 |
 | 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
Hi, The following is a sentence from a letter by the police comission: "I thank you for your offer, however the PIC does not consider it necessary to speak with you or seek your assistance in relation to any current inquiry." Is the punctuation for "however" wrong here? Should the comma be a semi-colon instead? Thanks, Michael > The following is a sentence from a letter by the police > comission: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Is the punctuation for "however" wrong here? Should the comma be > a semi-colon instead? The correct punctuation is "offer; however, the PIC".  SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. Unmunged email: /at/easypeasy.com "Impatience is the mother of misery." > The following is a sentence from a letter by the police comission: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Is the punctuation for "however" wrong here? Should the comma be a > semi-colon instead? One sees that form quite a bit, and it signifies that the writer does not have clear the distinction between "however" and "but". Plug "but" into that for "however" and it is just fine. "But" is a simple adversative conjunction: it joins two propositions, but sets the proposition that follows it in opposition to the proposition that comes before it. "However" is an adverb (albeit sometimes with some connective force), and acts to negatively modify--more or less saying "despite that"--the particular phrase that precedes it. It could be used something like this: "I thank you for your offer; the PIC does not consider it necessary, however, to speak with you or seek your assistance in relation to any current inquiry." "I thank you for your offer; the PIC, however, does not consider it necessary to speak with you or seek your assistance in relation to any current inquiry." Note the semicolons needed owing to "however" not being a conjunction capable of joining clauses. Note also the differences of emphasis: in the first, the necessity is being selectively negated; in the second, the identity of the PIC as an interested body is being selectively negated (as if to imply that someone else might consider the speaking necessary). That selective negation of the immediately preceding item is why "however" sits like a sodden lump when placed at the head of a sentence: *nothing* immediately precedes it. > > The following is a sentence from a letter by the police comission: > > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > is why "however" sits like a sodden lump when placed at the head of a > sentence: *nothing* immediately precedes it. It's an official letter to the attorney general by the police commission (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/who-wrote-what/2006/11/17/1163266768124.html). How could they make simple mistakes like that?! >>> The following is a sentence from a letter by the police >>> comission: >>> >>> "I thank you for your offer, however the PIC does not consider it >>> necessary to speak with you or seek your assistance in relation >>> to any current inquiry." > It's an official letter to the attorney general by the police > commission > (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/who-wrote-what/2006/11/17/1163266768124.html). > How could they make simple mistakes like that?! I _thought_ it looked familiar. Any day now, the ABC is going to move its parliamentary broadcasts to a comedy time slot. It's a pity that the story is too long and complex to be worth repeating to a non-NSW audience. Anyway, the story isn't funny unless you see the video footage of Debus saying "Step outside and say that!" Although the letter is signed by the Police Integrity Commissioner (note the extra 'm' in the spelling), it was most likely written by one of his subordinates, probably a senior policeman. Police officers are not selected for their literary skills, and senior police officers are simply police officers who have been promoted for being good at police work. If they're also good at dictating letters, that's a bonus, but we don't require them to have that skill. Besides, as Eric pointed out, it's not really a _simple_ mistake. Many people write "however" when they mean "but", on the grounds that a two-dollar word looks fancier than a five-cent word. 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 following is a sentence from a letter by the police comission: > > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > is why "however" sits like a sodden lump when placed at the head of a > sentence: *nothing* immediately precedes it. It's an official letter to the attorney general from the police commission (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/who-wrote-what/2006/11/17/1163266...). How could they make simple mistakes like that?! >> > The following is a sentence from a letter by the police comission: >> > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/who-wrote-what/2006/11/17/1163266...). > How could they make simple mistakes like that?! It seems to have become standard in the last few years to 'speak with' someone, rather than 'speak to' them. When I speak, I speak with an accent. I speak with my voice, or perhaps with a microphone; but never with a person. I discuss with them, or I speak to them, although sometimes I have sung with someone. [...] > It seems to have become standard in the last few years to 'speak with' > someone, rather than 'speak to' them. When I speak, I speak with an accent. > I speak with my voice, or perhaps with a microphone; but never with a > person. I discuss with them, or I speak to them, although sometimes I have > sung with someone. Is there not a distinction? If one speaks "to" a person, does that not suggest a largely one-way flow of speech, as compared to speaking "with" suggesting a dialogue? If I read "I'll speak to John about the matter," I am inclined to think that the writer means to advise, lecture, or order John concerning the subject; if I read "I'll speak with John about the matter," I am inclined to to think of a discussion between equals. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > subject; if I read "I'll speak with John about the matter," I am > inclined to to think of a discussion between equals. I accept that's the way many people think. But when I hear the now standard telephone reply, before I've uttered one word, 'Good morning. You're speaking with Trudy', it conjures up a picture of me picking up Trudy and using her like an old fashioned loud hailer. I preferred the days when the standard reply was. 'Bloggs and company. Trudy speaking'. [...] > [W]hen I hear the now standard telephone reply, before I've uttered one > word, 'Good morning. You're speaking with Trudy', it conjures up a picture > of me picking up Trudy and using her like an old fashioned loud hailer. > I preferred the days when the standard reply was. 'Bloggs and company. > Trudy speaking'. Dear me. If that is the way business folk are answering telephones now, you indeed have a case. I'm so inured to folly that I really pay no attention whatever to what people say when they answer, beyond their name--if they deign to state it (without mumbling). Irrelevant but perhaps interesting: I find that few if any people answering a telephone in a business environment pay mind to names. When I call an office and the response is something along eiter of the lines you cite, I try to say "Good morning, Trudy, may I &c &c." It seems almost no one else does, unless they already know one well. "I'm sorry, what did you say your name was?" seems commonest, and that only when they finally need it to let the almighty Mister/Madame X know what serf petitions for attention. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > no attention whatever to what people say when they answer, beyond their > name--if they deign to state it (without mumbling). I sometimes suggest to "Trudy Speaking" that she seems to have quite a large family. Very occasionally, it gets through. If I could recommend a standard opening, it would be simply "Bloggs and Company. This is Trudy." To judge from some recent calls of mine to large business enterprises, many American businesses agree with me about this. At home I've been getting so many robocalls lately that I find myself interrupting callers unknown to me (usually from a company I do business with or a purported charity) and asking if they're actual human beings. > Irrelevant but perhaps interesting: I find that few if any people > answering a telephone in a business environment pay mind to names. > When I call an office and the response is something along either of the > lines you cite, I try to say "Good morning, Trudy, may I &c &c." Same here. They often seem pleasantly surprised. Little do they know that one reason I do this is to keep track of their names in case something gets screwed up. > It seems almost no one else does, unless they already know one well. Judge not ... > "I'm sorry, what did you say your name was?" seems commonest, and that only > when they finally need it to let the almighty Mister/Madame X know what > serf petitions for attention. I have a terrible time with names. Leaving the office last evening, I encountered a very familiar face that I simply couldn't place. It turned out to belong to a Navy captain with whom I'd had extensive contact a couple of years ago. But he was dressed in a sweatsuit (fresh from exercise), and I simply couldn't place him. And this wasn't in some shopping center or other neutral territory, but right in the lobby of the building where we both work. I recently stumbled for a moment over the name of Mrs. Bob (Sharon -- see, I can do it now). How long before they cart me away? SignatureBob Whatzisname >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >subject; if I read "I'll speak with John about the matter," I am >inclined to to think of a discussion between equals. "Talk to" (or, if you must, "talk with") works better for me when it's a dialogue. "I'll speak to you about that" - I'll explain it to you "I'll talk to you about that" - I'll find out from you what's going on and give you my thoughts in response. SignatureOn-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk (Waterways World site of the month, April 2001) My Reply-To address *is* valid, though likely to die soon |
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.