 |
 | 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: counted any more than so many clean, bull terriers
Hello: -------- She began, Leonora did--and perhaps it was that that gave me the idea of a touch of insolence in her character, for she never afterwards did any one single thing like it--she began by saying in quite a loud voice and from quite a distance: "Don't stop over by that stuffy old table, Teddy. Come and sit by these nice people!" And that was an extraordinary thing to say. Quite extraordinary. I couldn't for the life of me refer to total strangers as nice people. But, of course, she was taking a line of her own in which I at any rate--and no one else in the room, for she too had taken the trouble to read through the list of guests--counted any more than so many clean, bull terriers. [The Good Soldier, By Ford Madox Ford, Ch. 35] --------- It surprises me to find a comma in front of "bull terriers" right at the end. Is that caused perhaps by the fact that "bull" is seen to be an adjective for "terriers", just like "clean? Could the comma still be placed there if "bull" were missing? Thanks. Marius Hancu > Hello: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > an adjective for "terriers", just like "clean? Could the comma still > be placed there if "bull" were missing? There would be no need for the comma if 'bull' were omitted. OED only acknowledges 'bull-terrier' with the hyphen, which should remove any doubt. But some write (and wrote) it as 'bull terrier'. The 'bull' may safely be taken to be a noun. Modern fanciers, however, tend to omit the comma - eg http://www.scsbts.freeserve.co.uk/ A bull-terrier is a cross between a bulldog and a terrier. The term 'bull' is used for the male of a species in some cases - like 'bull elephant' - but I haven't heard it for dogs. -- John Dean Oxford De-frag to reply > And that was an extraordinary thing to say. Quite extraordinary. I > couldn't for the life of me refer to total strangers as nice [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > an adjective for "terriers", just like "clean? Could the comma still > be placed there if "bull" were missing? Unless the author has some bizarre reading in mind, that comma is simply an outright blunder, and you should forget about it. Larry Trask larryt@sussex.ac.uk > > And that was an extraordinary thing to say. Quite extraordinary. I > > couldn't for the life of me refer to total strangers as nice [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Larry Trask > larryt@sussex.ac.uk This comma may have come from the author, or the editor, or (perhaps most likely) the typesetting process. Typesetting is all done by computer now, and errors never committed by authors, nor edited in by an actual editor, show up all the time. If the manuscript was re-keyboarded for printing, the typesetter may have done it; if the author's electronic version went directly to typesetting, either the human typesetter or the computer may have done it. Cece >> > And that was an extraordinary thing to say. Quite extraordinary. I >> > couldn't for the life of me refer to total strangers as nice [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >Cece We're talking about a book nearly a hundred years old here. They punctuated in ways we don't; what was right then isn't now. That book probably came out before Fowler's. Cut the man some slack. Nowadays the comma wouldn't be there, as Larry says. But it's a very good book, nonetheless. Carter Carter Jefferson carterj98@mindspring.com http://carterj.homestead.com/ > >> > And that was an extraordinary thing to say. Quite extraordinary. I > >> > couldn't for the life of me refer to total strangers as nice [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >> > an adjective for "terriers", just like "clean? Could the comma still > >> > be placed there if "bull" were missing? > We're talking about a book nearly a hundred years old here. They > punctuated in ways we don't; what was right then isn't now. That book > probably came out before Fowler's. Cut the man some slack. Depending which Fowler's you're talking about: Fowler's "King's English", 2nd edition, 1908: http://www.bartleby.com/116/index.html has a chapter on punctuation. The Good Soldier, 1915: http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/fford.htm Fowler's Modern English Usage, which I suppose you mean, 1926: http://www.4reference.net/encyclopedias/wikipedia/Fowler_s_Modern_English_Usage.html > Nowadays the comma wouldn't be there, as Larry says. > > But it's a very good book, nonetheless. Absolutely. I'd say he had an amazing output, for a lifetime. Marius Hancu |
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.