![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Signs of the coming end
Jun. 13th, 2005 04:15 pmBecause I was more or less dared to. I'm all in favor of apocalypses, which the following is alleged to be a sign of. (Apocalypsi? Is this a Greek root at all? *goes to look it up* Indeed it is; still doesn't say what the plural would be. ... it strikes me that my immediate interest in this subject does not make the strongest possible starting point for this endeavor. Oh, well.)
An Essay about Creative Punctuation, Arguing for its Acceptability in Modern Usage
First of all, for practical reasons, I really do think that any and all apostrohes should be removed from the company of "its". When the only real use an item of punctuation serves is to make those who have memorized the usage feel superior to those who have not, the game ceases to be worth the candle. I do not argue that the usage, in the abstract, might have more use than that. As a way to distinguish between possessive and contraction, it is, indeed, useful, albeit utterly arbitrary. Theoretically. In application, however, hugely variable usage does not seem to impede understanding, and it is beyond pointless to insist on an item of usage that is not actually being used. An absence of apostrophe seems less jarring than the pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey approach. Alternatively, as Ken suggests, we could always use the apostrophe, which would allow people their finger-jerk reflex, and even conform to both sets of general rules on how to use apostrophes.
Next, I think commas should go wherever they seem wanted. The only comma rule I feel should be carefully abided by is the parenthetical comma structure. One half a parenthetical comma pair is about as useful as one half a pair of parentheses. The "comma splice", however, is an absurd thing to get all up in arms about. Why shouldn't two complete sentences be joined by a comma, instead of a period, or a semicolon, or a comma and conjunction? There is no lack of clarity in "It's late, eat some lunch" versus "It's late, so eat some lunch". That being the case, I find no other valid reason to adopt the rule. As for lists, there is no one definitive rule, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. The rules for that look like a flow-chart that swallowed its own tail.
If someone wants to use both a colon and quotation marks to set off a question or quotation within a sentence, well, it's a bit of overkill, but why not? Ideas about when to use one or both come and go in cycles of fashion about thirty years in duration. I'm not getting excited over them.
Use semicolons for as long as you want to! BWAHAHAHAHAHA! *hem* If the idea is to show the flow of a connected series of thoughts, I see no reason to stop at two just because the hacks over at Bedford say so. I know some of the people they hire and publish...
When wondering whether or not to hyphenate some particular compound phrase or word (e.g. anal-retentive), or whether to add a hyphen after what is, technically, a prefix (e.g. cooperate), please do whatever. You. Damn. Well. Want! If it makes a difference, worry about it; if it doesn't, then don't. (Note the conjunction with the comma, here? I considered it a useful progressive indicator and a nice addition to the rhythm--pure iconoclasm is precisely as useless as blind rule-mongering.)
I entirely approve of the use of dashes, kind of like confetti, as a way to enliven a block of text that already has as many commas as it wants. It's a wonderful tool for indicating a sharp break in a thought, and I think it should be acceptable in all forms of writing.
And, for pity's sake, space your ellipses however you like.
As for whether to put punctuation inside or outside of quotation marks, USE YOUR COMMON SENSE. Which, in the US, means ignoring the rules at least half the time. If it looks (or hears, to your mind's ear) bizarre to put the comma or period inside the closing quotation mark, then put it outside. *flips the bird at rules based on antiquated printing practices*
And while I'm at it: split infinitives? beginning with a preposition? sentence fragments for emphasis? inventing new participles? Go for it!
The only earthly use of all this messing about with standardization and classes teaching the standard is to promote clarity of communication. Those rules which are derived from a linguistic system not equivalent to English (that is, from Latin) do not serve the purposes of clarity. Quite the contrary, in some cases, especially when the rule is derived from some element of speech that English doesn't have, or has in a different form. And then the poor muddled students ask the eternal question: Why is it like that? And the poor, stuck teacher can only reply: Because that's the rule. Or, occasionally, make up some cockamamie BS in an attempt to keep from admitting that they don't know either. Thus are the rules of English Usage born.
Pfeh.
However. I am still wholly and entirely against any use of 'netspeak' any where, for any reason, at all. It is abhorrent in the eyes of... well, me. And that's also how usage rules are born.
An Essay about Creative Punctuation, Arguing for its Acceptability in Modern Usage
First of all, for practical reasons, I really do think that any and all apostrohes should be removed from the company of "its". When the only real use an item of punctuation serves is to make those who have memorized the usage feel superior to those who have not, the game ceases to be worth the candle. I do not argue that the usage, in the abstract, might have more use than that. As a way to distinguish between possessive and contraction, it is, indeed, useful, albeit utterly arbitrary. Theoretically. In application, however, hugely variable usage does not seem to impede understanding, and it is beyond pointless to insist on an item of usage that is not actually being used. An absence of apostrophe seems less jarring than the pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey approach. Alternatively, as Ken suggests, we could always use the apostrophe, which would allow people their finger-jerk reflex, and even conform to both sets of general rules on how to use apostrophes.
Next, I think commas should go wherever they seem wanted. The only comma rule I feel should be carefully abided by is the parenthetical comma structure. One half a parenthetical comma pair is about as useful as one half a pair of parentheses. The "comma splice", however, is an absurd thing to get all up in arms about. Why shouldn't two complete sentences be joined by a comma, instead of a period, or a semicolon, or a comma and conjunction? There is no lack of clarity in "It's late, eat some lunch" versus "It's late, so eat some lunch". That being the case, I find no other valid reason to adopt the rule. As for lists, there is no one definitive rule, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. The rules for that look like a flow-chart that swallowed its own tail.
If someone wants to use both a colon and quotation marks to set off a question or quotation within a sentence, well, it's a bit of overkill, but why not? Ideas about when to use one or both come and go in cycles of fashion about thirty years in duration. I'm not getting excited over them.
Use semicolons for as long as you want to! BWAHAHAHAHAHA! *hem* If the idea is to show the flow of a connected series of thoughts, I see no reason to stop at two just because the hacks over at Bedford say so. I know some of the people they hire and publish...
When wondering whether or not to hyphenate some particular compound phrase or word (e.g. anal-retentive), or whether to add a hyphen after what is, technically, a prefix (e.g. cooperate), please do whatever. You. Damn. Well. Want! If it makes a difference, worry about it; if it doesn't, then don't. (Note the conjunction with the comma, here? I considered it a useful progressive indicator and a nice addition to the rhythm--pure iconoclasm is precisely as useless as blind rule-mongering.)
I entirely approve of the use of dashes, kind of like confetti, as a way to enliven a block of text that already has as many commas as it wants. It's a wonderful tool for indicating a sharp break in a thought, and I think it should be acceptable in all forms of writing.
And, for pity's sake, space your ellipses however you like.
As for whether to put punctuation inside or outside of quotation marks, USE YOUR COMMON SENSE. Which, in the US, means ignoring the rules at least half the time. If it looks (or hears, to your mind's ear) bizarre to put the comma or period inside the closing quotation mark, then put it outside. *flips the bird at rules based on antiquated printing practices*
And while I'm at it: split infinitives? beginning with a preposition? sentence fragments for emphasis? inventing new participles? Go for it!
The only earthly use of all this messing about with standardization and classes teaching the standard is to promote clarity of communication. Those rules which are derived from a linguistic system not equivalent to English (that is, from Latin) do not serve the purposes of clarity. Quite the contrary, in some cases, especially when the rule is derived from some element of speech that English doesn't have, or has in a different form. And then the poor muddled students ask the eternal question: Why is it like that? And the poor, stuck teacher can only reply: Because that's the rule. Or, occasionally, make up some cockamamie BS in an attempt to keep from admitting that they don't know either. Thus are the rules of English Usage born.
Pfeh.
However. I am still wholly and entirely against any use of 'netspeak' any where, for any reason, at all. It is abhorrent in the eyes of... well, me. And that's also how usage rules are born.
