[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Grammar Nazi Contest (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 6/16/2006 8:41:46 AM EDT
|
Make a correct, complete sentence with meaning from what follows, using only proper punctuation. John where Jim had had had had had had had had had had had the teacher's approval TXL |
Well, if we're going in that direction, we might need to add TheRedgoat to it as well. TXL |
|
|
John, where Jim had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had the teacher's approval. It has to do with grammar. "Had had" is the past participle (I believe) and John had [the approval] ), which was "had". Jim had NOT had the approval, which was "had had". EDIT _ DAMN YOU SUBNET!!!! 
|
I actually thought it was the other way around, too. |
Au contraire. They do. "Jimmy," Sharon said, "please pass the butter." Is NEVER "Jimmy", Sharon said, "please pass the butter". ETA: FWIW, even with proper placement, that sentence is so mukked up with past particples that it makes no sense...overuse of the PP is worse than omission, in most cases. 
|
Bite me. you had no clue about this. 
|
Grammar Nazi. She's right though.
Edit: I'm gonna go have a drink. 
|
|
From Wikpedia.com Notice the problems with placing the punctuation inside the quotes? Now I know what you’re going to say: “The punctuation goes inside the quotes, right?” Wrong. And here’s why… In referring to the Bible (the Chicago Manual of Style, 15th Edition), I found the following buried in para 6.8 (p. 242): “… In computer related writing, in which a file name or other character string enclosed in quotation marks might be rendered inaccurate or ambiguous by the addition of punctuation within the quotation marks, the alternative system may be used, or the character string may be set in a different font, without quotation marks (see 7.79).” The “alternative system” in question here is described in para 6.10 (p. 243): “Alternative system. According to what is sometimes called the British style (set forth in The Oxford Guide to Style [the successor to Hart’s Rules; see bibliog. 1.1]), a style also followed in other English-speaking countries, only those punctuation points that appeared in the original material should be included within the quotation marks; all others follow the closing quotation marks. This system, which requires extreme authorial precision and occasional decisions by the editor or typesetter, works best with single quotation marks. (The British tend to use double quotation marks only for quotations within quotations.)” My interpretation of this is that the proper usage should be: …click the checkbox “Show displays in menu bar”. After searching Google for “Mac inurl:tiger”, the search results… Not: …click the checkbox “Show displays in menu bar.” After searching Google for “Mac inurl:tiger,” the search results… See the difference? Adding the punctuation inside the quotes implies that, in the first example, the period is part of the UI element, which it isn’t, and that the comma would be part of the search string, which it shouldn’t. And since O’Reilly doesn’t use a different font style or type face for things that we’ve quoted, that negates the ending statement of para 6.8 (”… or the character string may be set in another font, without quotation marks”). While traditional North American (or better, U.S.) style tells you to put everything inside the quotes — no matter what — that shouldn’t always be the case. In the case of tech books, the “alternative system” (”…only those punctuation points that appeared in the original material should be included within the quotation marks; all others follow the closing quotation marks.”) should apply. To quote Lady Truss (Eats, Shoots & Leaves, p. 155): “The basic rule is straightforward and logical: when the punctuation relates to the quoted words it goes inside the inverted commas; when it relates to the sentence, it goes outside. Unless, of course, you are in America.” And while I am an American, it’s hard to argue with logic. |
Yes and no....I did have a clue, BUT it made no sense to me. As I said, overuse! FWIW...Daisy YOU of all people should know what the lack of the PP does to me living here in New England: "Daisy! I seen your boyfriend yesterday!"  NONONO!!!!!! You "saw" him. You cannot "seen" him! |
OH NO YOU DI'N'T!! |
OK, I looked it up. In my humble opinion, it doesn't matter as long as you are consistent. You're right, though. I hate admitting I'm wrong.  I did find an exception to the rule, though. When the item enclosed in quotes is a single letter or number, the period goes outside the quotation marks: On a scale of "1" to "10", this thread gets a "3". Otherwise, you're right. I'm wrong. I suck. 
|
First, YOU using the Bible's writing style to back up your argument is, in and of itself, a sure sign of your desperation. Second, you're wrong. Suck it up.  Third (in all seriousness, now) grammar and punctuation rules DO change! When I went to middle school (back when dinosaurs roamed the earth) this sentence was written thusly: I brought bread, butter, and jam to the picnic. Reason? because back in the day, it was thought by NOT putting the comma before the "or" would confuse the reader into thinking that the "butter and jam" were one item. However, the structure basically flew in the face of the "never put a comma before and/or in a list of items in a sentence." So now, the sentence is written: I brought bread, butter and jam to the picnic. |
original sentence is still right. It's a stylistic thing. I'm an English major and always write it with the comma after butter. Comma after each article in the list except the last. The period comma thing in or out is also stylistic but most Americans do it with punctuation inside. It isn't wrong though if it's consistent but you'll get weird looks about it. |
|
I find the phrase much funnier with other words substituted. Original:
John where Jim poo poo poo poo poo poo poo the teacher's approval John where Jim 86+1 86+1 86+1 86+1 86+1 86+1 86+1 86+1 86+1 the teacher's approval John where Jim SIHPAPP SIHPAPP SIHPAPP SIHPAPP SIHPAPP SIHPAPP SIHPAPP the teacher's approval /nothing better to add, very busy but had a break, hey, I'm tryin', it seemed funnier in my head |
Sort of: I STILL have a hard time with list commas. I always put the one in that the new rule kills off. When I write for the paper, they insist on editing it out.  When I was taking writing courses at the local community college, the prof all but popped a blood vessel when I did it. Yet, she was ok with me using sentence fragments and beginning sentences with conjunctions. She said that as long as it was done for effect and not overused, it was a writing style that she appreciated. She also hated the overuse of commas and ellipses. I love to use ellipses.... My editor HATES when I do this for play titles instead of putting them in quotes and has a fit when I use the Brit spelling of words like "behaviour." But he's given up on correcting me on "theatre" vs. "theater." I use the former. "Theater," to me, is a building but "theatre" is the art of theatrical production. So yes, style does play a part in writing (obviously). BUT when writing for anything besides books or personal publications (ie. newspapers, magazines, etc.) one must follow the rules for the most part. Worst part is, the rules are designed at a 7th grade level understanding |
|
The rule that I've always followed is that if the quotes are used for emphasis, sarcasm, or to denote slang, the period would go outside the quotations: Dick feared that allowing Jane to upstage him in public would make him look like an "asshat". Generally, the punctuation would go inside the quotations if one is using a direct quote: Dick told Jane in no uncertain terms, "More lip and you'll get the back of my hand, you silly tart!" Now, this is what I was taught back in the ancient, pre-internet days (known to young people as "The Before Time"). There do appear to be variations on many rules, particularly when one compares American and British usage. I've also noticed that writers of fiction are granted more leeway by editors than, for example, individuals who write for newspapers. Oh, and with regard to commas, I was originally taught that a comma goes after each item in the list. Years later, it somehow changed such that no comma is needed after the word "and" in a list. I still put the comma in because it's not considered incorrect and it just looks better to me. Is the comma extraneous? Probably. But by golly, sometimes ya gots ta stick up for tradition! Also, without the comma modern civilzation might crumble. Frankly, I have no doubt that this post is itself chock full of errors of one arcane sort or another, but then, it's the internet. If I were submitting it as part of a formal paper or something I might do some checking or take the smiley out or something. On the other hand, maybe not. 
|
|
I find it hard to believe that TXLewis hasn't chimed in on this insane thread....it was his idea after all. And barring punctuation errors, I am suitably hurt that noone has even said a gruff "way to go" to myself and Subnet for even coming up with a close response , and not just "this hurts my head". I'm going away now to sulk. 
|
Daisy, you know I appreciate you for more than your beauty and body! Your ability to keep my martini glass filled has always been a source of amazement for me!
|
[gruff] Way to go, daisywench. [/gruff] (BTW, "to Subnet and me" would be much better than "to myself and Subnet"...  )
|
|
And for our next trick, ARFCOM will finalize the Grand Unified Theory, which will actually include a mathematical expression that proves that the Literal Creationists and the Darwinistic Evolutionists have both been wrong and have, in fact, never existed! The Nobel Academy will be presenting the prize in Physics to EdSr, just as soon as they translate the documentation into Spanish. Cojones! I'm glad my English teachers never threw one of those at me..... 
|
<elvis> thank you. thank you very much. <elvis> and the grammar error was a test....congratulations! you passed with flying colors! |
Actually, proper structure of that sentence SHOULD be: And barring punctuation errors, I am suitably hurt that noone has even said a gruff "way to go" to neither Subnet nor I. "Myself" is a tricky word: Can only be used in conjuction with other nouns in a sentence when it can also stand alone: I bought Jim and myself a treat! I bought myself a treat! Notice here that neither "I" nor "me" will fit in the singular example, because "myself" is the object of the sentence. Think of the "who" vs. "whom" rule. Who was at the door? vs Whom may I say is calling? Grammar Schrammar...when I log on here, I say, "Screw that!" and type. |