 |
 | 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 / November 2006Punctuation question
Hi, I'm hoping the experts here can settle a dispute. Is the following sentence correctly punctuated? If not, please tell me the correct punctuation. Thanks! John is full of sh.t, anyway, so why even respond? > I'm hoping the experts here can settle a dispute. Is the following sentence > correctly punctuated? If not, please tell me the correct punctuation. > Thanks! > > John is full of sh.t, anyway, so why even respond? Properly punctuated -- no sh.t! -- Stefano "No matter where you go, there you are. But your luggage is in Point Roberts, Washington." > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > John is full of sh.t, anyway, so why even respond? I'd tell you, but I question your motivation for posting the above.  SignatureMaria >> Hi, >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I'd tell you, but I question your motivation for posting the above. My motivation is exactly as stated. There was a hot and heavy dispute about the punctuation of this sentence. I felt very confident the first comma should be omitted. I have asked on a few forums and there does not seem to a clear consensus. >>> I'm hoping the experts here can settle a dispute. Is the following >>> sentence correctly punctuated? If not, please tell me the correct [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > first comma should be omitted. I have asked on a few forums and there > does not seem to a clear consensus. Ah. Well, both commas are necessary. If "anyway" were deleted, you would still need the single comma after "sh.t." (That's my opinion; others may disagree, but don't listen to them.) SignatureMaria > Ah. Well, both commas are necessary. If "anyway" were deleted, you would > still need the single comma after "sh.t." (That's my opinion; others may > disagree, but don't listen to them.) Yes, but wouldn't you write: John is full of sh.t anyway. rather than, John is full of sh.t, anyway. >> Ah. Well, both commas are necessary. If "anyway" were deleted, you >> would still need the single comma after "sh.t." (That's my opinion; [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > John is full of sh.t, anyway. I wouldn't. Neither would AHD4: anyway ADVERB: [...] 3. Nevertheless; regardless: It was raining but they played the game anyway. Maria has it wrong. sh.t happens. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ >>> Ah. Well, both commas are necessary. If "anyway" were deleted, you >>> would still need the single comma after "sh.t." (That's my opinion; [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > anyway. > Maria has it wrong. sh.t happens. I've just answered BillB that I wouldn't have written the sentence without a comma. You've got me thinking, though. I was probably influenced by the original sentence, which was: "John is full of sh.t, anyway, so why even respond?" I said that the single comma after "sh.t" would be necessary even if "anyway" were deleted. So: With "anyway" deleted, a comma is still necessary. But: With "so why even respond" deleted, the comma is not necessary according to AHD, other dictionaries, and Skitt. (I'm almost positive, though, I didn't learn it that way when I was in school.) Anyway: It looks like I'll have to acquiesce. Skitt's right again. (But he should have said "Yes" instead of "I wouldn't" to BillB's question beginning with "But wouldn't you..." Or am I misinterpreting that, too? <smile> SignatureMaria >>>> Ah. Well, both commas are necessary. If "anyway" were deleted, you >>>> would still need the single comma after "sh.t." (That's my opinion; [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > question beginning with "But wouldn't you..." Or am I > misinterpreting that, too? <smile> No, you caught me misstating my preferences. As I said -- sh.t happens. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ > >> Ah. Well, both commas are necessary. If "anyway" were deleted, you > >> would still need the single comma after "sh.t." (That's my opinion; [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > [...] > 3. Nevertheless; regardless: It was raining but they played the game anyway. I wouldn't expect a dictionary to explain when a word is or is not set off by a comma. > Maria has it wrong. sh.t happens. There's more to it than that. There are different shades and strengths to "anyway." The one you show is quite strong -- "it waa raining but they still played the game" but there is another "anyway" that is quite a bit weaker, more of a trailing shrug. That one is set off by a comma, and has been for some time. Literaturepost.com: What was this dame, anyway? (Eugene O'Neill) It won't do any harm, anyway.(E.R. Burroughs) ...it's the prettiest name, anyway. (Twain) but I'd like to see him, anyway. (Twain) What is he trying to do, anyway? (L.F. Baum) There are also some final "anyway"s in Literaturepost that are not set off by commas and are not particularly active -- this is probably the same category as the original poster's question. "You are plain-spoken anyway!" (G. MacDonald) And it's all your fault anyway (Jack London). If you notice, these are built on "to be" instead of an active verb like come or take or go. That may be part of what makes them in a middle position, neither strong nor weak. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > Skitt wrote, in part, re "anyway": >> Maria has it wrong. sh.t happens. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > quite a bit weaker, more of a trailing shrug. That one is set off by > a comma, and has been for some time. Literaturepost.com: [balance snipped] Thank you, Donna. I now feel somewhat better about all this. One does worry that one's instincts get rusty as time passes by (which it constantly does). SignatureMaria >> Ah. Well, both commas are necessary. If "anyway" were deleted, you >> would still need the single comma after "sh.t." (That's my opinion; [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > John is full of sh.t, anyway. No. I'd write the version with the comma. And I wouldn't have put a comma after "than" in your question above. And speaking of your question, don't we need a question mark someplace? SignatureMaria >>> I'm hoping the experts here can settle a dispute. Is the following >>> sentence correctly punctuated? If not, please tell me the correct [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > first comma should be omitted. I have asked on a few forums and there > does not seem to a clear consensus. I am no expert, but I keep trying to get it right. That said, I strongly agree with your contention that in this context the first comma should not be there. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ >>>> I'm hoping the experts here can settle a dispute. Is the following >>>> sentence correctly punctuated? If not, please tell me the correct [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > agree with your contention that in this context the first comma should not > be there. I agree. Bill B. asks about: >>>> John is full of sh.t, anyway, so why even respond? > I strongly agree with your contention that in this context the > first comma should not be there. And conversely, in another branch of the thread Maria Conlon writes: | Well, both commas are necessary. And I say they're both wrong: the sentence is correct either with or without the first comma. I'd be as likely to write it one way as the other -- if I used language like that, that is. SignatureMark Brader "It's simply a matter of style, and while there Toronto are many wrong styles, there really isn't any msb@vex.net one right style." -- Ray Butterworth > Bill B. asks about: >>>>> John is full of sh.t, anyway, so why even respond? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > or without the first comma. I'd be as likely to write it one way > as the other -- if I used language like that, that is. It's a matter of context. In this particular case, I still say that the first comma should not be there. The other option, if something else were meant, would be: John is full of sh.t. Anyway, so why even respond? That's a bit klutzy, but it could be something someone might say. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ [Empty attribution omitted] > >>>> [Some unknown person wrote:] > >>>>> John is full of sh.t, anyway, so why even respond? > >> I strongly agree with your contention that in this context the > >> first comma should not be there. > > And conversely, in another branch of the thread Maria Conlon writes: > >> Well, both commas are necessary. > > And I say they're both wrong: the sentence is correct either with > > or without the first comma. I'd be as likely to write it one way > > as the other -- if I used language like that, that is. > It's a matter of context. In this particular case, I still say that the > first comma should not be there. How can anyone besides the original writer say whether or not the first comma should be there? (The attribution is missing, so I don't know if the original writer was a he or a she.) If he or she intended "anyway" to be parenthetical, then the first comma should be there. If, for some reason the original writer didn't want the "anyway" to be regarded as parenthetical, then the first comma should not be there. If the sentence as quoted originally did indeed have the first comma, then it must be assumed that the writer intended "anyway" to be parenthetical, and there's no room for argument about whether or not the first comma should appear. > "Skitt" said: > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > for argument about whether or not the first comma should > appear. Had you checked, you would have noticed that the original writer wanted to know how it should be punctuated. BillB wrote: I'm hoping the experts here can settle a dispute. Is the following sentence correctly punctuated? If not, please tell me the correct punctuation. Thanks! John is full of sh.t, anyway, so why even respond? I feel that the proper way of representing how it is usually expressed would be without the first comma. A case can be made for retaining that comma, but it is a tenuous one. People will punctuate however they feel like doing it, though. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ >> "Skitt" said: >> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > comma, but it is a tenuous one. People will punctuate however they feel > like doing it, though. The phrase "full of sh.t" almost certainly dictates the use of a colon. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. [...] > The phrase "full of sh.t" almost certainly dictates the > use of a colon. But it's arguable that "full of sh.t" suggests possible lack of a colon. If there were no colon, where would the sh.t go? [...] > The phrase "full of sh.t" almost certainly dictates > the use of a colon. Or possibly a semicolon, in cases where a partial colonectomy has left half of the colon in place. [...] > The phrase "full of sh.t" almost certainly dictates the > use of a colon. If someone is sufficiently full of sh.t, they may feel the need for a dash. > > "Skitt" said: > > [Empty attribution omitted] > >>>>>> [Some unknown person wrote:] > >>>>>>> John is full of sh.t, anyway, so why even respond? > >>>> I strongly agree with your contention that in this context the > >>>> first comma should not be there. > > > >>> And conversely, in another branch of the thread Maria Conlon writes: > >>>> Well, both commas are necessary. > >>> And I say they're both wrong: the sentence is correct either with > >>> or without the first comma. I'd be as likely to write it one way > >>> as the other -- if I used language like that, that is. > >> It's a matter of context. In this particular case, I still say that > >> the first comma should not be there. > > How can anyone besides the original writer say whether or > > not the first comma should be there? (The attribution is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > the original writer didn't want the "anyway" to be regarded > > as parenthetical, then the first comma should not be there. > > If the sentence as quoted originally did indeed have the > > first comma, then it must be assumed that the writer > > intended "anyway" to be parenthetical, and there's no room > > for argument about whether or not the first comma should > > appear. > Had you checked, you would have noticed that the original writer wanted to > know how it should be punctuated. Then the proper answer would be that we can't say whether or not the first comma should be there unless we know how whoever wrote it wants it to be read. If I had gone upthread to see what the original poster actually asked, there wouldn't have been a lot of difference, if any, in my response. > BillB wrote: > I'm hoping the experts here can settle a dispute. > Is the following sentence correctly punctuated? > If not, please tell me the correct punctuation. > Thanks! > John is full of sh.t, anyway, so why even respond? Note that BillB isn't saying that he is the one who originally composed the sentence, so he is probably not the "original writer" that I referred to. That leaves BillB to wonder along with us how the original writer thought of his sentence as being read. > I feel that the proper way of representing how it is usually expressed would > be without the first comma. A case can be made for retaining that comma, > but it is a tenuous one. People will punctuate however they feel like doing > it, though. Note that your "how it is usually expressed" is like saying, in my terms, "anyway" isn't usually parenthetical. I suppose that could be so, but it has the corollary that "anyway" is sometimes parenthetical. |
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.