Yes, to both.
The Toolbox -- Free For All
- Thread starter Peter Graham
- Start date
Arkose
Waiting for tea time
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2011
- Messages
- 264
The point of this thread is amazing, but I got lost around page three some of the arguments going on. I have horrible grammar. I hope that the more I write and the more I read these type of threads the better I will get at grammar. I have a hard time reading grammar books, and lose attention quickly.
I find the items in this thread very valuable.
I find the items in this thread very valuable.
Lucky_Lola
Hopeless Dreamer
Wonderful thread, although I'd love to see one of the resident pedants explain the proper use of semicolons and dashes. I have a sneaking suspicion I've been using both incorrectly for years.
Semicolons are relatively easy. (Particularly if we ignore the "list" ones, which, for the time being I think we can afford to.)
A sentence should be a complete, integrated idea; a verb, or active "doing" word, a subject which is doing it, and more frequently than not, an object which is being done to. So "You ran" or "You caught the ball". It should have a full stop (period) before and after it, indicating the change to a different concept. So far, so good, but sometimes one wants to associate or a comparison. In which case, you don't do what I've just done, and separate them with a comma; a comma is a minimum pause, a snatched breath, not a full-scale separation. So you use a conlunction, an "and, or, but, which, while…" Or you use a semicolon. (Oh, there are still othe methods, like reducing the verb to a non-transient form ("two different concepts, either making a contrast…") or do a comma'd list terminating in a conjunction.
So the semicolon is completely inessential; there are always ways of not using it. When I spray red ink over a critique the word "semicolon" frequently means "You've got two sentences here separated by commas, which need a more definite divorce, be it by a conjunction or a heavier piece of punctuation", rather than an absolute order for a dot-comma.
Still, a semicolon is quite an elegant solution, if not overused. "She was a virgin; this situation did not seem likely to continue long" could take a "but", or replace the "this" with a "which", or the "did not seem likely" with "not seeming likely"; all the results would be grammatically correct, but give different moods to the same situation, and I quite like the original.
The dash is less rigid. Generally, in the case of someone who (like myself) shows a tendency to deviate from the strait and narrow, it replaces a set of parentheses (brackets) separating off a block of text from the main stream. As such, it can be eliminated with verbal discipline. Like the semicolon, it can always be avoided, if there is doubt – and this includes any lack of confidence in the results, not only questions of whether it is the correct solution – in its utility. However, there are two lengths of dash and it's not the best documented of punctuations – often it finds itself separating two almost-sentences, or closing a line of dialogue that doesn't quite fini–
As the rules for the dash are less stringent than for most forms of punctuation, overuse is considered lazy. Still, it is an extra tool in the box, and can by handy at times – Just not too often.
A sentence should be a complete, integrated idea; a verb, or active "doing" word, a subject which is doing it, and more frequently than not, an object which is being done to. So "You ran" or "You caught the ball". It should have a full stop (period) before and after it, indicating the change to a different concept. So far, so good, but sometimes one wants to associate or a comparison. In which case, you don't do what I've just done, and separate them with a comma; a comma is a minimum pause, a snatched breath, not a full-scale separation. So you use a conlunction, an "and, or, but, which, while…" Or you use a semicolon. (Oh, there are still othe methods, like reducing the verb to a non-transient form ("two different concepts, either making a contrast…") or do a comma'd list terminating in a conjunction.
So the semicolon is completely inessential; there are always ways of not using it. When I spray red ink over a critique the word "semicolon" frequently means "You've got two sentences here separated by commas, which need a more definite divorce, be it by a conjunction or a heavier piece of punctuation", rather than an absolute order for a dot-comma.
Still, a semicolon is quite an elegant solution, if not overused. "She was a virgin; this situation did not seem likely to continue long" could take a "but", or replace the "this" with a "which", or the "did not seem likely" with "not seeming likely"; all the results would be grammatically correct, but give different moods to the same situation, and I quite like the original.
The dash is less rigid. Generally, in the case of someone who (like myself) shows a tendency to deviate from the strait and narrow, it replaces a set of parentheses (brackets) separating off a block of text from the main stream. As such, it can be eliminated with verbal discipline. Like the semicolon, it can always be avoided, if there is doubt – and this includes any lack of confidence in the results, not only questions of whether it is the correct solution – in its utility. However, there are two lengths of dash and it's not the best documented of punctuations – often it finds itself separating two almost-sentences, or closing a line of dialogue that doesn't quite fini–
As the rules for the dash are less stringent than for most forms of punctuation, overuse is considered lazy. Still, it is an extra tool in the box, and can by handy at times – Just not too often.
Lucky_Lola
Hopeless Dreamer
Thanks Chris, much appreciated 
J Riff
The Ants are my friends..
One does see odd uses of the dash, or double-dash, such as in EA Poe-
At length there came into my head one of those exquisitely-original ideas which now and then will permeate the brain of a man of genius.
It was this:- or, rather, thus was it carried into execution.
I thought of Pompey!- alas, I thought of love!
At length there came into my head one of those exquisitely-original ideas which now and then will permeate the brain of a man of genius.
It was this:- or, rather, thus was it carried into execution.
I thought of Pompey!- alas, I thought of love!
Interference
Destroyer of Words
I actually enjoyed reading this before the thought occurred that I'm meant to be noticing something wrong.
This is the only change I'd be tempted to make:
Gerry turned his back on her while he made the tea.
“I know,” he said, “that you were responsible for my brother’s death,” and while pouring the steaming water, he checked that the gun’s safety catch was off. “You were the only one close enough to do it.”
He made sure the gun was covered by his shirt, and finished making the tea.
“Nobody else would have wanted him dead, except you.”
He turned to face her, holding the tray. “And that, my dear, is why I asked you to come today.”
I'm not sure about that and, Inter, though I don't exactly know why. However, I do have a theory....
If one takes out the speech attribution, one is left with:
Putting the speech attribution back, but ignoring the dialogue gives:
If one takes out the speech attribution, one is left with:
which doesn't work, because while there are two verbs in the dialogue, I don't feel that they are part of the framing sentence (if that makes sense).
Putting the speech attribution back, but ignoring the dialogue gives:
We are often told that the verb, said, is not very visible to the reader. Perhaps it isn't quite visible enough to take a following and.
Interference
Destroyer of Words
In fact, the comma would be enough, I think.
“I know that you were responsible for my brother’s death,” while pouring the steaming water, he checked that the gun’s safety catch was off. “You were the only one close enough to do it.”
The original full stop rankled with me just a tad. Either way, the sense is clear and now comes the question: is it time we invented a few more punctuation marks?
“I know that you were responsible for my brother’s death,” while pouring the steaming water, he checked that the gun’s safety catch was off. “You were the only one close enough to do it.”
The original full stop rankled with me just a tad. Either way, the sense is clear and now comes the question: is it time we invented a few more punctuation marks?
That still doesn't read right. The sentence inside the quotation marks is a complete idea, as is what follows. A comma isn't strong enough to separate them, as taking away the quotes (and turning the dialogue into narrative) will show:
Or it could be that detectives ought to pour more steaming water, as it supplies them with a revelation (albeit a short-lived one):
.
Or it could be that detectives ought to pour more steaming water, as it supplies them with a revelation (albeit a short-lived one):
.
Last edited:
Interference
Destroyer of Words
Here we are, discussing the relative merits of commas and there are people dying in the Congo!
“I know that you were responsible for my brother’s death,” and, while pouring the steaming water, he checked that the gun’s safety catch was off. “You were the only one close enough to do it.”
An extra comma.
No extra charge
“I know that you were responsible for my brother’s death,” and, while pouring the steaming water, he checked that the gun’s safety catch was off. “You were the only one close enough to do it.”
An extra comma.
No extra charge
Sorry, but it still doesn't sound right to me, extra comma or no.
So am I (although The Mo has come to the rescue).
:
:
:
v
:
:
:
v
Last edited:
Interference
Destroyer of Words
I'm prepared to wait.
Sorry to but (butt?) in, but that comma makes no sense to me. Surely 'death' is the end of a sentence there?
I know nothing. But personally I'd do:
Gerry turned his back on her while he made the tea. “I know that you were responsible for my brother’s death,” he said, pouring the steaming water. He checked that the gun’s safety catch was off. “You were the only one close enough to do it.”
Gets rid of the two 'whiles' then as well. I'd probably stick some sort of word after 'he' and before 'checked' too, to make it flow better. 'Surreptitiously' or something. Although that's a... wotsit. One of them words nobody likes.
I know nothing. But personally I'd do:
Gerry turned his back on her while he made the tea. “I know that you were responsible for my brother’s death,” he said, pouring the steaming water. He checked that the gun’s safety catch was off. “You were the only one close enough to do it.”
Gets rid of the two 'whiles' then as well. I'd probably stick some sort of word after 'he' and before 'checked' too, to make it flow better. 'Surreptitiously' or something. Although that's a... wotsit. One of them words nobody likes.
Interference
Destroyer of Words
Astutely, winningly and insightfully observed.
Interference
Destroyer of Words
Darn! I was waiting for the rest of the story
She was innocent all along, set up by a government conspiracy. Just before he pulls the trigger, he realises he loves her, but kills her anyway. When he finds out that she didn't do it, he destroys the government in a single action. Then, out of guilt, he kills himself in a matter/antimatter which destroys the universe.
It's a comedy.
It's a comedy.
Interference
Destroyer of Words
Loved the car chase
