You are correct about that. I'll have to double-check the manual when I get back into the office tomorrow to see if I mis-typed it, since that seems an odd thing to say.
Hmmm. It looks like I may have misread your original post. It says "A principle use" rather than "The principle use".
It contains pretty thorough and has descriptions of most grammar and usage issues. I suspect that the Chicago manual is more thorough, though, but I didn't have it within reach when I responded. I can check it tomorrow when I get back to work.
Quote:
Further, if the texts we use were completely wrong, I'm sure someone or some organization (organisation) would have challenged the publishers by now.
I'm not really sure what texts you're referring to. If it is the Evergreen guide, it is important to understand that Evergreen is the hippiest of hippie colleges with regard to English composition instruction. Didn't Evergreen even go through a phase where they didn't assign grades on student papers in Composition courses?
Quote:
I don't know how long they've been publishing this text, but I've been using it with its many updates for over 20 years. No controversy so far!
That doesn't mean it isn't in error. And again, I'm not sure what text you're talking about, so I can't say for certain.
Quote:
My university English Seminar professor (who had two law degrees as well as a doctorate in English) had a philosophy: "The rules of English grammar were NOT handed down to Moses along with the Ten Commandments." He meant they were man-made. They were not even codified and written down, unlike other languages, until a few hundred years ago. They have been evolving ever since. For evidence of that evolution, you just have to follow the OED as it enfolds the latest jargon. It's not a pretty sight.
Well, I have a Ph.D. in English, too, and your professor is absolutely correct. And I'm certainly not a pedant when it comes to grammar. I think the best we can say about the 's (and, as an aside, the comma) is that it's working its way out of the language, just like the OE genitive -es ending did (in, what, the c17?), or the long f (in the c18), or the k in "publick" (in the c18). The language changes. That's what language does. But that doesn't mean that we can't attempt to describe the rules of usage, and that doesn't mean that we shouldn't make some effort to help folks understand what we're writing.
Well, I have a Ph.D. in English, too, and your professor is absolutely correct. And I'm certainly not a pedant when it comes to grammar. I think the best we can say about the 's (and, as an aside, the comma) is that it's working its way out of the language, just like the OE genitive -es ending did (in, what, the c17?), or the long f (in the c18), or the k in "publick" (in the c18). The language changes. That's what language does. But that doesn't mean that we can't attempt to describe the rules of usage, and that doesn't mean that we shouldn't make some effort to help folks understand what we're writing.
Agreed. I think one problem comes from looking for logic in grammar and style. It's much more about consistency than logic. Words are meant to be read, and our brains comprehend them better if the rules of placing them down aren't arbitrary and constantly changing out of whim. So while grammatical rules have changed, and will continue to evolve, I don't believe this is the case being made by those who simply choose to ignore them. They are either seeking a logic that doesn't really exist, or just being lazy. More often the latter.
They are either seeking a logic that doesn't really exist, or just being lazy. More often the latter.
I don't know about that. I ask my students all the time why they do some weird grammatical thing, and they always have the most amazing (read: ridiculously contorted) explanations. A HUUUUUUGE chunk of the problem is that lots of teachers either don't understand the rules or don't bother to explain them, and instead make up some sort of nonsense ("use a comma where you pause to breathe"!?!?) that just goes on to confuse the poor students when they have to confront a whole 'nother set of rules.
I don't know about that. I ask my students all the time why they do some weird grammatical thing, and they always have the most amazing (read: ridiculously contorted) explanations. A HUUUUUUGE chunk of the problem is that lots of teachers either don't understand the rules or don't bother to explain them, and instead make up some sort of nonsense ("use a comma where you pause to breathe"!?!?) that just goes on to confuse the poor students when they have to confront a whole 'nother set of rules.
I think some people believe they're being more "modern" by foregoing the rules, like there's a kind of rebellious virtue involved. Another reasoning I've encountered is the so-called "logical quotation," which seeks to dispense with the conventional use of punctuation within quotations (in American English) and without (British English). By this theory, punctuation in a quotation should be based upon where it falls in the material being quoted, as if this information is of any use or interest to the reader.
When I first heard of this I spent some time researching this theory of punctuation, and just about all I could find is that it's been adopted by Wikipedia, and no style guides that I could locate. This is a pure geek punctuation rule -- it follows a kind of logic, but is otherwise utterly useless. Someday I suppose we're going to be told that it's acceptable because a lot of people use it.
Referring back to Evergreen - A Guide to Writing - Fawcett - (used by the largest college in the U.S.) using an apostrophe after a name or word ending in S to show ownership is correct.
Well, I just remember being marked down for it on a freshman history paper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
... the placement of punctuation within quotation marks. In the U.S., it's nearly always placed inside the quotation marks; the British form is the other way round. I often see this done both ways within any given piece of writing. It should be done one way or the other, or it's just irritating.
Sorry, I'm guilty of making up my own rule, which results in doing it both ways. I frequently use quotation marks to emphasize a word. (I was also marked down for this by the same professor.) I do it when it would be appropriate to precede the word by "so-called" (another can of worms there!) or when the word is clearly being used to convey an unusual meaning. If such a "quoted" (there I go again) word falls at the end of a sentence, I place the period after the quote mark. But, if it's really a quote, such as a running dialog, I place the period before the quote mark.
That's the kind of weird rules/logic I was talking about. Want to have fun? Ask someone (an American) when it is grammatically appropriate to use single quotation marks.
That's the kind of weird rules/logic I was talking about. Want to have fun? Ask someone (an American) when it is grammatically appropriate to use single quotation marks.
From memory, for quotes within quotes? I could pull down my copy of the Chicago Manual and look it up, but what fun would that be?
Incidentally, I believe one of the reasons why these guides are used so little any more is because they are actual physical books which must purchased. Just a theory, mind you.
That's the kind of weird rules/logic I was talking about. Want to have fun? Ask someone (an American) when it is grammatically appropriate to use single quotation marks.
What fun would that be? Most would say, "I dunno."
And how did you get "Registered User" misspelled under your name?
Incidentally, I believe one of the reasons why these guides are used so little any more is because they are actual physical books which must purchased. Just a theory, mind you.
No doubt. The last time I taught literary research and documentation methods, I had to do a whole session on how to navigate the actual book.
You are the first person to notice. And I think it's been several years.
Wlel, I've been tlod taht I'm vrey obesravnt.
As lnog as the wdors hvae the corerct fisrt and lsat letetrs, and the rihgt nubmer, you can raed it jsut fnie. Taht's prbobaly why no one noitecd beofre.
As lnog as the wdors hvae the corerct fisrt and lsat letetrs, and the rihgt nubmer, you can raed it jsut fnie. Taht's prbobaly why no one noitecd beofre.
mybae oehtr polepe ntioecd but dnid't say ayihtnng?
(hint: I noticed a long time ago but didn't mention it; though I did think it was/is amusing)
Comments
You are correct about that. I'll have to double-check the manual when I get back into the office tomorrow to see if I mis-typed it, since that seems an odd thing to say.
Hmmm. It looks like I may have misread your original post. It says "A principle use" rather than "The principle use".
Does MLA cover all grammar? I doubt it.
It contains pretty thorough and has descriptions of most grammar and usage issues. I suspect that the Chicago manual is more thorough, though, but I didn't have it within reach when I responded. I can check it tomorrow when I get back to work.
Further, if the texts we use were completely wrong, I'm sure someone or some organization (organisation) would have challenged the publishers by now.
I'm not really sure what texts you're referring to. If it is the Evergreen guide, it is important to understand that Evergreen is the hippiest of hippie colleges with regard to English composition instruction. Didn't Evergreen even go through a phase where they didn't assign grades on student papers in Composition courses?
I don't know how long they've been publishing this text, but I've been using it with its many updates for over 20 years. No controversy so far!
That doesn't mean it isn't in error. And again, I'm not sure what text you're talking about, so I can't say for certain.
My university English Seminar professor (who had two law degrees as well as a doctorate in English) had a philosophy: "The rules of English grammar were NOT handed down to Moses along with the Ten Commandments." He meant they were man-made. They were not even codified and written down, unlike other languages, until a few hundred years ago. They have been evolving ever since. For evidence of that evolution, you just have to follow the OED as it enfolds the latest jargon. It's not a pretty sight.
Well, I have a Ph.D. in English, too, and your professor is absolutely correct. And I'm certainly not a pedant when it comes to grammar. I think the best we can say about the 's (and, as an aside, the comma) is that it's working its way out of the language, just like the OE genitive -es ending did (in, what, the c17?), or the long f (in the c18), or the k in "publick" (in the c18). The language changes. That's what language does. But that doesn't mean that we can't attempt to describe the rules of usage, and that doesn't mean that we shouldn't make some effort to help folks understand what we're writing.
Hmmm. It looks like I may have misread your original post. It says "A principle use" rather than "The principle use".
But you're still correct that an apostrophe indicates an omission.
Hmmm. It looks like I may have misread your original post. It says "A principle use" rather than "The principle use".
When he probably meant "principal use."
When he probably meant "principal use."
Doh! That's what I get for transcribing the style manual while watching Firefly.
/me hangs head in English nerd shame
Well, I have a Ph.D. in English, too, and your professor is absolutely correct. And I'm certainly not a pedant when it comes to grammar. I think the best we can say about the 's (and, as an aside, the comma) is that it's working its way out of the language, just like the OE genitive -es ending did (in, what, the c17?), or the long f (in the c18), or the k in "publick" (in the c18). The language changes. That's what language does. But that doesn't mean that we can't attempt to describe the rules of usage, and that doesn't mean that we shouldn't make some effort to help folks understand what we're writing.
Agreed. I think one problem comes from looking for logic in grammar and style. It's much more about consistency than logic. Words are meant to be read, and our brains comprehend them better if the rules of placing them down aren't arbitrary and constantly changing out of whim. So while grammatical rules have changed, and will continue to evolve, I don't believe this is the case being made by those who simply choose to ignore them. They are either seeking a logic that doesn't really exist, or just being lazy. More often the latter.
Doh! That's what I get for transcribing the style manual while watching Firefly.
/me hangs head in English nerd shame
Score one for Dr. Millmoss.
They are either seeking a logic that doesn't really exist, or just being lazy. More often the latter.
I don't know about that. I ask my students all the time why they do some weird grammatical thing, and they always have the most amazing (read: ridiculously contorted) explanations. A HUUUUUUGE chunk of the problem is that lots of teachers either don't understand the rules or don't bother to explain them, and instead make up some sort of nonsense ("use a comma where you pause to breathe"!?!?) that just goes on to confuse the poor students when they have to confront a whole 'nother set of rules.
Doh! That's what I get for transcribing the style manual while watching Firefly.
/me hangs head in English nerd shame
No, no, that was my bad.
I don't know about that. I ask my students all the time why they do some weird grammatical thing, and they always have the most amazing (read: ridiculously contorted) explanations. A HUUUUUUGE chunk of the problem is that lots of teachers either don't understand the rules or don't bother to explain them, and instead make up some sort of nonsense ("use a comma where you pause to breathe"!?!?) that just goes on to confuse the poor students when they have to confront a whole 'nother set of rules.
I think some people believe they're being more "modern" by foregoing the rules, like there's a kind of rebellious virtue involved. Another reasoning I've encountered is the so-called "logical quotation," which seeks to dispense with the conventional use of punctuation within quotations (in American English) and without (British English). By this theory, punctuation in a quotation should be based upon where it falls in the material being quoted, as if this information is of any use or interest to the reader.
When I first heard of this I spent some time researching this theory of punctuation, and just about all I could find is that it's been adopted by Wikipedia, and no style guides that I could locate. This is a pure geek punctuation rule -- it follows a kind of logic, but is otherwise utterly useless. Someday I suppose we're going to be told that it's acceptable because a lot of people use it.
No, no, that was my bad.
/me unhangs head in non-shame!
Referring back to Evergreen - A Guide to Writing - Fawcett - (used by the largest college in the U.S.) using an apostrophe after a name or word ending in S to show ownership is correct.
E.g., Ladies' dresses; James' books; Ulysses' travels; Doris' shoes.
Well, I just remember being marked down for it on a freshman history paper.
... the placement of punctuation within quotation marks. In the U.S., it's nearly always placed inside the quotation marks; the British form is the other way round. I often see this done both ways within any given piece of writing. It should be done one way or the other, or it's just irritating.
Sorry, I'm guilty of making up my own rule, which results in doing it both ways. I frequently use quotation marks to emphasize a word. (I was also marked down for this by the same professor.) I do it when it would be appropriate to precede the word by "so-called" (another can of worms there!) or when the word is clearly being used to convey an unusual meaning. If such a "quoted" (there I go again) word falls at the end of a sentence, I place the period after the quote mark. But, if it's really a quote, such as a running dialog, I place the period before the quote mark.
That's the kind of weird rules/logic I was talking about. Want to have fun? Ask someone (an American) when it is grammatically appropriate to use single quotation marks.
From memory, for quotes within quotes? I could pull down my copy of the Chicago Manual and look it up, but what fun would that be?
Incidentally, I believe one of the reasons why these guides are used so little any more is because they are actual physical books which must purchased. Just a theory, mind you.
That's the kind of weird rules/logic I was talking about. Want to have fun? Ask someone (an American) when it is grammatically appropriate to use single quotation marks.
What fun would that be? Most would say, "I dunno."
And how did you get "Registered User" misspelled under your name?
And how did you get "Registered User" misspelled under your name?
Official Member Title Request Thread. Note you must have at least 1,000 posts to request a custom title.
What fun would that be? Most would say, "I dunno."
And how did you get "Registered User" misspelled under your name?
You are the first person to notice. And I think it's been several years.
Incidentally, I believe one of the reasons why these guides are used so little any more is because they are actual physical books which must purchased. Just a theory, mind you.
No doubt. The last time I taught literary research and documentation methods, I had to do a whole session on how to navigate the actual book.
You are the first person to notice. And I think it's been several years.
Wlel, I've been tlod taht I'm vrey obesravnt.
As lnog as the wdors hvae the corerct fisrt and lsat letetrs, and the rihgt nubmer, you can raed it jsut fnie. Taht's prbobaly why no one noitecd beofre.
Wlel, I've been tlod taht I'm vrey obesravnt.
As lnog as the wdors hvae the corerct fisrt and lsat letetrs, and the rihgt nubmer, you can raed it jsut fnie. Taht's prbobaly why no one noitecd beofre.
mybae oehtr polepe ntioecd but dnid't say ayihtnng?
(hint: I noticed a long time ago but didn't mention it; though I did think it was/is amusing)