Wordsmith.org: the magic of words

Wordsmith Talk

About Us | What's New | Search | Site Map | Contact Us  

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#112022 09/13/03 11:49 PM
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
M
Carpal Tunnel
OP Offline
Carpal Tunnel
M
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
From a link in a site Bill pointed to (with thanks, Doc):

Punctuation has the primary responsibility of contributing to the plainness of one's meaning. It has the secondary responsibility of being as invisible as possible, of not calling attention to itself.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/721833.html

Ignoring his misuse of the word reduplication when he clearly means either duplication or replication, what do you think of all the issues raised by Paul Robinson?
(not just that represented in this brief quote)



#112023 09/14/03 01:03 AM
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
First, I'd say that this guy is, um, just a bit OTT. Witness:
What we must instill, I'm convinced, is an attitude toward punctuation, a set of feelings about both the process in general and the individual marks of punctuation. That set of feelings might be called a philosophy of punctuation.
(Agh--more philosophy! Dasrex, this is all your fault! )
...I have developed a set of emotional responses to individual marks of punctuation. ...
Let me now introduce my dramatis personae. First come the period and the comma. These are the only lovely marks of punctuation, and of the two the period is the lovelier, because ...

Sorry, but that was about enough for me to write the rest of the article off. I also wonder how punctuation can be informed: My punctuation is informed by two ideals: clarity and simplicity.
All of that notwithstanding, I do give him marks for: I say "a" philosophy, because I'm not yet so opinionated as to insist that everyone adopt my own.
He does clearly describe two approaches to using punctuation. One is by the rules. The other is one that his friend uses: to indicate through his punctuation how a sentence is supposed to sound. I confess that I do that here, fairly often; for ex. I'll put a comma that is grammatically incorrect, to indicate where I would pause verbally. (I often also add a hyphen (hi, Anna!) if I want to emphasize something.) And thus my punctuation, like his friend's, can be inconsistent. Which is better? Depends on the context, I reckon.



#112024 09/14/03 03:23 AM
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,230
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,230
The other is one that his friend uses: to indicate through his punctuation how a sentence is supposed to sound. I confess that I do that here, fairly often; for ex.

I don't that fairly often here - I do it all the time here. I view this place as a written conversation, and so write in a manner that depicts spoken speech. Of course, it could just be that I'm nothing more than an SES.


#112025 09/14/03 12:57 PM
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Just for starters, I think that his overarching "philosophy", that of emotional response, reduces punctuation rules to a set of purely personal prejudices with a thin veneer of ex cathedra pronouncement.

In particular, his example of the comma rule quoted from Strunk and White, violates, in my eye, the rule of clarity and invisibility. That comma before the and is anything but invisible to me. In the rare cases that its absence introduces ambiguity the ambiguity can be resolved by a simple recasting of the list.

Finally, I'd like to thank him for actually quoting the rules about punctuation and quotation marks. Without the statement of those rules we would have had to guess at just what they were.


#112026 09/14/03 07:44 PM
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891
B
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
B
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891
Interpretation is key

rules about punctuation and quotation marks

Punctuation goes inside the quotation marks. I.e. Mary said, "I like you a lot!" This is the way I was taught in a course on basic editing practices at university.

He says there is some difference between England & U.S. practices. There may be but can't vouch for that.

I also use different writing techniques depending on the situation. Here, I write as if I am speaking. With business correspondence I stick to the rules.


#112027 09/14/03 08:37 PM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
W
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
W
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
I agree with Faldage about the superfluous comma in a series--and this rule is now officially either/or in some style manuals in the states. I remember Rhubarb commenting once upon a time here -- or maybe somewhere else -- about my own use of the superfluous comma in a series and I explained that this was a holdover from my own instruction. Rhubarb commented that the extra comma in England would be categorically incorrect.

And since that time, I've come across at least one style manual in which I found the either/or ruling. So, not one to want to use superfluous commas, I'm trying to wean them out of my writing for exactly the reason Faldage mentions: they call attention to the rule and pull attention away from the text.

I disagreed with Robinson's views on the semicolon because there are times that the semicolon does precisely what you would want it to do: it divides up the text--two independent clauses--into two big chunks of intimately connected thought with a pause in between. Not a pause that is as much of a stop as a period, but a pause that let's you know something strongly connected is about to follow. On the other hand, I don't like semicolons used because a writer of short sentences is too lazy (or unknowledgeable) to combine the short ones into more fluid long ones. Short sentences have their uses, but an overabundance of very short sentences combined with semicolons can be annoying.

I am not tempted to write an essay in which I only use commas and periods, so I differ from Robinson. I like all kinds of punctuation because of the increase in provision of affecting both the musicality of writing and in increasing clarity. I agree that Robinson is anal, but I, too, like understanding better how punctuation affects communication. If I have a poor punctuation habit that causes my thoughts to be misinterpreted, I need to have that habit pointed out to me so that I will be understood. When I want to be understood.

I've saved the article--printed it out--and will probably use sections of it for my freshmen to look over. Thanks for posting the link here.


#112028 09/14/03 09:09 PM
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Punctuation goes inside the quotation marks.

Story is that this rule was created in the days when a period (full stop) could be physically lost in a row of type if it were outside the closing quotation mark. Dunno if this is true or not; perhaps Pfranz could tell us. As far as I'm concerned the primary rule is that the punctuation goes inside the quotation marks if it is part of the quotation.

Did you say, "Punctuation goes inside the quotation marks?"
         Wrong

Did you say, "Punctuation goes inside the quotation marks"?
         Right


#112029 09/14/03 10:17 PM
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
M
Carpal Tunnel
OP Offline
Carpal Tunnel
M
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
I agree with several of you that we all vary our practice according to medium. The degree of formality is likely to reflect a continuum from speech to the most formal cases of writing. This forum is clearly closer to “a written conversation” as my downsideup bro remarks.

I thought Paul Robinson’s argument was, taken all in all, quite attractive. He recognises the value of common rules as a foundation for clarity of communication. He also notes that this is of itself likely to prove inadequate, requiring a greater investment of care from writers in order to foster a style or (as Jackie hated!) a “philosophy” to underpin practice.

Robinson clearly identifies his own intuitive bent, being a legalistic rule-based tendency. He moves on to add that style is a personal response to the aesthetics of typography. After all, from what does Stunk & Bite derive its so-called rules if not an emotional or aesthetic response to language? Robinson states that “I recognize legitimate alternatives, and I'm quite aware that punctuation has a history.” This seems an honest recognition that style is a matter of codified aesthetics which change over time.

> Rhubarb commented that the extra comma in England would be categorically incorrect.
fwiw, M$ Word recognises no grammatical fault in either of these two statements when set to either UK or USA English:
I bought apples, oranges, pears, and bananas.
I bought apples, oranges, pears and bananas.
Personally, I do not get an uncomfortable feeling reading the former, but feel slightly rushed by the latter.

I too sometimes vary my punctuation by deliberately reflecting a desire to steer towards my intended 'voice', using it almost like a stage direction tool. However, I agree with him that “Periods and commas are lovely because they are simple. They force the writer to express his ideas directly […] By way of contrast, a colon can be used to smooth over a rough logical connection. […] Periods and commas, because of their very neutrality, make one an honest logician.” His clarity of expression is certainly making me reconsider my approach to punctuation. Since my style tends to an unfortunate prolixity, I admire his urging of clear structure. I accept his argument that clean punctuation reflects, and in turn helps enforce logical discipline in the structure of writing. Despite personally tending to overuse parenthetical clauses I agree that this habit often results from a failure to focus on a linear argument. I unreservedly agree with his strictures on footnotes.

So overall, I guess you could say I largely approve his arguments, and intend to use them to modify my own practice in formal writing.

Not here but!


#112030 09/14/03 10:26 PM
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
M
Carpal Tunnel
OP Offline
Carpal Tunnel
M
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
> the punctuation goes inside the quotation marks if it is part of the quotation.

So do you add a full stop after the quote marks with a quoted question?

Mav asked Faldage if he would "add a full stop after the quote marks with a quoted question?".

He did this because he believes it marks the reductio ad absurdum of this apparently logical approach... "If only," he remarked quietly, "punctuation was that logical - I did not just speak a comma or a dash!"


#112031 09/15/03 08:09 AM
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
legalistic rule-based tendency - in other words: punctilious


Page 1 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  Jackie 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Statistics
Forums16
Topics13,912
Posts229,283
Members9,179
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
Newest Members
TRIALNERRA, befuddledmind, KILL_YOUR_SUV, Heather_Turey, Standy
9,179 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 444 guests, and 3 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Top Posters(30 Days)
Top Posters
wwh 13,858
Faldage 13,803
Jackie 11,613
tsuwm 10,542
wofahulicodoc 10,510
LukeJavan8 9,916
AnnaStrophic 6,511
Wordwind 6,296
of troy 5,400
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site. Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.

Home | Today's Word | Yesterday's Word | Subscribe | FAQ | Archives | Search | Feedback
Wordsmith Talk | Wordsmith Chat

© 1994-2024 Wordsmith

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5