 |
 | 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 / February 2010Punctuation in chess notation
As most of you will know, moves in a chess game are sometimes annotated with ?s and !s and many other signs. ? means a bad move and ! is a good move. This used to lead to some confusion, for example, "I suddenly had a great idea, why not play 32.Rg4?" Here the reader may be puzzled for a while; was 32.Rg4 a good move or a bad move or just a move? Recent chess publications have tried to solve the problem, quite cleverly, with double punctuation: "White now played 12.exd5?." The full stop marks the end of the sentence. Anything previous to that is 'in the sentence'. The sentence "I suddenly had a great idea, why not play 32.Rg4?" stays the same, but usage should immediately tell one that the last ? marks the sentence as a question and is not marking the move as bad. It can go wrong. In a recent book I saw something like this: "Without this I would have finished last!." > As most of you will know, moves in a chess game are sometimes > annotated with ?s and !s and many other signs. ? means a bad move [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The full stop marks the end of the sentence. Anything previous to that > is 'in the sentence'. I hit on the same solution for my own chess writing some years ago. However, it won't always work. > The sentence "I suddenly had a great idea, why not play 32.Rg4?" stays > the same, but usage should immediately tell one that the last ? marks > the sentence as a question and is not marking the move as bad. But what if 32.Rg4 really was a bad move? And the writer is lamenting playing it? Then, according to the punctuation system we've just mooted, he would have to write either "Why did I play 32.Rg4?.", which ungrammatically ends a question with a period, or "Why did I play 32.Rg4??", where the first ? indicates the move is bad, and the second ends the sentence as a question. But that could also be interpreted as meaning 32.Rg4 was a really bad move, a blunder. And if it actually was a blunder, we'd have to write "Why did I play 32.Rg4???" In my own writing I tried to avoid such ambiguities. I might have written your sentence thusly: "I suddenly had a great idea: why not move the rook? 32.Rg4! would ..." etc. On Feb 6, 6:55 am, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net> wrote: > > Recent chess publications have tried to solve the problem, quite > > cleverly, with double punctuation: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > written your sentence thusly: "I suddenly had a great idea: why not > move the rook? 32.Rg4! would ..." etc. My own solution was different (I don't write about chess much, hence it didn't matter :-). Chess notation should end with an end space. Now we have: 1. Why did you play 12... h3 ? (A question about a regular move) 2. Why did you play 12... h3? ? (A question about a weak move) 3. Why didn't you play 12... h3 ? (A question about a regular move) 4. Why did't you play 12... h3! ? (A question about a strong move) 5. What do you think about 12... h3!? ? (A question about a promising move) 6. In such positions play 12... h3! ! (An emphasis on a strong move). 7. Never play anything like 12... h3? ! 8. A clever but objectively weak was 12... h3?! . or, preferably (for aesthetic reasons): 8'. A clever but objectively weak was 12... h3?!. When Full stop finishes a sentence then we may avoid the space after the space before it. etc. Regards, Wlod > 8'. A clever but objectively weak was 12... h3?!. > > When Full stop finishes a sentence then we may avoid the space > after the space before it. * ...we may avoid the space after the chess notation, before the full stop. Wlod On Feb 6, 6:55 am, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net> wrote: > > As most of you will know, moves in a chess game are sometimes > > annotated with ?s and !s and many other signs. ? means a bad move [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > written your sentence thusly: "I suddenly had a great idea: why not > move the rook? 32.Rg4! would ..." etc. You forgot one thing TK--it the UK, the period goes inside the quote marks, whereas in America it's the opposite. So "32.Rg4??" is entirely different in meaning from "32.Rg4?"?, but in fact mean the same thing depending on whether you're British or American. RL > On Feb 6, 6:55 am, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > You forgot one thing TK--it the UK, the period goes inside the quote > marks, whereas in America it's the opposite. Sorry, Ray, but the American way is to put periods and commas inside the quotes. I quote from the Style Gide for Writers of Term Papers, Masters' Theses and Doctoral Dissertations, by Janice L. Gorn, Ph.D. (New York, 1973): RULE: Quotation marks are placed /outside/ periods and commas. RULE: Quotation marks are place inside the following punctuation marks: exclamation point, question mark, colon and semicolon. Can you imagine saying "I'm not concerned"? There are three foci i Queen's study: "authoritarianism"; "ethnocentrism"; and "totalitarianism." EXCEPTION: When the exclamation point or the question mark is an organic part of the material quoted, the quotation mark is placed outside. He said, "Woe is me!" I don't have an official British style guide handy, so I can't cite an authoritative refence there. But having read a lot of British authors, their custom seems to be that commas, at least, go outside quotes. Not sure about other punctuation. Also, they use a single quote mark where Americans use a double, and vice versa. >> On Feb 6, 6:55 am, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net> >> wrote: >> > In my own writing I tried to avoid such ambiguities. I might >> > have [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Masters' Theses and Doctoral Dissertations, by Janice L. Gorn, Ph.D. > (New York, 1973): Who died and made Janice L. Gorn the US punctuation queen? (I will not deny that what "rules" you cite in her work agree with the Chicago Manual of Style, but, again, that is but ONE style sheet.) Does PhD Gorn cite the CMOS? I think that its creation and further editions predate her work. She seems to be shilling for some particular publisher(s). Do you know which? > RULE: Quotation marks are placed /outside/ periods and commas. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > quotes. Not sure about other punctuation. Also, they use a single > quote mark where Americans use a double, and vice versa. I think you will find that the British usage of punctuation follows a situational pattern (but there are numerous residents of AEU who hail from the UK, and they can explain their patterns better than I). If the pause is indicated within the quotation marks, then that is where a comma will be placed. I, born and raised in the US, learned from a very early age to use commas and periods where the meaning lies, whether that be within or outside the quotation marks. > >> On Feb 6, 6:55 am, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net> > >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Who died and made Janice L. Gorn the US punctuation queen? Who said anyone ever did? I cited her book merely because it is a relevant reference I have. > (I will not deny that what "rules" you cite in her work agree with the > Chicago Manual of Style, Then it would seem we have no important point of disagreement in the topic at hand. > but, again, that is but ONE style sheet.) Yes, that is quite obvious. One book is one book. In general I have found 1 = 1 to be a very sound equation (trinitarian mysticism notwithstanding). > Does PhD Gorn cite the CMOS? I think that its creation and further > editions predate her work. Couldn't say. Probably the main difference between Gorn's book and the CMOS is that (as her title indicates) Gorn concentrates more on academic papers: masters' theses, doctoral dissertations etc. > She seems to be shilling for some particular publisher(s). Do you > know which? Sorry, I see no "shilling" in her book. It was published by Simon and Schuster, but putting the publisher's name on a book is customary and hardly qualifies as shilling. >> "Taylor Kingston" <taylor.kings...@comcast.net> wrote in message >> >> On Feb 6, 6:55 am, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net> >> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > the > topic at hand. Oh, but we do. I don't subscribe to the "rules" some quote from the CMOS as "the rules for the US", any more than your statement as you support it with Gorn's book. And I don't think I am really interested enough to read it to find out if she gives even the slightest nod of her head to the UK comma style, or to variations in the" US style". Nor even any recognition as to when "her idea" of the American comma style actually might have become a "rule". Sorry, but the words, "the American way", bring to my mind some other discussions, current and long-standing. >> but, again, that is but ONE style sheet.) > > Yes, that is quite obvious. One book is one book. In general I have > found 1 = 1 to be a very sound equation (trinitarian mysticism > notwithstanding). One: CMOS One: Gorn's work One: MLA One: Chicago Tribune style sheet. One style sheet among several. Gorn's may not be derivative, after all. In this one point she may _coincidentally_ agree with the CMOS. >> Does PhD Gorn cite the CMOS? I think that its creation and further >> editions predate her work. > > Couldn't say. Probably the main difference between Gorn's book and > the CMOS is that (as her title indicates) Gorn concentrates more on > academic papers: masters' theses, doctoral dissertations etc. The CMOS _was devised_ for all works submitted for publication in the University of Chicago press, those being, of course, academic papers: masters' theses, doctoral dissertations, etc. >> She seems to be shilling for some particular publisher(s). Do you >> know which? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > customary > and hardly qualifies as shilling. Well, perhaps Simon and Schuster requires the Gorn style sheet to be followed. On the other hand, they may publish a dozen style sheets for a dozen other publishing companies. > >> "Taylor Kingston" <taylor.kings...@comcast.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Oh, but we do. If you insist. But I won't be joining the argument. > I don't subscribe to the "rules" some quote from the CMOS as "the > rules for the US", any more than your statement as you support it with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > might have become a "rule". Sorry, but the words, "the American way", > bring to my mind some other discussions, current and long-standing. Apparently you have had these long-standing discussions with someone else, and you have confused me with him. Anyway, thanks for your input. > On Feb 6, 6:55 am, Taylor Kingston <taylor.kings...@comcast.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > RL Well, you are quite correct, and one advantage of the British system is that you can quote punctuation which terminates sentences without ending a sentence, or conflating a comment with the quotation. To quote: He walked down the street. In the UK: "He walked down the street.", and then a comment or exclamation where I inserted the comma. There is a differing function between US and UK forms. In terms of chess notation which is all short-hand annotation of a transcendent description which does NOT equate with either US or UK forms - since it is of specialist type, rather than typical or aggregate type. If I wanted to indicate in normal form [either US or UK] where the Rook went I could write Rook to g four, but if I wrote Rook to g four? that would indicate in normal language a doubt where the rook went; to g four or g five or g wherever? There are other options for chess notation than reported here, but they are not adopted into international chess legends - Adorjan has compiled a list of icons which represent ex-cathedra factors to the game, including a symbol for moves made under zeitnot conditions, et cetera, which inform the reader of that circumstance. Phil Innes > Well, you are quite correct, and one advantage of the British system > is that you can quote punctuation which terminates sentences without [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > description which does NOT equate with either US or UK forms - since > it is of specialist type, rather than typical or aggregate type. > Phil Innes Yes; the UK lags us in proper English. The American dialect seems to be the gold standard in the language. The English, Scotch, and Irish can't even agree among themselves. Their versions are quaint but olde. > Yes; the UK lags us in proper English. Actually that's true. Much American English predates current British English. American English is generally of post-Elizabethan form, while modern British has come out of 'BBC Oxford'. It is interesting to note that Orwell, while broadcasting propaganda during WWII, noted that official radio English was difficult for many people to understand. > The American dialect seems to > be the gold standard in the language. As for 'dialects' thats different. West Saxon became the dominant form for English, while the Pilgrims brought much Dane-law Icelandic-Saxon with them. > The English, Scotch, and Irish > can't even agree among themselves. Their versions are quaint but olde. Bad! That 'e' does not exist! Though it was much used following certain influential documents where the printer mistook a flourish for a letter. Old=Old! The word 'olde' is from Warwickshire, and has a meaning of famous, great, abundant, rather than its conflated meaning as you have it, of ancient. Naturally there are exceptions and inconsistencies but see in Tarlton's Newes out of Purgatorie, 1590 where both words occur in the same sentence: "On Sunday at masse, there was olde ringing of bels, and the old and yong came to church to see the new roode, which was so ill-favourde, that al the parish mislikt it... Even so, Shakespeare used the word in this sense: "There will be an old abusing of God's patience, and the King's English." [you note this is the first sense, of great, abundant, etc, but Shakepeare misspells it.] Now - consider use of the word OLD historically in Virginia and Maryland: the most enduring appellation by which a fond husband could address a beloved wife, used to be his calling her his /dear old woman/." That comment issues from about 1850, is it still current? And which sense is indicated by that 'old'? Phil Innes |
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.