Spelling, punctuation and grammar!
By
Arctic Man,
Posted on: 2009-12-30 13:02 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
Quote:
Is that some strange way to say for all intents and purposes? I have never participated in an intensive purpose. For me, and on an internet forum, I don't really bother with correcting people on spelling and grammar. Mine isn't that great and it would turn into a pot-kettle situation. As long as I can read and get the point then I am good More often than not, correcting someone on a forum is pointless as they wont change and they usually get irritated. |
Originally Posted by Willowpaw
Another phrase I occasionally see presented incorrectly:
For all intensive purposes. (I hate it when porpises gets misspelled). Then there is the one word that no matter how properly it gets written is always spelled wrong, no matter what... |
If I have trouble making out the post I first think that English may not be their first language and have some more beer just in case it might help me translate.
Now as to my spelling, grammar, and punctuation? It will never be perfect. Not that I don't try and make it proper, because I do. I just am not going to go out of my way to make sure a forum post I am writing has all the necessary grammatical elements. If writing were my profession and I got paid for it then that would be another story.
Badging in a PvP zone?
If you are treasure hunting on a battlefield wearing an enemy uniform, there is a high probability that you will be attacked.
This is an enjoy-the-ride game. "50" is only a number, not the goal of the game. - Noxilicious
Quote:
As is always the case, it can be done well or horribly, horribly wrong.|
Originally Posted by Fleeting Whisper
What about for depicting accents in dialogue?
|
BAD:
Explicitly depicting someone with accents that refer to variations in pronunciation. I don't care if the someone from the southern US sounds different from someone from Ireland. You do NOT add or remove random letters, nor should you attempt the same effect by replacing letters with punctuation marks. It looks bad and reads poorly, don't do it. If the character is speaking cogently but has a specific voice you want to convey, you do it with descriptive language. There's a massive difference between someone having an accent and being hard to understand, which leads into...
Better(won't give a blanket description of "good"):
If the character actually speaks in a way that screws up the word order, the words themselves, or makes them hard to understand, it's permitted but you have to be careful about how you go about the presentation. Just off the top of my head, Shogun actually does a spectacular job of showing how someone gradually eliminates their linguistic weaknesses...admittedly over something like 1200 pages.
The poor and uneducated 1880s negro family in the South? Go for it--within limit.
The international diplomat with a Texan accent conversing with your suave secret agent? I don't think he would have made it that far in international politics, judging by the cue card presented that suggests he might be functionally retarded.
I can't remember the name of the absolute worst example I've ever read but I recall it took me awhile to realize one sentence using the combination of letters
Quote:
| cood'net |
Blue: ~Knockback Squad on Guardian~
Red: ~Undoing of Virtue on [3 guesses]~
Quote:
I extirpate your hegenomical proscriptivistic deontologicalism!
|
Originally Posted by Blue Rabbit
This post is seven shades of Westley crazy.
Also, eschew obfuscation. |
Speeding Through New DA Repeatables || Spreadsheet o' Enhancements || Zombie Skins: better skins for these forums || Guide to Guides
Quote:
Because the Oxford English Dictionary just can't get words right...|
Originally Posted by Eisenzahn
I operate a family owned used and antique bookstore. We have currently in stock a pile of dictionaries dating back as far as 1922. Of the eleven I could find in the twenty minutes I decided to devote to this dispute, only two of them are newer than 1981 (and therefore reflect the shape of the language within my lifetime). All but one of them have an entry for decimate. None of them contain a definition that matches what you describe as the 'common' usage. Those that contain a definition all affirm that it is "to reduce by one-tenth."
Do you have an alternate source available? |
Quote:
|
decimate /dessimayt/ • verb 1 kill or destroy a large proportion of. 2 drastically reduce the strength of. — DERIVATIVES decimation noun. — USAGE The earliest sense of decimate was ‘kill one in every ten of’, a reference to the ancient Roman practice of killing one in every ten of a group of soldiers as a collective punishment. This has been more or less totally superseded by the sense ‘kill or destroy a large proportion of’, although some traditionalists argue that this later sense is incorrect. — ORIGIN Latin decimare ‘take as a tenth’. |
The wisdom of Shadowe: Ghostraptor: The Shadowe is wise ...; FFM: Shadowe is no longer wise.
; Techbot_Alpha: Also, what Shadowe said. It seems he is still somewhat wise 
; Bull Throttle: Shadowe was unwise in this instance...; Rock_Powerfist: in this instance Shadowe is wise.; Techbot_Alpha: Shadowe is very wise *nods*; Zortel: *Quotable line about Shadowe being wise goes here.*
Quote:
I once told one of my guitar students to take something I'd shown him and extrapolate from it.|
Originally Posted by Zombie Man
extirpate
|
He said, "Extrapolate? What's that?"
I told him to look it up in the dictionary.
When he came in for his next lesson, I asked if he'd looked up 'extrapolate'. He said he had. "And what does it mean?" I asked.
"To destroy utterly."
Alas! It did not occur to me, that day so long ago, to show him how to play 'My Generation'. That would have been cool.
Quote:
I never really thought about it before. But for some odd reason, this time when I read that, I am "hearing" cold as one adjective and "dark and dreary" as essentially a single superadjective (new me-ism).|
Originally Posted by TonyV
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Oya
Is that some strange way to say for all intents and purposes? I have never participated in an intensive purpose.
|
Quote:
| For me, and on an internet forum, I don't really bother with correcting people on spelling and grammar. |
Quote:
The call for proper grammar and spelling is so that a person can be more easily understood. Being intentionally cryptic, therefore, proves nothing, other than that that particular joke was old before I was born. Come on, man. You're better than this.
|
Originally Posted by Zombie Man
I extirpate your hegenomical proscriptivistic deontologicalism!
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Quote:
What does 'cryptic' mean? Speak English!
|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
The call for proper grammar and spelling is so that a person can be more easily understood. Being intentionally cryptic, therefore, proves nothing, other than that that particular joke was old before I was born. Come on, man. You're better than this.
|
Speeding Through New DA Repeatables || Spreadsheet o' Enhancements || Zombie Skins: better skins for these forums || Guide to Guides
Quote:
Although it wasn't so much for an accent, this post made me think of Feersum Enjinn by Iain M. Banks, a book which would possibly irritate you to the point of insanity.|
Originally Posted by LostHalo
As is always the case, it can be done well or horribly, horribly wrong.
BAD: Explicitly depicting someone with accents that refer to variations in pronunciation. I don't care if the someone from the southern US sounds different from someone from Ireland. You do NOT add or remove random letters, nor should you attempt the same effect by replacing letters with punctuation marks. It looks bad and reads poorly, don't do it. If the character is speaking cogently but has a specific voice you want to convey, you do it with descriptive language. There's a massive difference between someone having an accent and being hard to understand, which leads into... Better(won't give a blanket description of "good"): If the character actually speaks in a way that screws up the word order, the words themselves, or makes them hard to understand, it's permitted but you have to be careful about how you go about the presentation. Just off the top of my head, Shogun actually does a spectacular job of showing how someone gradually eliminates their linguistic weaknesses...admittedly over something like 1200 pages. The poor and uneducated 1880s negro family in the South? Go for it--within limit. The international diplomat with a Texan accent conversing with your suave secret agent? I don't think he would have made it that far in international politics, judging by the cue card presented that suggests he might be functionally retarded. I can't remember the name of the absolute worst example I've ever read but I recall it took me awhile to realize one sentence using the combination of letters was actually supposed to be "couldn't". And that wasn't the worst example. It wouldn't have been so bad but it was the first time it had been spelled that way (yes, the author actually modified the portrayal of the accent during the book) and throughout the entire book, this character's impossible representation was completely understood by the rest of the cast, despite having entire sentences written in that manner. |
It also made me think of Mr Tulip.
Quote:
I generally agree, but I reserve the right to complain about certain specific changes that seem to me to be ugly, pointless or stupid. Even if said changes are accepted by the majority.
|
Originally Posted by Shadowe
Please note that I make no bones about when this transformation occurred, merely to point out that the meaning of the word, in the English language, currently, as it is widely accepted, is different to its original usage, and that a failure to accept that change in usage has the potential to result in the stagnation of a language that is constantly changing, which would damage its rich diversity and ability to assimilate words and phrases from other languages. English is not a "pure" language by any stretch of the imagination, and it changes. A lot. Those changes are made through alterations in common usage, and are not a bad thing.
|
Quote:
See, I am easily confused. It did look funny though. I have never seen boxen. Well, once on HBO. But when the one bit the others ear off I decided it wasn't the sport for me.
|
Originally Posted by Willowpaw
Well... It was supposed to be a joke actually. I'm pretty much the same way. However, I do find it difficult to not explode messily into tiny pieces whenever someone says boxen instead of boxes or virii instead of viruses. I want to reach through the screen and smack them around a bit. |
Badging in a PvP zone?
If you are treasure hunting on a battlefield wearing an enemy uniform, there is a high probability that you will be attacked.
This is an enjoy-the-ride game. "50" is only a number, not the goal of the game. - Noxilicious
Quote:
Of course you do. It isn't like Emmanuel Lewis is going to come smack you around or anything.
|
Originally Posted by Camper
I generally agree, but I reserve the right to complain about certain specific changes that seem to me to be ugly, pointless or stupid. Even if said changes are accepted by the majority.
|
Badging in a PvP zone?
If you are treasure hunting on a battlefield wearing an enemy uniform, there is a high probability that you will be attacked.
This is an enjoy-the-ride game. "50" is only a number, not the goal of the game. - Noxilicious
I read an article recently that said "...another words, the x-men sucked." lol
SadysCHICK ALL the Badges! (I can get. 1396)
Full image by David Nakayama
Arc ID 1435: Performing without Annette
Arc ID 7206: Sadystic Tendencies
Arc ID 3864: The Chronicles of (In)FERNIA!
Quote:
Although I have no problem extirpating my deontologicalism (or having it done to me... yeah baby, yeah!) I draw the line at making up stuff!|
Originally Posted by Zombie Man
I extirpate your hegenomical proscriptivistic deontologicalism!
|
Hegenomical isn't a word, I think you mean hegemonical (from hegemony) of which I didn't know I held one over grammar usage, especially over the English language which isn't even my first language: profit!!!
Proscriptivisc... I think you mean prescriptivistic (from prescribing) as in "an adherent or advocate of prescriptivism", which in itself means "The practice or advocacy of prescriptive grammar; the belief that the grammar of a language should lay down rules to which usage must conform". I'm a firm believer that grammar is to be applied a priori, not a posteriori as that only leads to sloppy language structures.
And I'm unanimous on that.
Rabbits & Hares:Blue (Mind/Emp Controller)Maroon (Rad/Thermal Corruptor)and one of each AT all at 50
MA Arcs: Apples of Contention - 3184; Zen & Relaxation - 35392; Tears of Leviathan - 121733 | All posts are rated "R" for "R-r-rrrrr, baby!"|Now, and this is very important... do you want a hug? COH Faces @Blue Rabbit
I'm not unopposed to that, having done a 360 on that topic.
Quote:
I didn't look up Zombie Man's words, but I believe "proscriptivistic" is a heavily compound word in this context. At least as I read it, it breaks up into "pro" "script" and "ivistic," making it an adjective describing a noun as being in favour of writing. English is not my first language, and I say this not as a brag but to explain that my first language is heavily based in the use of compound words created out of multiple prefixes and suffixes, hence why I may be reading this not as intended. English spell checkers and dictionaries generally don't recognise heavily compounded words, possibly because they don't exist in common usage very often, hence why spell checkers wouldn't recognise things like "funnily" for a while.|
Originally Posted by Blue Rabbit
Proscriptivisc... I think you mean prescriptivistic (from prescribing) as in "an adherent or advocate of prescriptivism", which in itself means "The practice or advocacy of prescriptive grammar; the belief that the grammar of a language should lay down rules to which usage must conform". I'm a firm believer that grammar is to be applied a priori, not a posteriori as that only leads to sloppy language structures.
|
As a joke, we have the word "непротивоконституционствувателствувайте," which I'm told is a real word and breaks up into something like a dozen prefixes, suffixes and a bunch of deprecated crap that was dropped out of colloquial language 50 years ago, but it is, technically, a word. Basically, it means something to the effect of "do not oppose the constitution" but all crammed together in a single word. And if I can untangle THAT mess of crap and made-up word structure, I hope I will be forgiven if I see "proscriptivistic" as something other than what it was intended to be
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Quote:
Oops. Typo. Reverse the sonorants.|
Originally Posted by Blue Rabbit
Hegenomical isn't a word, I think you mean hegemonical (from hegemony)
|
Quote:
| Proscriptivisc... I think you mean prescriptivistic (from prescribing) |
Quote:
| I didn't look up Zombie Man's words, but I believe "proscriptivistic" is a heavily compound word in this context. At least as I read it, it breaks up into "pro" "script" and "ivistic," making it an adjective describing a noun as being in favour of writing. |
Speeding Through New DA Repeatables || Spreadsheet o' Enhancements || Zombie Skins: better skins for these forums || Guide to Guides
Quote:
Hey, I can still use English as a second language as an excuse for not knowing |
Originally Posted by Zombie Man
That would be the literal sense of the roots, however, it takes on the sense of 'writings' as in Sacred Scriptures. A prescription that a doctor writes tells you what to do. A proscription is a (written) order telling you what *not* to do.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Quote:
I feel compelled to point out that the underlined word in the phrase in bold type should be "parentheses" instead of "parenthesis" since I assume you are talking about many parentheses versus one parenthesis.|
Originally Posted by Eisenzahn
You may feel free to use written language with whatever degree of imprecision suits you. However, it is unrealistic to expect others to refrain from making judgments based on how you express yourself, especially when your written words comprise the overwhelming bulk of the data available for us to evaluate. If another poster does not care to express their ideas clearly, it suggests to me as a reader that they don't care that much about whatever it was they had to say, because obviously they didn't put much effort into ensuring that I'd understand it easily. As a person who cares a great deal about expressing myself with clarity and precision, I have a greater inclination to react favorably to those who appear similarly disposed. My reaction is much the same to spoken exchanges featuring slurred speech, mumbling, use of arcane slang or technical vocabulary outside of those circles familiar with such (a particular personal irritant, often employed as an assertation of dominance through superior depth of knowledge), or anything else that inhibits actual communication.
Regarding punctuation, the rules are often so staggeringly vague, contradictory, or just plain poorly thought out that I feel free to disregard them whenever and wherever they annoy me. For example, the discussion regarding the placement of punctuation within parenthesis a few posts back. The 'mathematical' approach, where the period is outside of the parenthesis because it is meant to apply to the entire sentence, makes perfect sense to me. I have every intention of defying tradition and style in my personal usage. The important points here are clarity and precision. Where a rule of grammar appears in conflict with either principle, I'm quite content to let that rule die. tl;dr Communicate in whatever manner suits you, with the understanding that I will judge you in whatever manner suits me. If you don't care about your words enough to at least try to use them correctly, I can't imagine why I should care enough about your words to attempt to interpret their intended meaning. Edit: Also, consider the word decimate. It means "to reduce by 1/10th." It does not mean "to generally destroy, demolish, ruin, wreck, corrupt, collapse, break, batter or vandalise." |
Also, in regards to punctuation as it relates to quoted statments: Is it correct to use a period in a quotation at the end of a sentence if there was no such period in the statement being quoted? Could I have said "It should be 'parentheses' instead of 'parenthesis.'" or would it be more appropriate to say "It should be 'parentheses' instead of 'parenthesis'."? I'm also unsure about the punctuation I used to end the previous sentence, as well as the colon at the beginning of this paragraph. When is it appropriate to use a colon? A semicolon? A comma?
Since I obviously haven't taken a formal English class in a while, I eagerly await your responses.
Actually, I think I'm going to start an English class in two weeks. I'd check, but I really don't want to think about it just now; my head already hurts from reading this thread.
Quote:
Well, we don't like you either. So there. :P
|
Originally Posted by Archos
I think that link has made me want to spell it wierd, since I don't like those dolphin overlords.
|
Quote:
And to add to that, SS - Should be taught in schools full stop! - That is to say grammar/punctuation and not just how to make humourously-titled books.|
Originally Posted by Scarlet Shocker
Should be required reading in every school from the age of 10
|
By the way has anyone else noticed themselves typing really carefully in this thread? Has anyone else subjected their posting to the level of scrutiny normally reserved by little children armed with a magnifying glass, hovering dangerously close to an anthill?
And on a separate note, I'm glad to see this thread hasn't been blocked. I tried to start a similar thread to this one a few years ago when we were a divided message board peoples. It was erased by a Moderator on the grounds that 'This kind of thing can lead to trouble.'
Quote:
As a matter of fact, I do not. Aside from a few typographical errors and misplaced punctuation marks and words, I believe that I have perfect grammar, spelling and punctuation. Which, is akin to saying, "aside from all the bad stuff, my day was excellent." |
Originally Posted by Arctic_Princess
By the way has anyone else noticed themselves typing really carefully in this thread? Has anyone else subjected their posting to the level of scrutiny normally reserved by little children armed with a magnifying glass, hovering dangerously close to an anthill?
|
I have found that it takes me about 5 times longer to type in 1337, or IM shorthand for that matter, than it does to type normally. Now, here are occasions where I sill intentionally misspell words to convey an accent or mode or speech. For that, I usually refer to my Okie dictionary. Or, as some people would call it, the Redneck Dictionary.
There I was between a rock and a hard place. Then I thought, "What am I doing on this side of the rock?"
Quote:
Your logic falls a bit short in my case. I did a lot of programming in High School, and am able to discriminate between the two activities: programming and writing.
|
Originally Posted by Soul Train
Blame the programmers - unless you want to define something as part of a string, all operators, delimiters, wildcard characters, or variables need to be OUTSIDE the quotes. Else the compiler won't see them, and your program will break.
Thus the practice has bled over into written prose, because "it still makes sense" and is force of habit from writing code. |
Quote:
Punctuation and Quotation Marks:|
Originally Posted by Lucretia_MacEvil
I feel compelled to point out that the underlined word in the phrase in bold type should be "parentheses" instead of "parenthesis" since I assume you are talking about many parentheses versus one parenthesis.
Also, in regards to punctuation as it relates to quoted statments: Is it correct to use a period in a quotation at the end of a sentence if there was no such period in the statement being quoted? Could I have said "It should be 'parentheses' instead of 'parenthesis.'" or would it be more appropriate to say "It should be 'parentheses' instead of 'parenthesis'."? I'm also unsure about the punctuation I used to end the previous sentence, as well as the colon at the beginning of this paragraph. When is it appropriate to use a colon? A semicolon? A comma? Since I obviously haven't taken a formal English class in a while, I eagerly await your responses. Actually, I think I'm going to start an English class in two weeks. I'd check, but I really don't want to think about it just now; my head already hurts from reading this thread. |
A period or a comma always goes before the quotation mark. So, using your example, the following is correct:
"It should be 'parentheses' instead of 'parenthesis.'" [You get extra points here for using the single quotation mark inside of a double quotation mark, note that it is the opposite in many places outside the US.]
For question marks and exclamation points, it depends on the usage. If the statement being quoted uses a question mark or an exclamation point, then it goes within the quotes, if the statement is a question or exclamation then the mark goes outside the quote, and if it is both, then the mark goes within the quotations.
As for colons, semicolons and commas, well, that is a bit messy. Semicolons are really only used for two things: to make a list unambiguous, or to seperate two independent clauses in the same sentence.
Examples:
Ed and Bozo are married; they hate each other.
I think she is bringing a dancing monkey, who is a ventriloquist; a rotary phone, that is broken; and three spoons.
While I am not sure that the second example is totally correct, it does illustrate that a semi-colon can be used in place of a comma, if adding more commas would be more confusing in a list.
When it comes to colons, I only really use them to digest my food... Erm, I mean to begin a list. See: Colons.
*grumbles*
Babelfish is NOT a grammar checker.
"City of Heroes. April 27, 2004 - August 31, 2012. Obliterated not with a weapon of mass destruction, not by an all-powerful supervillain... but by a cold-hearted and cowardly corporate suck-up."