfortunately, this well-meaning advice is dead wrong. Punctuation has everything to do with structure and nothing to do with respiration. An example: "The Hall of Fame second basemen include Morgan, Collins, Robinson, Frisch, Fox, Mazeroski and Hornsby." I believe that no tolerably literate English-speaker would object to those commas (and most Americans would add one more), but attempting a breath at each one would be most unwise. As for the original point, I endorse every word written by the engagingly-named Cece. Now we can have a debate about whether my last hyphen is necessary. This is an issue that appears to divide the community of commentators on usage. Larry Trask larryt@sussex.ac.uk "Larry Trask" <larryt@sussex.ac.uk> wrote... > [...] > As for the original point, I endorse every word written by the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > This is an issue that appears to divide the community of commentators > on usage. In this example the hyphen performs no function; its presence doesn't aid readability, and no ambiguity would arise in its absence. Are there other arguments for its retention? Matti > "Larry Trask" <larryt@sussex.ac.uk> wrote... > > [...] [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > aid readability, and no ambiguity would arise in its absence. Are there > other arguments for its retention? The fundamental rule is this: a compound modifier must be hyphenated. So: her Swiss-German ancestry a copper-producing region a woman-hating religion a shoulder-high catch a well-chosen example his salt-and-pepper moustache And so on. But some commentators recognize an exception when the first word in the compound modifier ends in '-ly'. These commentators believe that the presence of this suffix makes the structure clear enough that the hyphen can be dispensed with. I don't have strong views here, but on balance I prefer to write the hyphen. And I note that rare cases exist in which the hyphen is essential: She chose carefully-embroidered handkerchiefs as a present for her mother. Without the hyphen, this becomes a garden-path sentence. Larry Trask larryt@sussex.ac.uk "Larry Trask" <larryt@sussex.ac.uk> wrote... > "Matti Lamprhey" <matti-nospam@totally-official.com> wrote... > > "Larry Trask" <larryt@sussex.ac.uk> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > And so on. Of those, only "a well-chosen example" follows the adverbial example we were discussing. I would have no hesitation in hyphenating the rest. I'd say that "engagingly named" is no more a compound modifier than "black and white", and the latter would normally be left unhyphenated. You can visualize the difference by rearrangement. "She was engagingly named." No hyphenation required. Compare this to "The region was copper-producing." That adverbial phrase must ALWAYS be hyphenated because it breaks the usual conventions of grammar. > But some commentators recognize an exception when the first word in > the compound modifier ends in '-ly'. These commentators believe that > the presence of this suffix makes the structure clear enough that the > hyphen can be dispensed with. I'd prefer to describe the situation as "an unambiguous adverb", and I suspect that this is what those commentators really meant. > I don't have strong views here, but on balance I prefer to write the > hyphen. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Without the hyphen, this becomes a garden-path sentence. I mandate the hyphen in order to remove ambiguity. Otherwise, though, I think it should be omitted for these simple adverbial cases. Matti > > "Larry Trask" <larryt@sussex.ac.uk> wrote... > > > [...] [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Larry Trask > larryt@sussex.ac.uk Larry, what is a 'garden-path' sentence ? >> Without the hyphen, this becomes a garden-path sentence. >> >> Larry Trask >> larryt@sussex.ac.uk > >Larry, what is a 'garden-path' sentence ? Several months of hard labour, depending on its length.  Signaturewrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Quiet part of Hertfordshire England >>> Without the hyphen, this becomes a garden-path sentence. >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >Several months of hard labour, depending on its length. OK. A slightly more serious reply: I understand a "garden-path" sentence to be one that leads the reader "up the garden path", that is it misleads. The definitions I have seen suggest that it is a sentence that has an ambiguity in interpretation until something is reached that removes the ambiguity. I am not sure that the sentence referred to actually is a garden-path sentence when the hyphen is removed. It seems simply ambiguous. "She chose carefully embroidered handkerchiefs as a present for her mother." It is not clear what was done "carefully" - the choosing or the embroidering. SignaturePeter Duncanson UK (posting from a.e.u) > >>> Without the hyphen, this becomes a garden-path sentence. > >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > It is not clear what was done "carefully" - the choosing or the > embroidering. Thanks Peter. > Larry, what is a 'garden-path' sentence ? Sorry; I was assuming this term was well-known in language circles. A garden-path sentence is a sentence which leads the reader or hearer to assign a structure which later proves to be impossible, forcing a backtrack and the discovery of a different structure. A classic example: "The horse shot from the barn collapsed." Larry Trask larryt@sussex.ac.uk > > "Larry Trask" <larryt@sussex.ac.uk> wrote... > > > [...] [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > The fundamental rule is this: a compound modifier must be hyphenated. Take this man out and shoot him. 'Must', indeed! <insert 29,685,329 examples that disprove that 'law'> -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- > > I was told our friend the comma tells us when we can breathe. "Hi, > > John," - imo - has one too many places to breathe in it. I may start [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > As for the original point, I endorse every word written by the > engagingly-named Cece. Even "complimentary" for "complementary"? > Now we can have a debate about whether my last hyphen is necessary. > This is an issue that appears to divide the community of commentators > on usage. > > Larry Trask > larryt@sussex.ac.uk [quoting Cece] The complimentary close always has a comma after it. [LT] > > As for the original point, I endorse every word written by the > > engagingly-named Cece. > Even "complimentary" for "complementary"? Sorry; Cece is right. Larry Trask larryt@sussex.ac.uk > [quoting Cece] > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Larry Trask > larryt@sussex.ac.uk You're right, of course. Don't know what I was thinking. Sorry. >> I was told our friend the comma tells us when we can breathe. "Hi, >> John," - imo - has one too many places to breathe in it. I may start [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > has everything to do with structure and nothing to do with > respiration. But the 'respiration' and 'pause' gadgets are the easiest ways of teaching certain aspects of it. Unfortunately, when people are taught only the shortcuts like that, there's no way they can be aware of some of the more complex details, so they've no choice but to take what they have been taught as Gospel. Now take a guess at why minimalistic punctuation has become the vogue. > An example: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I believe that no tolerably literate English-speaker would object to > those commas (and most Americans would add one more), As would most Britons that I know, if they thought it were preferable. > but attempting a > breath at each one would be most unwise. <tries it> ... <picks himself up off the floor> > As for the original point, I endorse every word written by the > engagingly-named Cece. > > Now we can have a debate about whether my last hyphen is necessary. > This is an issue that appears to divide the community of commentators > on usage. Not absolutely necessary, as there's only one word the adverb can be modifying, but preferable. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- [..] >> As for the original point, I endorse every word written by the >> engagingly-named Cece. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Not absolutely necessary, as there's only one word the adverb can be >modifying, but preferable. Strictly speaking, I would have thought so too. Is not "engagingly-named" a compound adjective describing Cece? Signaturewrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Quiet part of Hertfordshire England > [..] > >> As for the original point, I endorse every word written by the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Strictly speaking, I would have thought so too. Is not "engagingly-named" a > compound adjective describing Cece? Why not? I'd normally parse 'engagingly' as an adverb modifying 'named', with the hyphen adding clarity, but there's no reason not to do it the way you say. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- [...] > I was told our friend the comma tells us when we can breathe. "Hi, > John," - imo - has one too many places to breathe in it. I may start > to hyperventilate even before I get to the more important body of a > message. Unfortunately you were misinformed. The main purpose of modern punctuation is to clarify the grammatical structure of what is written. This in turn guides the delivery of the text but doesn't relate directly to breathing. If you listen to a good reader or speaker and happen also to have the text in front of you, you will readily observe this. In, say, Shakespeare's time punctuation was indeed to some extent "rhetorical", but in terms more of indicating emphasis than dictating pauses. Four centuries later we have developed a few novel rhetorical features of punctuation, such as assertive dashes and lingering triple-dots, and we distinguish between [?] and [!] where Shakespeare had to make do with just [?], but still the comma doesn't tell us where we can take a breath. I assume that school teachers spread the notion "comma = breath" because they are for whatever reason unable to teach the grammar (for example, the pupils may be too young to master syntactic analysis). But, as others have explained, it isn't so: "Hi, John" needs its comma. Alan Jones > I was told our friend the comma tells us when we can breathe. "Hi, > John," - imo - has one too many places to breathe in it. I may start > to hyperventilate even before I get to the more important body of a > message. I never heard this myth until maybe a year ago. A comma does not tell us when to breathe, nor does taking a breath tell us when to put a comma in. A comma marks off parts of a sentence that should not be confused with other parts. Cece > In browsing earlier posts, I came across the "Hi John" posting. The various > combinations offered are as follows: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Am I right or wrong? Many thanks, Dan Good morning Dan Shea, hi Don Phillipson, top of the morning to you Chris McCabe, hello Adrian Bailey, greetings Cece, I see no reason for a comma after an 'interjection calling attention' such as 'hi' or any other for that matter. > > In browsing earlier posts, I came across the "Hi John" posting. The various > > combinations offered are as follows: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > hello Adrian Bailey, greetings Cece, I see no reason for a comma after an > 'interjection calling attention' such as 'hi' or any other for that matter. I do. Well, Alan, in your run-on above, I would change every comma you used to a period and insert a comma befoe every name. Cece > > > In browsing earlier posts, I came across the "Hi John" posting. The various > > > combinations offered are as follows: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Well, Alan, in your run-on above, I would change every comma you used > to a period and insert a comma befoe every name. But why ? If all of you were passing through a doorway in front of me, so quickly that I could hardly keep up with my salutations to you all, there would certainly be no need for the periods you suggest. All you said in a previous post in reply at Adrian.. [A person's name, or pet name, should be set off by commas when it is used to address that person in dialogue. "Hi, John." ] .. but 'should' is not enough of a reason imo. If you had temporarily forgotten John's name and after having said "Hi", hesitated and then remembered his name (and wished to convey this in your writings), then I could understand the reason for inserting a comma. In your reply to Josh.. [A comma marks off parts of a sentence that should not be confused with other parts.] .. but there is no confusion in me saying "Greetings Cece." to you. > > > > In browsing earlier posts, I came across the "Hi John" posting. The various > > > > combinations offered are as follows: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > confused with other parts.] > .. but there is no confusion in me saying "Greetings Cece." to you. The reason? You want a reason? Because! Again, a comma does not mandate a breath, and a breath is not the reason for the presence of a comma. Cece [snip] > The reason? You want a reason? > > Because! Cece, thanks for being so candid. Happy new year to you and yours ! > [snip] > > The reason? You want a reason? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Happy new year to you and yours ! Alan, do you see/hear a difference between "Can you see Matthew?" and "Can you see, Matthew?" "I can see Mark" and "I can see, Mark." In Latin, or in Old English (Saxon), the differences would have been in the case of the nouns, accusative or vocative (different case names in Saxon, I think). But Modern English does not decline nouns; we use position within the sentence and punctuation (or, when speaking, separating instead of running together). Does comma use make sense now? Cece > > [snip] > > > The reason? You want a reason? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Does comma use make sense now? Cece, there is no need of a further explanation, I understand 'because'. I do not, however, understand why my declinometer didn't catch that. >I do not, however, understand why my declinometer didn't catch that. Maybe it didn't have the inclination. Signaturewrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Quiet part of Hertfordshire England > > > In browsing earlier posts, I came across the "Hi John" posting. The various > > > combinations offered are as follows: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Well, Alan, in your run-on above, I would change every comma you used > to a period and insert a comma befoe every name. Funnily enough, if you were to have inserted a comma after "run-on", in your sentence, above, it would have become readable. As it stands, I have no idea whether or not Alan owns a "run-on above", nor where I can buy one. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.