 |
 | 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 2004Congratulations to Tatyana and Garry
Hear Yiz, Hear Yiz, Hear Yiz, It is with great pleasure we can announce that the totally-offical wedding of Garry to his beautiful bride took place this afternoon in Westminster Register Office. A goodly collection of friends were present to witness the event and to wish the two of them well. A sumptuous feast (menu available on request, only modesty forbids the posting of it here) was subsequently consumed in the tasteful surroundings of the Landmark Hotel. Speeches were kept to a minimum. Three aue regulars and a lurker were there to represent that facet of Garry's accomplishments and to ensure the totally-official status of the wedding. Mike Page > A sumptuous feast (menu available on request, Do tell! If modesty still forbids posting it here, would you send it to denajo2 at the normal yahoo domain. Thanks! And my congrats to the bride and groom!  SignatureDena Jo Delete "delete.this.for.email" for email. > A goodly collection of friends were present to witness the event > and to wish the two of them well. A sumptuous feast (menu [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Garry's accomplishments and to ensure the totally-official status > of the wedding. ObAUE: Not that it invalidates the marriage (although perhaps it could render it only partially official), but should there be a semicolon rather than a comma between "request" and "only"? -- Mike Hardy >> A goodly collection of friends were present to witness the event >> and to wish the two of them well. A sumptuous feast (menu [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >there be a semicolon rather than a comma between "request" and >"only"? Only if you think 'only' wasn't a conjunction in that sentence. Mike Page >>> A goodly collection of friends were present to witness the event >>> and to wish the two of them well. A sumptuous feast (menu [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Only if you think 'only' wasn't a conjunction in that sentence. I'm with Mike Hardy on this one. Even with "only" used as a conjuction, the sentence is not quite right to these American ears and eyes. My own usage would eliminate "only" and put a semicolon after "request." Leaving "only" in the sentence confuses things. That is: Do you mean that "only" modesty, and not something else, forbids you to post the menu? Or, do you mean to say that you would post the menu, "but"/"however" modesty forbids it? There is a slight difference. And why "modesty"? I wondered for a moment if you had planned the menu. <smile> I think, though, that you used "modesty" in the sense of "propriety." (It may be that "modesty" is used more in the sense of "freedom from conceit or vanity" over here in the Detroit area.) Another point: Using "only" as a conjunction (rather than "but," "however," or "except") is not something I would ordinarily do. I've heard it used that way, but not often. It is probably more common for speakers of BrE than AmE. In any case, to my AmE mind, the sentence "A sumptuous feast (menu available on request, only modesty forbids the posting of it here)...." contains a run-on parenthetical clause. But having been around aue for several years, I've noticed that a run-on sentence in Leftpondia is not a run-on sentence in Rightpondia. And since I am from Leftpondia, I am inclined to think that "Left" is right. ;-) By the way: Happy New Year to the newlyweds and to you, too.[1] [1] I'm leaving the term "you" vague so that no aue'ers will feel left out, even if they ought to feel that way because they have been rotten or rude or really reprehensible in 2003. Tomorrow, we start over. Maria Conlon Please send any email to the Hot Mail address. >>>> A goodly collection of friends were present to witness the event >>>> and to wish the two of them well. A sumptuous feast (menu [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >menu? Or, do you mean to say that you would post the menu, >"but"/"however" modesty forbids it? There is a slight difference. A stronger stop than a comma would definitely convey the 'modesty and not something else' meaning, which is not what I wanted. I'll grant my use of 'only' as a conjunction was probably Br.Eng. It may even be regional; it may be a relic of my Lincolnshire upbringing. NSOED gives an example of 'only' used as a conjunction and punctuated as above. >And why "modesty"? I wondered for a moment if you had planned the menu. ><smile> I think, though, that you used "modesty" in the sense of >"propriety." (It may be that "modesty" is used more in the sense of >"freedom from conceit or vanity" over here in the Detroit area.) I fear you are subjecting my poor sentence to more analysis than it will bear. The modesty I was protecting was Garry's. I did not want to embarrass him by revealing the full extent of his generosity and good taste. >Another point: Using "only" as a conjunction (rather than "but," >"however," or "except") is not something I would ordinarily do. I've >heard it used that way, but not often. It is probably more common for >speakers of BrE than AmE. See above. >In any case, to my AmE mind, the sentence "A sumptuous feast (menu >available on request, only modesty forbids the posting of it >here)...." contains a run-on parenthetical clause. But having been >around aue for several years, I've noticed that a run-on sentence in >Leftpondia is not a run-on sentence in Rightpondia. And since I am from >Leftpondia, I am inclined to think that "Left" is right. ;-) If you accept 'only' as a conjunction, then I think it is not a run on clause. Mike Page > A stronger stop than a comma would definitely convey the 'modesty > and not something else' meaning, which is not what I wanted. > I'll grant my use of 'only' as a conjunction was probably Br.Eng. > It may even be regional; it may be a relic of my Lincolnshire > upbringing. NSOED gives an example of 'only' used as a > conjunction and punctuated as above. [...] > If you accept 'only' as a conjunction, then I think it is not a > run on clause. It made perfect sense to me, so it can't be too regionally restricted. SignatureRegards John > > A stronger stop than a comma would definitely convey the 'modesty > > and not something else' meaning, which is not what I wanted. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > It made perfect sense to me, so it can't be too regionally restricted. A line from Synge is trying to get out of my under-brain. Please help. Mike. >>> A stronger stop than a comma would definitely convey the 'modesty >>> and not something else' meaning, which is not what I wanted. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > A line from Synge is trying to get out of my under-brain. Please help. I would help, only I've not read much Synge beyond POTWW, and I don't think it's from there. -- Regards John > Hear Yiz, Hear Yiz, Hear Yiz, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Garry's accomplishments and to ensure the totally-official status > of the wedding. .GIF! .GIF! SignatureSML ess el five six zero at columbia dot edu http://pirate-women.com > Hear Yiz, Hear Yiz, Hear Yiz, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Garry's accomplishments and to ensure the totally-official status > of the wedding. Congratulations to both of them. When do we get to see the pics (preferably in the unmounted position)? SignatureRob Bannister >Hear Yiz, Hear Yiz, Hear Yiz, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Garry's accomplishments and to ensure the totally-official status >of the wedding. My congratulations on actually doing the paperwork and making it official - Hah! About time too - the lad has been at a loose end far too long. Good to get him off the streets. But I cannot refrain from demandig: Oy! Where's the pics? Jitze >Hear Yiz, Hear Yiz, Hear Yiz, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Garry's accomplishments and to ensure the totally-official status >of the wedding. Congrats, Gaz. That'll put an end to "Have boink, will travel" I should think. Signature-ler In alt.usage.english, Mike Page wrote: >Hear Yiz, Hear Yiz, Hear Yiz, [...] Heartfelt congrats, Gazza and Tazza! SignatureMickwick In alt.usage.english, Mickwick wrote: >Heartfelt congrats, Gazza and Tazza! Sorry. What I meant was: Heartfelt congrats to Gatti y Tatti. SignatureRowan Dingle What a perfect couple: their names are both spelled wrong! Shouldn't it be Tatiana and Gary? >What a perfect couple: their names are both spelled wrong! Shouldn't it be >Tatiana and Gary? It has been spelled with both a "y" and an "i" in this forum. It is methinks a question of taste on how you would transliterate it from the original. However, I prefer it with an "i" because that makes it an anagram of "Titania" - and we all know what kind of a guy she married. My suspicion - she is far too good looking to have fallen for GJV unless there was some surreptitious magical potion involved. But from the pictures, it doesn't look like he has a donkey head. Bit of a mystery. Hah! Jitze > > What a perfect couple: their names are both spelled wrong! > > Shouldn't it be Tatiana and Gary? > It has been spelled with both a "y" and an "i" in this forum. It is > methinks a question of taste on how you would transliterate it from > the original. > > However, I prefer it with an "i" because that makes it an anagram > of "Titania" - and we all know what kind of a guy she married. ^^^ Garry is a mammophile? HAR! SignatureReinhold (Rey) Aman *Some* of whose posts are worth reading > What a perfect couple: their names are both spelled wrong! Shouldn't it be > Tatiana and Gary? No, not according to the wedding invitation. I think I'd be quite irritated if anyone presumed to tell me how to spell my own name. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > > What a perfect couple: their names are both spelled wrong! Shouldn't it be > > Tatiana and Gary? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I think I'd be quite irritated if anyone presumed to tell me how to > spell my own name. I once recieved a business letter with the opening "Dear Sara [sic],". SignatureSarah Moffatt Lorrimer ess el five six zero at columbia dot edu http://pirate-women.com Sara Lorimer writes: > I once recieved (grin) > a business letter with the opening "Dear Sara [sic],". Well, at least they were kind enough to put "[sic]". :-) Which raises a tricky problem: how do you quote a passage that actually does have "[sic]" in it already? I suppose you have to explicitly state "'sic' in the original", as you would do with italics if it might be thought that you were adding the emphasis. SignatureMark Brader "People who think for a living have always Toronto been especially prone to confuse thinking msb@vex.net with living." -- G. L. Sicherman My text in this article is in the public domain. Okay, it seems I am the victim of my own inattention. Let me make explicit what happened. Two articles back in this thread, there was one having this header line: From: sl560_delete_this_@columbia.edu (Sara Moffat Lorimer) And ending with: I once recieved a business letter with the opening "Dear Sara [sic],". -- Sarah Moffatt Lorrimer I assumed that this was a complaint posted by Sarah Lorrimer about having received a business letter addressed to "Dear Sara", and that she had added a "sic" when posting the article, by way of calling attention to the spelling error. It occurred to me that this could also mean that the business letter had actually had a "sic" in its address, which was such a silly idea that I made a joke about it, in my followup: > Sara Lorimer writes: ... > > a business letter with the opening "Dear Sara [sic],". > > Well, at least they were kind enough to put "[sic]". :-) And I went on to point out that you couldn't actually tell, from what's written, that it *wasn't* like that: > Which raises a tricky problem: how do you quote a passage that > actually does have "[sic]" in it already? ... It was only when I saw my own posting that I noticed the "Sara Lorimer writes" at the top of it, which made the rest of it seem to be nonsense. This attribution was, of course, generated automatically from the From line, then hand-edited before posting to remove the unnecessary middle name. Had I accidentally deleted an H from it at the same time? I looked back at the posting I'd been responding to, and sure enough, there was Sara in the From line without an H. I then looked at other postings of hers, and sure enough, they *all* had that spelling in the From line. My first reaction was "Well, no wonder people are misspelling her name if she has it wrong in her own From lines". And then I finally got realized what actually happened. As everyone else no doubt knew all along, Sara's name *is* spelled without an H. I hadn't paid enough attention to remember that, and was fooled by the signature -- where she was making a *joke* by writing it as Sarah. But then why was the business letter interesting? Obviously because it *actually did* have a "sic" in it, implying in turn that the sender considered "Sara" a misspelling worthy of having attention called to it. Right. I get it now. But you know, Sara, it would have been a helluvalot easier if you'd just written -- Sarah Moffatt Lorrimer :-) in the first place. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto "More importantly, Mark is just plain wrong." msb@vex.net -- John Hollingsworth My text in this article is in the public domain. [...] Phew! Mike. >My first reaction was "Well, no wonder people are misspelling her name >if she has it wrong in her own From lines". I had the same initial reaction but figured my brain wasn't firing on all cylinders - just where does the "h" (not) belong... Thank you for providing your interpretation of the matter. I'm not sure you got it right, but thank you anyway. Jitze > >My first reaction was "Well, no wonder people are misspelling her name > >if she has it wrong in her own From lines". [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Thank you for providing your interpretation of the matter. I'm > not sure you got it right, but thank you anyway. Yup, he got it right. At least I think he did. SignatureSML ess el five six zero at columbia dot edu <http://pirate-women.com> > > What a perfect couple: their names are both spelled wrong! Shouldn't it be > > Tatiana and Gary? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I think I'd be quite irritated if anyone presumed to tell me how to > spell my own name. I think I'd be more irritated if my parents decided to spell my name wrong when I was born. "andrew" <andrew@wicked.as> wrote... > What a perfect couple: their names are both spelled wrong! Shouldn't > it be Tatiana and Gary? As for the latter, it depends whether the full name is Gareth or Garrison, for example. Matti > As for the latter, it depends whether the full name is Gareth or > Garrison, for example. Can't Gary/Garry be the full name? My sister's name is Trudy. That's it. Just Trudy. That's what it says on her birth certificate. Trudy Mae. Trudy Mae and Dena Jo. Don't we sound like Southerners? When Trudy was in the fifth grade (elementary school), her teacher *insisted* Trudy's real name was really Gertrude (for which "Trudy" quite often is a nickname) as if my sister wouldn't know what her real name was and *despite* my sister's protestations to the contrary. So my sister got really irritated and mouthed off to the teacher. It became a big to-do. My mother even had to go talk to the principal, who was less than pleased when my mother took Trudy's side. SignatureDena Jo Delete "delete.this.for.email" for email. "Dena Jo" <TPUBGTH.delete.this.for.email@yahoo.com> wrote... > > As for the latter, it depends whether the full name is Gareth or > > Garrison, for example. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > says on her birth certificate. Trudy Mae. Trudy Mae and Dena Jo. > Don't we sound like Southerners? [...] Cue joke about whether Southern Belles go like the clappers. In Britain, I'd guess that many have "Gary", but fewer "Garry", as the full name. I used to assume that "Roy" is not an abbreviation, but recently I've encountered a few Roystons who have given me pause. Matti Matti Lamprhey filted: >"Dena Jo" <TPUBGTH.delete.this.for.email@yahoo.com> wrote... >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >I used to assume that "Roy" is not an abbreviation, but recently I've >encountered a few Roystons who have given me pause. The guy in the next cubicle is "Larry"; it's not short for anything...he told me so (politely) the one and only time I called him "Lawrence".... My great-grandmother was "Allie M. Robertson Holloway"...as far as we know, "Allie" was not short for anything...nobody in my lifetime was ever able to find out what the "M." stood for...*her* mother's birth name was "Alice Matilda Ellis", but Granny (as we called her) insisted that she had none of those names.... My stepfather's given name was "Ralph"...particularly in the once-Spanish-colonial Southwest, people meeting him often assumed it was short for "Rafael"....r > My stepfather's given name was "Ralph"...particularly in the > once-Spanish-colonial Southwest, people meeting him often assumed it was short > for "Rafael"....r My great-uncle Uncle Ralph's birth name was "Raffaele". "Ralph" there was more of an Anglicization, so to say, except that it was pronounced /r&lf/, not /reIf/, of course. >> My stepfather's given name was "Ralph"...particularly in the >> once-Spanish-colonial Southwest, people meeting him often assumed it was short [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >more of an Anglicization, so to say, except that it was pronounced /r&lf/, >not /reIf/, of course. My dad's birth name was Fred, but when he got awarded a gong for services to National Savings they insisted he was a Frederick and he was not pleased. Signaturewrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Quiet part of Hertfordshire England Dr Robin Bignall filted: >My dad's birth name was Fred, but when he got awarded a gong for services >to National Savings they insisted he was a Frederick and he was not >pleased. My brother's birth name was Micael...the nurse who filled out the birth certificate couldn't spell....r > My stepfather's given name was "Ralph"...particularly in the > once-Spanish-colonial Southwest, people meeting him often assumed it was short > for "Rafael"....r Was his name pronounced 'ralf' or 'rafe'? Both seem to be fairly common. SignatureRob Bannister Robert Bannister filted: >> My stepfather's given name was "Ralph"...particularly in the >>once-Spanish-colonial Southwest, people meeting him often assumed it was short >> for "Rafael"....r > >Was his name pronounced 'ralf' or 'rafe'? Both seem to be fairly common. /r&lf/, fully lambdic as was the practice in his native Ohio.... When he married my mother, there was a cat in the household...Yang learned quickly that calling to Ralph by name was well within the limitations of his vocal apparatus....r >> As for the latter, it depends whether the full name is Gareth or >> Garrison, for example. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >became a big to-do. My mother even had to go talk to the principal, >who was less than pleased when my mother took Trudy's side. My brother's first name is Jeffrey. He was involved in a similar flap with a teacher who insisted that his name was "Jeffery". Like your sister, my brother dug in his heels and insisted that he knew how to spell his own name. The teacher sent a nasty note home with my brother. My father went to the teacher's house (she lived a few streets over from us, and my father knew her husband) and made the teacher write a note of apology to my brother. My brother carried that note around for the rest of the school year. He was so proud of it. Things were different then. Today, the same incident would result in the teacher getting a restraining order against my father, my father would have sued the teacher and the school, the incident would be reported in the newspaper, Simon Hughes would find the article and quote it here as evidence of silliness in the US, Cyber Cypher would cite - in 16 paragraphs - some certified (and therefore acceptable) expert in the spelling of first names, Jan would lament that it is the Republicans who have ruined the US school system, and Areff would question if a person could live "a few streets over". > Things were different then. Today, the same incident would result in > the teacher getting a restraining order against my father, my father [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the Republicans who have ruined the US school system, and Areff would > question if a person could live "a few streets over". And who would have reminded you that the period goes inside the quote? SignatureDena Jo Delete "delete.this.for.email" for email. >> Things were different then. Today, the same incident would result in >> the teacher getting a restraining order against my father, my father [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >And who would have reminded you that the period goes inside the quote? I dunno about that rule. If the quoted material is a sentence, and takes a period, I'd agree. But, if the quoted material is a word or a phrase and just happens to be at the end of a sentence, I'm not comfortable with putting the period inside the quotes. If the period is not needed in the quoted material, then I would think the period does not belong inside the quotes. > I dunno about that rule. If the quoted material is a sentence, > and takes a period, I'd agree. But, if the quoted material is a > word or a phrase and just happens to be at the end of a sentence, > I'm not comfortable with putting the period inside the quotes. If > the period is not needed in the quoted material, then I would > think the period does not belong inside the quotes. The American rule is: Commas and periods always go inside the quote. Semi-colons and colons go outside the quote. Question marks and exclamation points go inside the quote if they belong with the quote and outside if they do not. Everyone will probably disagree now. You may ignore them. SignatureDena Jo Stickler for the rules Delete "delete.this.for.email" for email. >> I dunno about that rule. If the quoted material is a sentence, >> and takes a period, I'd agree. But, if the quoted material is a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >exclamation points go inside the quote if they belong with the quote >and outside if they do not. That's discriminatory. Why should question marks and exclamation points have more leeway than commas or periods? Commas and periods are the work horses of punctuation. The question mark is only trotted out for special circumstances, and the exclamation point is no more than a show pony. That's a silly rule, and I refuse to be harnessed by it. >>>I dunno about that rule. If the quoted material is a sentence, >>>and takes a period, I'd agree. But, if the quoted material is a [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > than a show pony. That's a silly rule, and I refuse to be harnessed > by it. I'd back Tony on this one but before we all saddle up for another chukka I'd like to quote an acerbic extract from a post from Bob L in 2000 that seems apposite: "Punctuation is the last resort of a Brit, and this business of periods and quotation marks is as deceased an equine as you will ever see on AUE. Which doesn't stop newbies from trying to beat it." http://tinyurl.com/2qn6n There is no doubt that this topic has been discussed here many, many times (hands up if you heard Betty Marsden as you read that). A quick look at Google shows that posters were getting their knickers in a twist about this as far back as 1991. Those who have had something to say on the subject include Truly, Donna, William Lieblich (brother of the more famous Robert?) one Robert Cunningham (when did he become Bob?) and even an ersatz Mike Page (a billiard player from Fargo). SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > >>>I dunno about that rule. If the quoted material is a sentence, > >>>and takes a period, I'd agree. But, if the quoted material is a > >>>word or a phrase and just happens to be at the end of a sentence, > >>>I'm not comfortable with putting the period inside the quotes. If > >>>the period is not needed in the quoted material, then I would > >>>think the period does not belong inside the quotes. > >>The American rule is: Commas and periods always go inside the quote. > >>Semi-colons and colons go outside the quote. Question marks and > >>exclamation points go inside the quote if they belong with the quote > >>and outside if they do not. > > That's discriminatory. Why should question marks and exclamation > > points have more leeway than commas or periods? Commas and periods > > are the work horses of punctuation. The question mark is only trotted > > out for special circumstances, and the exclamation point is no more > > than a show pony. That's a silly rule, and I refuse to be harnessed > > by it. > I'd back Tony on this one but before we all saddle up for another chukka > I'd like to quote an acerbic extract from a post from Bob L in 2000 that > seems apposite: > "Punctuation is the last resort of a Brit, and this business of periods > and quotation marks is as deceased an equine as you will ever see on > AUE. Which doesn't stop newbies from trying to beat it." If "apposite" meant wrong-headed (I know it doesn't), I would agree that Bob L's remarks are apposite. What he needs to know is that there's still plenty of life in that old horse, and there will continue to be life as long as American style dictates that things go inside quotation marks that aren't part of what's being quoted. That's something that needs to be said and repeated often. And saying it doesn't make someone a newbie. I've been saying it for years, and I will continue to say it whenever it seems appropriate to do so, like now: NOTHING SHOULD GO INSIDE QUOTATION MARKS UNLESS IT'S PART OF WHAT'S BEING QUOTED. The American convention is idiotic and indefensible. I've seen no arguments in support of it beyond remarks that are effectively the same as "There's no damned reason for it; it's just the way we do it". If Bob L wanted to make a positive contribution to the discussion, he could give his reasons -- if he has any -- for thinking the American convention is not indefensible. Tell us, Bob L, do you find satisfaction in putting things inside quotation marks that aren't part of what's being quoted? If the answer is yes, please explain the nature of that satisfaction. > Laura F Spira said: >>>> The American rule is: Commas and periods always go inside the >>>> quote. Semi-colons and colons go outside the quote. Question [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > effectively the same as "There's no damned reason for it; > it's just the way we do it". My opinion: Putting the punctuation -- most of it, anyway -- inside the quotes looks a lot better. Also, I've heard the American system made it easier for typesetters of years ago. Would either of those reasons, or even both of them, be classified as "no damned reason"? Are we to think, by the way, that the sentence you "quote" above ("There's no damned reason for it; it's just the way we do it".) did not end after "it"? Did the person keep going with that sentence? If so, then putting the period outside the quote marks follows the British rule. But if the word "it" ended the sentence, why is the period not inside the quotes? Isn't that part of the British rule? (If the sentence was not a quote, but just a made up example, what's the rule here -- in British terms?) And what if a comma was actually after "it"? Should that be shown inside the quotes -- "...it,"? Also, how sure can anyone be that a repeated quote is accurately punctuated? If it's a quote of something someone said -- and didn't put into writing -- how can we, the people reading the quote, be sure that the punctuation correctly represents the speaker's speech? In fact, who's to say that you, the quoter, shouldn't have put a period /inside the quotes/ at the end of a certain sentence? What if the speaker wasn't quite done with the sentence, but you were busy writing and missed the ending? (And your tape recorder was no help: dead batteries.) To fully and correctly use the British system, I think speakers will have to include their punctuation as they speak, sort of /a la/ Victor Borge. "Hello (comma) folks (full stop) I wonder how all of you are doing (question mark)." Note that the question mark is actually questionable. If the speaker didn't include it, we Americans would assume that a statement beginning with "I wonder" is actually a statement, not a question at all. To continue in this rather light vein, how do we know the original quotee got the punctuation right -- even in writing? I mean, with the Brits dropping dots all over the place from abbreviations and the like, how sure are we that they even put a "full stop" at the end of a sentence? What do you do if they didn't? Assume the sentence is unfinished, and put the "full stop" outside the quotes? > If Bob L wanted to make a positive contribution to the > discussion, he could give his reasons -- if he has any -- > for thinking the American convention is not indefensible. I'm not sure which "Bob L" this is -- could be Lieblich, could be Lipton. In any event, I feel confident that he probably gave reasons before. It may be that you pronounced the reasons as "idiotic" and "indefensible," but those words are subjective, innit? :-) > Tell us, Bob L, do you find satisfaction in putting things > inside quotation marks that aren't part of what's being > quoted? If the answer is yes, please explain the nature of > that satisfaction. Well, whichever Bob L. it was may do so. Of course, he might be more inclined to respond to your request had you included his last name. (I'm assuming you know which Bob it was, and have reread his comments, but perhaps that is an unfair assumption.) I recall that you've defended and promoted British punctuation rules (for quotations) before. Your point of view, I think, is that logic should be the final deciding point. That sounds good, and makes sense, except for the fact that the logic cannot always be determined, as I touched on above. You are free to use and promote the British punctuation rules. No one can argue with that. But I am free to use and promote the American rules, and will. Agreed? :-) I like them and find they make just as much sense as the others. SignatureMaria Conlon Please send any email to the Hot Mail address. >> Laura F Spira said: > [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] >rules, and will. Agreed? :-) I like them and find they make just as much >sense as the others. How would you write a sentence involving the original point: a word or phrase that is not punctuated, but quoted at the end of a sentence? The original point came up because I wrote "... and Areff would question if a person could live "a few streets over". Dena want the final period inside the quote marks because that's the American rule. I don't like the looks of it there. > How would you write a sentence involving the original point: a word > or phrase that is not punctuated, but quoted at the end of a sentence? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > final period inside the quote marks because that's the American rule. > I don't like the looks of it there. I'd probably go with "a few streets over...." (Note four "dots" rather than the usual three. The fourth is to indicate the end of the quote/sentence.) I might also go with "a few streets over." It would depend on what Areff actually said. For instance, had he said, "a few streets over the hill," and I dropped "the hill," I'd use the first version (above) with the trailing "dots" (ellipses). SignatureMaria Conlon Please send any email to the Hot Mail address. >> How would you write a sentence involving the original point: a word >> or phrase that is not punctuated, but quoted at the end of a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > streets over the hill," and I dropped "the hill," I'd use the first > version (above) with the trailing "dots" (ellipses). There is a quite exhaustive discussion of the use of ellipses at http://ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/ellipsis.htm with quite an emphasis on the spacing involved. It supports the spacing I have always used -- one that some here deem unusual. Briefly, there should be spaces before and after ellipses, even when what follows the ellipsis is a period. That period should not be used if the ellipsis denotes a thought that is trailing off in mid-sentence. I would omit the space before an ellipsis if it is used to indicate a speaker's stopping in mid-wor... . Like that. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ > Briefly, there should be spaces before and after ellipses, even when > what follows the ellipsis is a period. I agree. The reason I don't do this in aue is because of the limitations of plain text. I want the ellipsis to "hang together" and not break from one line to the next. When I use ellipses in documents (and anything not limited to plain text), I use the spaces you indicate. I really don't like the looks of _this..._ but it stays together. >.....That period should not be > used if the ellipsis denotes a thought that is trailing off in > mid-sentence. I would omit the space before an ellipsis if it is > used to indicate a speaker's stopping in mid-wor... . Like that. In that situation, I would probably use an em dash. However, I can't even remember the last time I had the situation come up, so I'm not sure. (My writing doesn't usually include dialogue or quotations.) SignatureMaria Conlon Please send any email to the Hot Mail address. >>Briefly, there should be spaces before and after ellipses, even when >>what follows the ellipsis is a period. > > I agree. The reason I don't do this in aue is because of the limitations > of plain text. I want the ellipsis to "hang together" and not break from > one line to the next. This can certainly cause problems. I recently wrote an email to a friend in French. I composed it off-line in Word, specifying the language as French, so Word automatically imposed French punctuation with spaces before each stop or mark. Of course, in the email, this translated to a lot strange looking text with full stops at the beginnings of lines. SignatureRob Bannister >> How would you write a sentence involving the original point: a word >> or phrase that is not punctuated, but quoted at the end of a sentence? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >streets over the hill," and I dropped "the hill," I'd use the first >version (above) with the trailing "dots" (ellipses). Areff didn't make the comment. I did. What I said is quoted above. Drop the "and" and you have a full sentence. Trailing dots would be totally inappropriate since nothing followed "over". There it is again! Note the period is outside of the quotes in the last sentence above. I wouldn't put the period inside the quotes no matter what Dena or the American rule says. >>> How would you write a sentence involving the original point: a word >>> or phrase that is not punctuated, but quoted at the end of a [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Drop the "and" and you have a full sentence. Trailing dots would be > totally inappropriate since nothing followed "over". I misunderstood what you were asking for. Although I knew that Areff didn't actually make the comment, I thought you were asking how I would punctuate the situation as it might arise in actual circumstances. That not being the case, I'll say this: I would punctuate it as "a few streets over." > There it is again! Note the period is outside of the quotes in the > last sentence above. [Referring to Tony's previous sentence, not mine. mc] I wouldn't put the period inside the quotes no > matter what Dena or the American rule says. Well, what does the British rule say? And do you follow that or do you follow whatever you think is sensible and logical? No matter which system is preferred, I believe we have to stick to one or the other. If enough people follow their own ways, rather than a recognized method, we lose clarity in communication. As I mentioned to Skitt, there are limits to what we can do in Usenet because of the need to use plain text. This doesn't affect most punctuation, though. SignatureMaria Conlon Please send any email to the Hot Mail address. >> There it is again! Note the period is outside of the quotes in the >> last sentence above. [Referring to Tony's previous sentence, not mine. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Well, what does the British rule say? And do you follow that or do you >follow whatever you think is sensible and logical? I do whatever seems to me to provide the most clarity. In most cases, we are writing to be understood and not writing to avoid Oy!s. Logic and sensibility figure in, but any logic employed is the logic of the Writer and not the Reader. Better to consider the reader and how to make the written words easily understood to that reader. The placement of the punctuation in this instance does not affect understanding, but it may be distracting. > I wouldn't put the period inside the quotes no > matter what Dena or the American rule says. Hey! I've been ignored by better people than you. SignatureDena Jo Delete "delete.this.for.email" for email. [...] > [...] what's the rule here -- in > British terms?) And what if a comma was actually after "it"? Should that > be shown inside the quotes -- "...it,"? [...] That's covered by a mark of ellipsis: wouldn't you agree that normal practice would give "...it,.."? ISTR earlier generations might have used a dash to indicate either ellipsis or interruption; we, I think, would use a dash here only to indicate interruption or abrupt aposiopesis. There remain, inevitably, certain difficulties whichever convention you choose to follow, as punctuation can't be perfect. Needless to say, I'm with Bob and Tony. Mike. >> [...] what's the rule here -- in >> British terms?) And what if a comma was actually after "it"? Should [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That's covered by a mark of ellipsis: wouldn't you agree that normal > practice would give "...it,.."? Actually, I don't know what the normal practice would be for you -- or for anyone else, for that matter. It's a rather unusual case. I personally think it unnecessary to show the comma -- the trailing ellipsis would take care of recognizing the absence of anything following the word "it." > ISTR earlier generations might have used a dash to indicate either > ellipsis or interruption; we, I think, would use a dash here only to > indicate interruption or abrupt aposiopesis. There remain, inevitably, > certain difficulties whichever convention you choose to follow, as > punctuation can't be perfect. I agree. > Needless to say, I'm with Bob and Tony. Needless to say. :-) SignatureMaria Conlon Please send any email to the Hot Mail address. > > Laura F Spira said: > >>>> The American rule is: Commas and periods always go inside the > >>>> quote. Semi-colons and colons go outside the quote. Question > >>>> marks and exclamation points go inside the quote if they belong > >>>> with the quote and outside if they do not. > >>> That's discriminatory. Why should question marks and exclamation > >>> points have more leeway than commas or periods? Commas and periods > >>> are the work horses of punctuation. The question mark is only > >>> trotted out for special circumstances, and the exclamation point is > >>> no more than a show pony. That's a silly rule, and I refuse to be > >>> harnessed by it. > >> I'd back Tony on this one but before we all saddle up for another > >> chukka I'd like to quote an acerbic extract from a post from Bob L > >> in 2000 that seems apposite: > >> "Punctuation is the last resort of a Brit, and this business of > >> periods and quotation marks is as deceased an equine as you will > >> ever see on AUE. Which doesn't stop newbies from trying to beat it." > > If "apposite" meant wrong-headed (I know it doesn't), I > > would agree that Bob L's remarks are apposite. What he [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > it for years, and I will continue to say it whenever it > > seems appropriate to do so, like now: > > NOTHING SHOULD GO INSIDE QUOTATION MARKS UNLESS > > IT'S PART OF WHAT'S BEING QUOTED. > > The American convention is idiotic and indefensible. I've > > seen no arguments in support of it beyond remarks that are > > effectively the same as "There's no damned reason for it; > > it's just the way we do it". > My opinion: Putting the punctuation -- most of it, anyway -- inside the > quotes looks a lot better. Also, I've heard the American system made it > easier for typesetters of years ago. Would either of those reasons, or > even both of them, be classified as "no damned reason"? Effectively, yes. If the typesetter thing ever was valid, and there's some doubt about that, it no longer is, since movable type is no longer used to a significant extent. And I suspect that the only reason the illogical placement looks better to you is that you're used to seeing it that way. To me it looks positively ugly to see something like "The items in question are labeled 'A,' 'B,' and 'C.'", because I think it's pretty safe to assume that on the labels referred to, it's not true that the first two have a comma and the last has a period. But it's not impossible for them to have them. When we know that the writer is using the American system, he or she would punctuate the same way whether or not the labels had the comma or period. From what the American-system writer tells us, we have no way of knowing whether they did or did not. > Are we to think, by the way, that the sentence you "quote" above > ("There's no damned reason for it; it's just the way we do it".) did not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > British terms?) And what if a comma was actually after "it"? Should that > be shown inside the quotes -- "...it,"? This and the other points you've made don't really address the question of placement of periods and commas with respect to quotes. What they do address is the possibility that there can be a lot of variety in what a writer wants to quote. It's only after the writer has made up his or her mind what to quote that the question arises as to how any commas or periods are to be placed with respect to quotation marks. And the only question he or she has to answer is whether the punctuation is or is not part of what he or she wants to quote. > Also, how sure can anyone be that a repeated quote is accurately > punctuated? Again, it doesn't matter as far as the punctuation-versus-quotation question is concerned. The writer decides how it should be punctuated, then he or she decides whether to put any punctuation inside or outside. The punctuation can be completely wrong with respect to what was really written, but that's not part of the issue of whether it should go inside or outside. If a writer using the British system puts an ending period inside quotation marks, then we know that it was the writer's intent that the quoted passage be thought of as ending with a period. If a writer using the American system puts an ending period inside quotation marks, we can't tell what his or her intent was. The period would have gone inside the quotation marks whether or not the writer wanted the passage to be thought of as ending with a period. > If it's a quote of something someone said -- and didn't put > into writing -- how can we, the people reading the quote, be sure that > the punctuation correctly represents the speaker's speech? Again, it's not for us to worry about that. The writer has complete freedom to decide what he or she wants to quote. The question of what was really said doesn't enter into it. Let's assume the writer says "The sign said 'Don't.'" If we believe that the writer knows how to punctuate logically, then we have no choice but to assume that the sign had a period after "Don't". If it didn't, the writer didn't punctuate logically, but we have no way of knowing that. If we know that someone uses the British system correctly, and if that someone writes "The sign said 'Don't.'", then we can be certain that the sign actually had a period after the "Don't". With the American system, the sign could have been either way. [ . . . ] > > If Bob L wanted to make a positive contribution to the > > discussion, he could give his reasons -- if he has any -- > > for thinking the American convention is not indefensible. > I'm not sure which "Bob L" this is -- could be Lieblich, could be > Lipton. I picked up "Bob L" from the posting I was responding to. I had no more reason than you did to know what Bob L Laura S was referring to until I went to the quoted URL and found out who it was. > In any event, I feel confident that he probably gave reasons > before. Your confidence is entirely misplaced, since he gave no reasons. In fact, he took no position either way on the question itself. He posted only to say in effect that discussing the subject was beating a dead horse and that newbies were likely to continue to beat it. I'm a little surprised that anyone would be participating in this thread without being curious enough to look up the referenced URL. [ . . . ] > I recall that you've defended and promoted British punctuation rules > (for quotations) before. Your point of view, I think, is that logic > should be the final deciding point. That sounds good, and makes sense, > except for the fact that the logic cannot always be determined, as I > touched on above. You didn't really do that. You argued instead that the writer might have various reasons for deciding what to quote. The issue of punctuation placement doesn't arise until he or she has made that decision. We assume the writer knows what he or she wants to do. With regard to punctuation placement, we need only look at how he or she did what he or she decided to do. If the writer follows the British system, we know what his or her intent was. If the American system, we can't know. > You are free to use and promote the British punctuation rules. No one > can argue with that. But I am free to use and promote the American > rules, and will. Agreed? :-) I like them and find they make just as much > sense as the others. They don't. But there's no reason you shouldn't use the absurd American system, since nearly everyone else in America does. No usage or style guide that I know of tries to defend the American system beyond saying it's how we do it, it doesn't seem to do serious harm, and we're stuck with it. You might try to find an American style guide that defends the American silliness for any better reason. Read the _Chicago Manual of Style_ (14th Edition, Section 5.13, headed "British versus American style"). Among other things, they say in effect that when you must quote accurately you may have to use the Briish convention. > Maria Conlon said: >>> Laura F Spira said: >>>> I'd back Tony on this one but before we all saddle up for another >>>> chukka I'd like to quote an acerbic extract from a post from Bob L [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > looks better to you is that you're used to seeing it that > way. Well. It's the American US system and I live here in the US. Most of the material I read follows that system. When I worked at a newspaper, the typesetters and the proofreaders seemed to like it. It is your opinion, not mine, by the way, that the system is illogical. There is a logic to it. There are definite rules and reasons. That you choose to discredit any and all reasons makes it rather pointless for me to present another viewpoint. However, I will see this through. When I was younger, the BrE system was not unknown hereabouts. I think one of my teachers used it. Therefore, I used it to some degree. I thought then, and still think, that the inside-the-quotes placement looks better, cleaner. Now shall I say it? I suspect that the only reason you like the BrE system is because you like the idea of being a bit different. (I don't really think that is your reason, but I do think it was rude for you to imply what you did about *my* reasons for preferring the AmE method. >.....To me it looks positively ugly to see something like > "The items in question are labeled 'A,' 'B,' and 'C.'", > because I think it's pretty safe to assume that on the > labels referred to, it's not true that the first two have a > comma and the last has a period. Frankly, I can't think of any way that that matters. In fact, unless there are two A's -- A, and A -- I don't see a need to include the comma, and I don't see a problem if commas are inserted. > But it's not impossible for them to have them. When we know > that the writer is using the American system, he or she > would punctuate the same way whether or not the labels had > the comma or period. From what the American-system writer > tells us, we have no way of knowing whether they did or did > not. We can determine whether it matters, though, with regard to the substance of the original writer's work. I can't see that it does -- unless we are grading the original writer on his visual presentation. >> Are we to think, by the way, that the sentence you "quote" above >> ("There's no damned reason for it; it's just the way we do it".) did [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> period not inside the quotes? Isn't that part of the British rule? >> (If the sentence was not a quote, but just a made up example, what's >> the rule here -- in British terms?) And what if a comma was actually >> after "it"? Should that be shown inside the quotes -- "...it,"? > > This and the other points you've made don't really address > the question of placement of periods and commas with respect > to quotes. That is exactly what my most of my comments/questions address -- the placement of the punctuation with respect to quotes in certain circumstances. What I didn't address (until now) is the relative unimportance of such placement in some cases. >.....What they do address is the possibility that > there can be a lot of variety in what a writer wants to > quote. I would say they address the possibility that there can be a lot of variety in what the writer does with regards to using punctuation. Yes, the writer must decide what to quote. But at some point, there's an answer for given circumstances, isn't there? >....It's only after the writer has made up his or her > mind what to quote that the question arises as to how any > commas or periods are to be placed with respect to quotation > marks. And the only question he or she has to answer is > whether the punctuation is or is not part of what he or she > wants to quote. Fine, but I was addressing the next step -- where the punctuation goes. I brought up some situations that call for consideration. I wanted to know how those situations would be decided, based on the BrE rules. Is there no answer to any of the questions I raised? Do they all depend on what the "writer" (I presume this would be the "quoter") wants to quote? I really don't see how what the writer/quoter wants to quote negates the possibility of saying where the punctuation is placed when BrE rules are followed in given situations. >> Also, how sure can anyone be that a repeated quote is accurately >> punctuated? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > was really written, but that's not part of the issue of > whether it should go inside or outside. Sorry. I'm having a hard time following that. What I get from it is this: The writer (presumably the one doing the quoting) can do whatever he or she likes. He or she can even change what the original writer did with regard to punctuation. It's not part of the issue. ??? > If a writer using the British system puts an ending period > inside quotation marks, then we know that it was the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > inside the quotation marks whether or not the writer wanted > the passage to be thought of as ending with a period. Here, I gather that "writer" means the original writer (and not the quoter). Does it? >> If it's a quote of something someone said -- and didn't put >> into writing -- how can we, the people reading the quote, be sure [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > complete freedom to decide what he or she wants to quote. > The question of what was really said doesn't enter into it. Wait a minute. Your statement that "[t]he question of what was really said doesn't enter into it" is very confusing to say the least. We're talking about quoting things accurately (I thought), so the question of what was really said most certainly *should* enter into it. And here (above), "writer" seems to be the quoter. ??? Now, look at the second sentence in the "Wait-a-minute" paragraph. Should there be a period after "...it"? I, using the American system, say No. If the British system says No as well, then where is all the importance attached to whether the period belongs there or not? Can it go wherever the quoter wants to put it? > Let's assume the writer says "The sign said 'Don't.'" If we > believe that the writer knows how to punctuate logically, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "Don't". With the American system, the sign could have been > either way. I can only quote you (below)... >...Again, it's not for us to worry about that. The writer has > complete freedom to decide what he or she wants to quote. > The question of what was really said doesn't enter into it. ...and ask: Does the BrE system call for accuracy in reproducing punctuation when quoting or not? > [ . . . ] > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > discussing the subject was beating a dead horse and that > newbies were likely to continue to beat it. Laura quoted that much in her post. > I'm a little surprised that anyone would be participating in > this thread without being curious enough to look up the > referenced URL. Why would I, in this case? Even though I felt confident that Bob L. had given reasons, does it matter? I replied to a post of yours, not of his. Besides, Laura *did* quote his summation. (And I still don't feel it necessary to look at the original thread.) Being surprised that someone doesn't look up a referenced URL is going to keep you being surprised for a long time, methinks. :-) > [ . . . ] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > writer might have various reasons for deciding what to > quote. Not "what to quote"; what punctuation to use in what place in certain circumstances. >.....The issue of punctuation placement doesn't arise > until he or she has made that decision. We assume the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > British system, we know what his or her intent was. If the > American system, we can't know. I'm still not sure why the writer's (quoter's) intent is so important. I would think that the original writer's use and intent are what matters. If not, then we are left with no difference in the likely accuracy of BrE punctuation vs AmE. Either may be right, or either may be wrong. You can't say that the period goes inside the quotes only if it ended a sentence and then say that the period goes wherever the writer (quoter) wants to put it. Whose intent do we see? The punctuation should either be faithful _all the time_ to the original writer's intent or it should follow a definite plan. "Where the writer (that is, the quoter) wants to put it" does not sound like a definite plan. >> You are free to use and promote the British punctuation rules. No one >> can argue with that. But I am free to use and promote the American [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > absurd American system, since nearly everyone else in > America does. Can you possibly look down your nose a bit more when you say that? I'm not sure I'm getting the full import of the insult. > No usage or style guide that I know of tries to defend the > American system beyond saying it's how we do it, doesn't > seem to do serious harm, and we're stuck with it. You might > try to find an American style guide that defends the > American silliness for any better reason. I've seen plenty of style guides that make no comment one way or the other about the American system. That being the case, I am not going to assume that the publishers of those guides must think the system is silly. > Read the _Chicago Manual of Style_ (14th Edition, Section > 5.13, headed "British versus American style"). Among other > things, they say in effect that when you must quote > accurately you may have to use the Brioche convention. How nice. Have you told them yet that it only matters what the writer (quoter) wants to do? SignatureMaria Conlon Please send any email to the Hot Mail address. > >>>I dunno about that rule. If the quoted material is a sentence, > >>>and takes a period, I'd agree. But, if the quoted material is a [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > and quotation marks is as deceased an equine as you will ever see on > AUE. Which doesn't stop newbies from trying to beat it." Now hold your horses: the first charge in the current tilt was led by someone who is neither a Brit nor a newbie. Now, of course, it's too late to lock the barn door.... -skipka On American period placement idiosyncrasies: >There is no doubt that this topic has been discussed here many, many >times (hands up if you heard Betty Marsden as you read that). A quick [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >famous Robert?) one Robert Cunningham (when did he become Bob?) and even >an ersatz Mike Page (a billiard player from Fargo). Truly has gone so far as to put it on her website: http://www.trulydonovan.com/wordworks/quotes.htm SignatureTruly Donovan Lexy Connor mysteries: Chandler's Daughter, Winslow's Wife http://www.trulydonovan.com truly@trulydonovan.com [ . . . ] > Truly has gone so far as to put it on her website: > http://www.trulydonovan.com/wordworks/quotes.htm where she says If my objective is to have the most effective communication with the least amount of distraction from the message, and most of my readership will be least distracted by my following the conventions they are familiar with, then it serves my interests best to follow those conventions. Translation: If the other kids dye their hair green, wear their shirts inside out, and stuff their trouser legs into the tops of their stockings, you'd better do it too. Otherwise, people are going to think you're weird. } On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 18:44:05 -0700, Truly Donovan } <truly@lunemere.com> said: } } [ . . . ] } }> Truly has gone so far as to put it on her website: } }> http://www.trulydonovan.com/wordworks/quotes.htm } } where she says } } If my objective is to have the most effective } communication with the least amount of distraction } from the message, and most of my readership will } be least distracted by my following the conventions } they are familiar with, then it serves my interests } best to follow those conventions. } } Translation: } } If the other kids dye their hair green, wear their } shirts inside out, and stuff their trouser legs } into the tops of their stockings, you'd better do } it too. Otherwise, people are going to think } you're weird. Now, now. You kids were getting on so well for years now. SignatureR. J. Valentine <mailto:arjay@wicked.smart.net> When *is* _Monkey's Uncle_ due out now? (Stockings: snork!) >} On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 18:44:05 -0700, Truly Donovan >} <truly@lunemere.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >Now, now. You kids were getting on so well for years now. Only when we don't talk to each other, as I am doing now. SignatureTruly Donovan Lexy Connor mysteries: Chandler's Daughter, Winslow's Wife http://www.trulydonovan.com truly@trulydonovan.com > where she says > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > stockings, you'd better do it too. Otherwise, people are going > to think you're weird. You say that like it's surprising. I presume that when the other kids cut their hair above their shoulders, tied strips of cloth around their necks, and wore dark socks, you did, too. There are few customs of appearance that you've followed that are inherently less bizarre than the one's you posit. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |On a scale of one to ten... 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |it sucked. Palo Alto, CA 94304 kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>where she says >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > of appearance that you've followed that are inherently less bizarre > than the one's you posit. Oy! (Is this a first? I don't think I've ever seen Evan Oy!ed before) SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 13:13:45 +0000, Laura F Spira <laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> said > >>where she says > >> If my objective is to have the most effective communication with > >> the least amount of distraction from the message, and most of my > >> readership will be least distracted by my following the > >> conventions they are familiar with, then it serves my interests > >> best to follow those conventions. > >>Translation: > >> If the other kids dye their hair green, wear their shirts inside > >> out, and stuff their trouser legs into the tops of their > >> stockings, you'd better do it too. Otherwise, people are going > >> to think you're weird. > > You say that like it's surprising. I presume that when the other kids > > cut their hair above their shoulders, tied strips of cloth around > > their necks, and wore dark socks, you did, too. There are few customs > > of appearance that you've followed that are inherently less bizarre > > than the one's you posit. That's fine. And in a similar vein we can say that using a punctuation style that makes no sense just because everyone else in America uses it is no more bizarre than dying your hair green. > Oy! (Is this a first? I don't think I've ever seen Evan Oy!ed before) I don't think I see why he got Oy!ed this time. ... Oh, now I do. It's the "one's"; right? > On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 13:13:45 +0000, Laura F Spira > <laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> said [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > punctuation style that makes no sense just because everyone else in > America uses it is no more bizarre than dying your hair green. Precisely. Pretty much any punctuation style is merely conventional. > > Oy! (Is this a first? I don't think I've ever seen Evan Oy!ed before) Not even close. > I don't think I see why he got Oy!ed this time. ... Oh, now I do. > It's the "one's"; right? That's my guess. Pure typo, but, unfortunately, not uncommon in my typing, and I'm not great at catching them when I read over what I've written. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The body was wrapped in duct tape, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |weighted down with concrete blocks Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and a telephone cord was tied |around the neck. Police suspect kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |foul play... (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ [ . . . ] > > That's fine. And in a similar vein we can say that using a > > punctuation style that makes no sense just because everyone else in > > America uses it is no more bizarre than dying your hair green. > Precisely. Pretty much any punctuation style is merely conventional. That's true, but some of the conventions are sorta screwed up. Also sprach Bob Cunningham: > [ . . . ] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That's true, but some of the conventions are sorta screwed > up. It's true to the same extent that orthography is both conventional and screwed up. Punctuation can, like the rest of orthography, bear meaning. SignatureSimon R. Hughes >> On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 13:13:45 +0000, Laura F Spira >> <laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> said [on the "one's"] >> > Oy! (Is this a first? I don't think I've ever seen Evan Oy!ed before) > > Pure typo, but, unfortunately, not uncommon in my >typing, and I'm not great at catching them when I read over what I've >written. The typo bane of my life is its and it's, Evan. I absolutely know which one I need to use, but I have to check them over, because my fingers do their own thing. Signaturewrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Quiet part of Hertfordshire England [snip] > > That's fine. And in a similar vein we can say that using a > > punctuation style that makes no sense just because everyone else in > > America uses it is no more bizarre than dying your hair green. > > Precisely. Pretty much any punctuation style is merely conventional. Some punctuation-styles might be considered more logical than others. Gerald Smyth > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Some punctuation-styles might be considered more logical than others. If you are, as I suspect, thinking of quotation marks, there are inconsistencies in both systems. SignatureSimon R. Hughes > > [snip] > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If you are, as I suspect, thinking of quotation marks, there are > inconsistencies in both systems. His writer's block had finally vanished. Buoyed by a surge of creativity, he began the first line of his first story in many months by typing "O," "n," "c," and "e." It was illogicalities like that that I had in mind. But since you bring up the subject of inconsistencies, would you care to give an example or two for each system? G,e,r,a,l,d. S,m,y,t,h. > >>where she says > >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Oy! (Is this a first? I don't think I've ever seen Evan Oy!ed before) WADR to Kirsh, he's been Oy!ed (including by himself, I think) at least a couple of times, and he's had a noticeable tendency to use a superfluous apostrophe here and there (NTTAWWT). I think it says a lot about the (high) quality of Kirsh's postings that we tend to overlook those things. [..] > Commas and periods are the work horses of punctuation. Which is why they're coddled by the quotation marks. It's out of love and respect. "Workhorse" is one word. From M-W 10th: Main Entry: work·horse Pronunciation: 'w&rk-"hors Function: noun Date: 1543 1 : a horse used chiefly for labor as distinguished from driving, riding, or racing 2 a (1) : a person who performs most of the work of a group task (2) : a hardworking person b : a markedly useful or durable vehicle, craft, or machine c : HORSE 7 [..] > That's a silly rule, and I refuse to be harnessed by it. I have no problem with someone taking a principled stand on so important an issue. SignatureDena Jo Delete "delete.this.for.email" for email. >[..] > >> Commas and periods are the work horses of punctuation. > >Which is why they're coddled by the quotation marks. It's out of love >and respect. I think it's eggstremely wrong to coddle workhorses or horses that work. (Or do they "who work"?) You may do that ova there on the West Coast, but not here. > I think it's eggstremely wrong to coddle workhorses or horses that > work. (Or do they "who work"?) You may do that ova there on the > West Coast, but not here. No one's responded to this post except me. Not one of your most fertile postings. SignatureDena Jo Delete "delete.this.for.email" for email. >> I think it's eggstremely wrong to coddle workhorses or horses that >> work. (Or do they "who work"?) You may do that ova there on the >> West Coast, but not here. > >No one's responded to this post except me. Not one of your most >fertile postings. You are scrambling your metaphors - or was that a benediction? (Forgive me for poaching on your terrain) Jitze >>> I think it's eggstremely wrong to coddle workhorses or horses that >>> work. (Or do they "who work"?) You may do that ova there on the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You are scrambling your metaphors - or was that a benediction? I conceived of moving the thread in a different direction. Not eggactly my best post, huh? SignatureDena Jo Delete "delete.this.for.email" for email. Dena Jo filted: >>>> I think it's eggstremely wrong to coddle workhorses or horses that >>>> work. (Or do they "who work"?) You may do that ova there on the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >I conceived of moving the thread in a different direction. Not >eggactly my best post, huh? You should set it to music...there may even be an albumin it....r >>>> I think it's eggstremely wrong to coddle workhorses or horses that >>>> work. (Or do they "who work"?) You may do that ova there on the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >I conceived of moving the thread in a different direction. Not >eggactly my best post, huh? I shell crack up with laughter later. Signaturewrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Quiet part of Hertfordshire England >> I think it's eggstremely wrong to coddle workhorses or horses that >> work. (Or do they "who work"?) You may do that ova there on the >> West Coast, but not here. > >No one's responded to this post except me. Not one of your most >fertile postings. Be patient. Something will hatch. > The American rule is: Commas and periods always go inside the quote. > Semi-colons and colons go outside the quote. Question marks and > exclamation points go inside the quote if they belong with the quote > and outside if they do not. > > Everyone will probably disagree now. You may ignore them. Yes, I disagree, but I do so by my right to be a Latvian-American, exempt from the [purely] American rule. Someone has to maintain some semblance of logic, innit? If it's up to people like Coop and me, so be it. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ > My brother's first name is Jeffrey. He was involved in a similar flap > with a teacher who insisted that his name was "Jeffery". Like your [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > the Republicans who have ruined the US school system, and Areff would > question if a person could live "a few streets over". Coop, I'd wonder how someone as Hiberno-Britic[TM] as you could have a brother named "Jeffrey" and not "Geoffrey". >> My brother's first name is Jeffrey. He was involved in a similar flap >> with a teacher who insisted that his name was "Jeffery". Like your [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >Coop, I'd wonder how someone as Hiberno-Britic[TM] as you could have a >brother named "Jeffrey" and not "Geoffrey". My mother did consider this spelling, but she knew someone with that name who was called "Goff". (I don't remember the whole story) She thought that sounded ugly. TPUBGTH.delete.this.for.email@yahoo.com spake thus: > > As for the latter, it depends whether the full name is Gareth or > > Garrison, for example. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > became a big to-do. My mother even had to go talk to the principal, > who was less than pleased when my mother took Trudy's side. I was at school with a couple of Trudys, including this one http://tinyurl.com/yqxot (standing next to some bloke she married), and it never occurred to me that the name might be short for something. SignatureDavid ===== > TPUBGTH.delete.this.for.email@yahoo.com spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > and it never occurred to me that the name might be short for > something. I thought she was Trudie. The only Trudys I've ever met were shortened Gertrudes but they were all bar one of an earlier generation than mine and from Eastern Europe, and that one was probably named after a grandmother. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > The only Trudys I've ever met were shortened Gertrudes but they > were all > bar one of an earlier generation than mine and from Eastern > Europe, > and that one was probably named after a grandmother. Hmm. The only Gertrude I know is also one of an earlier generation and from Poland. SignatureDena Jo Delete "delete.this.for.email" for email. laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk spake thus: > > I was at school with a couple of Trudys, including this one > > http://tinyurl.com/yqxot (standing next to some bloke she married), > > and it never occurred to me that the name might be short for > > something. > > I thought she was Trudie. You seem to be right; I probably knew that once, but it's a long time ago. The other Trudy was definitely spelled thusly so I made an assumption. SignatureDavid ===== > I was at school with a couple of Trudys, including this one Were you friends, or was she just someone in your class? ObAUE: Do Brits use the word "class" to mean both the small group of students studying a subject together with the same teacher as well the larger group comprising all the students in a particular grade who graduate from school the same year? SignatureDena Jo Delete "delete.this.for.email" for email. TPUBGTH.delete.this.for.email@yahoo.com spake thus: > > I was at school with a couple of Trudys, including this one > > Were you friends, or was she just someone in your class? She was two school years ahead of me (I suspect her biog date of birth is not entirely accurate), but I did know her through older friends of mine who were in orchestra and choir. I also ran into her during drama productions - unsurprisingly, she was acting; I did a little acting but was more active backstage - lighting and sound. > ObAUE: Do Brits use the word "class" to mean both the small group of > students studying a subject together with the same teacher as well the > larger group comprising all the students in a particular grade who > graduate from school the same year? No. It means the former (those children who are in the same group taking the same subject at the same time), but not the latter, which we call "year". Trudie was not in my year; we were in different years. Since we don't "graduate", I can't entirely answer the final part. SignatureDavid ===== > Since we don't "graduate", I can't entirely answer the final part. You have no ceremony at all when you finally finish school? SignatureDena Jo Delete "delete.this.for.email" for email. > > Since we don't "graduate", I can't entirely answer the final part. > > You have no ceremony at all when you finally finish school? Can you non-finally finish something? EMWTK. IWTK! > > You have no ceremony at all when you finally finish school? > > Can you non-finally finish something? EMWTK. IWTK! Furniture. "Dena Jo" <TPUBGTH.delete.this.for.email@yahoo.com> wrote... > > Since we don't "graduate", I can't entirely answer the final part. > > You have no ceremony at all when you finally finish school? None whatsoever. We do when we graduate, though. Matti > None whatsoever. We do when we graduate, though. Hmmm. I wonder if high school graduation was an invention of Hallmark. SignatureDena Jo Delete "delete.this.for.email" for email. Dena Jo filted: >> None whatsoever. We do when we graduate, though. > >Hmmm. I wonder if high school graduation was an invention of Hallmark. Herff Jones Inc, more likely....r >>Since we don't "graduate", I can't entirely answer the final part. > > You have no ceremony at all when you finally finish school? We do here in Australia, but not in England as far as I know. I remember feeling somewhat let down after finishing my exams and realising I would not be going back again. SignatureRob Bannister >>> Since we don't "graduate", I can't entirely answer the final part. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > remember feeling somewhat let down after finishing my exams and > realising I would not be going back again. It's a fairly recent thing in Australia -- I never heard of it until about 15 years ago. Before that, there used to be annual school 'Speech Nights' at which some awards were handed out, but those were not graduation ceremonies. The senior levels would not even have got their exam results by that stage of the year -- those typically came out a couple of weeks after Christmas, and nobody in their right mind would want to go back to school then. -- Regards John >>>>Since we don't "graduate", I can't entirely answer the final part. >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Christmas, and nobody in their right mind would want to go back to > school then. Actually, I think we hold the graduation ceremony as a small preventative against total destruction of the school. I would like to know how long it has been a tradition for Australian school leavers to create havoc and mayhem. SignatureRob Bannister TPUBGTH.delete.this.for.email@yahoo.com spake thus: > > Since we don't "graduate", I can't entirely answer the final part. > > You have no ceremony at all when you finally finish school? High school, we're talking about, not university? There is no ceremony for the exiting of high school. You just don't come back. There may be a dance. SignatureDavid ===== >TPUBGTH.delete.this.for.email@yahoo.com spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >High school, we're talking about, not university? There is no >ceremony for the exiting of high school. You just don't come back. In the 1950s you used to get a piece of paper indicating that you were no longer obliged by law to attend school. Signaturewrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Quiet part of Hertfordshire England > >TPUBGTH.delete.this.for.email@yahoo.com spake thus: > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > In the 1950s you used to get a piece of paper indicating that you were no > longer obliged by law to attend school. For Americans, that's in most places been determined by age, which has been gradually increasing, but I think in few places is the age of educational emancipation higher than 16. A typical person graduating from high school is likely to be 17 or 18. ISTR reading about some places trying recently to get the Law changed so that high school attendance would be required till graduation, or age 18, or something. I guess the AmE "high school" has no precise BrE counterpart. rfontana@alumni.wesleyan.edu spake thus: > > >TPUBGTH.delete.this.for.email@yahoo.com spake thus: > > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > trying recently to get the Law changed so that high school attendance > would be required till graduation, or age 18, or something. UK school leaving age is 16 - in Robin's day it was 15 (since 1944, before when it had been 14). I think you're theoretically not allowed to walk out on your 16th birthday, but have to wait for some specific date such as the end of the current term. In practice, you would not be pursued if you failed to return after your 16th birthday. Most people leave school at the end of a school year (June or July) either after GCSE exams at age 16, or after A-levels at age 18 (those with birthdays towards the end of the school year will still be 15 or 17). The results of these exams are published during August. > I guess the AmE "high school" has no precise BrE counterpart. The High School is not so different. We start younger, usually at age 11 (some local authorities have Middle Schools from age 9 - 13). Children follow a nationally mandated curriculum from 11 - 16 (with a variety of choices), and have a completely free choice of subjects from 17 - 18. SignatureDavid ===== >>TPUBGTH.delete.this.for.email@yahoo.com spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > In the 1950s you used to get a piece of paper indicating that you were no > longer obliged by law to attend school. I didn't get one when I left school in 1959. It's not fair. SignatureRob Bannister >>>TPUBGTH.delete.this.for.email@yahoo.com spake thus: >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >I didn't get one when I left school in 1959. It's not fair. I watched "Catch me if you can" last night. Great movie, and based on a true story. I mention that because if I still had my certificate, it'd be an easy task to remove the "obin" and "ignall" and substitute "obert" and "annister" to provide you with a real fake one. If Frank Abagnale Jr. could do it with Pan Am credentials, I bet I could with a leaving certificate... Signaturewrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Quiet part of Hertfordshire England >>I didn't get one when I left school in 1959. It's not fair. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "annister" to provide you with a real fake one. If Frank Abagnale Jr. could > do it with Pan Am credentials, I bet I could with a leaving certificate... A kind thought, but I can probably survive without one. SignatureRob Bannister > High school, we're talking about, not university? There is no > ceremony for the exiting of high school. You just don't come back. > There may be a dance. Most teachers are too polite to let the students know that's what their reaction will be. SignatureOpus the Penguin (that's my real email addy) You snipped my sig! > No. It means the former (those children who are in the same group > taking the same subject at the same time), but not the latter, which > we call "year". We say "year" too. SignatureDena Jo Delete "delete.this.for.email" for email. >>I was at school with a couple of Trudys, including this one > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > larger group comprising all the students in a particular grade who > graduate from school the same year? I thought the second meaning was mainly left-pondian. I think we would call that group a 'year'. I was recently invited to attend a get-together of my year, but as it was in England I didn't manage it. SignatureRob Bannister > I thought the second meaning was mainly left-pondian. I think we > would call that group a 'year'. I was recently invited to attend a > get-together of my year, but as it was in England I didn't manage > it. What do you call that get-together? In Leftpondia we call it a "class reunion." SignatureDena Jo Delete "delete.this.for.email" for email. >>I thought the second meaning was mainly left-pondian. I think we >>would call that group a 'year'. I was recently invited to attend a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What do you call that get-together? In Leftpondia we call it a "class > reunion." I think they called it a "reunion of the year of 1951" - "year" may have been capitalised. They certainly went to a lot of trouble: even though I didn't go, I got a whole swag of addresses (both snail and email) that I thought lost forever. Also information about the three who had died. SignatureRob Bannister [...] > > ObAUE: Do Brits use the word "class" to mean both the small group of > > students studying a subject together with the same teacher as well the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > call that group a 'year'. I was recently invited to attend a > get-together of my year, but as it was in England I didn't manage it. The modern "The Class of '87" usage is, I think, French in origin; in France, IIUC, it refers to those born in the year, and has particular application to military service. It has roots in ancient Rome, also, I think, with military significance. British schools might refer to "the '87 intake". If "class reunion" is used, it is as a more-or-less-conscious Americanism; but such events aren't particularly common in Britain, being mainly restricted to ex-pupils of independent schools and certain universities and colleges. These schools typically have an annual dinner and sometimes other get-togethers for former pupils, not usually limited to any particular year-group. Most people never go: there are more convenient ways of being bored rigid. Mike. mike_lyle_uk@yahoo.co.uk spake thus: > [...] > > > ObAUE: Do Brits use the word "class" to mean both the small group of [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > particular year-group. Most people never go: there are more convenient > ways of being bored rigid. And when they are held, it is usually in order to try to extract cash from the old pupils. AFAIK, my old grammar school has never held such an event - I suppose it would now be advertised on Friends Reunited, but in the past I wouldn't even have known about it. I'm not aware of anybody I went to school with still living in the same town (there must be some, but all my friends went away to university and never went back). SignatureDavid ===== > mike_lyle_uk@yahoo.co.uk spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > town (there must be some, but all my friends went away to university > and never went back). I recently received a communication from the University of Birmingham inviting me to a reunion of "Class of 1970". This seems to me to be a fairly recent change of terminology. I have noticed that the University has taken up the US practice of hitting up the alumni for money, too. For the first 20 or so years after my graduation, I received hardly any communication from the University, except for a cohort study that I was involved in. Now I receive the begging letters all the time. Yale, by contrast, didn't even wait until I got my diploma before they started trying to tap my bank account. SignatureFrances Kemmish Production Manager East Coast Youth Ballet www.byramartscenter.com fkemmish@optonline.net spake thus: > I recently received a communication from the University of Birmingham > inviting me to a reunion of "Class of 1970". This seems to me to be a > fairly recent change of terminology. I wouldn't think of going to one of these unless it was organised by department. What would I have in common with some people who took Psychology or German finals in the same year I took mine? > I have noticed that the University has taken up the US practice of > hitting up the alumni for money, too. For the first 20 or so years after [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yale, by contrast, didn't even wait until I got my diploma before they > started trying to tap my bank account. Manchester University has taken to phoning both Wife and me. They employ current students to assist with making us feel bad about having worked hard for 25 years and made a satisfactory living. OTOH, we have a student of our own to fund, so I'm giving her the money at the moment. SignatureDavid ===== > fkemmish@optonline.net spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > employ current students to assist with making us feel bad about > having worked hard for 25 years and made a satisfactory living. Yale employs undergraduates in the same way, and they get extra payments, dependent on the amount they raise, as an inducement. A friend told me of a young woman he knew who raised a large amount by inventing a new fund, which only accepted donations of $10. It was named after someone who was reputed to be the most miserly person ever seen in New Have (I forget his name, so I can't libel him here). He was known to have worn the same wardrobe as undergraduate, grad student, and professor; never paid for his share of meals or rounds of drinks; but once gave $10 to the University's funds. > OTOH, we have a student of our own to fund, so I'm giving her the > money at the moment. Me, too. Even if we had any cash to spare, I wouldn't be giving it to Yale, though, who got plenty of mine to pay for my MA courses, but couldn't scrape up 29 cents for a stamp to let me know that I had passed my courses, and made me queue up in a basement office to collect my diploma. I have been to a few meetings of Brum alumni in New York, and we have discussed contributing to the University. Everyone that I met there agreed that what we wanted to contribute to was a fund for undergraduate bursaries, so that students today could have as good a chance of getting a university education regardless of family circumstances as we did. The latest letter I have from The "University of Birmingham Foundation" (the US fund-raising organisation) has a section for "Undergraduate Bursaries", so I suppose someone took note. SignatureFrances Kemmish Production Manager East Coast Youth Ballet www.byramartscenter.com |
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.