HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
semi-colons; one of the few things i cant grasp how to use properly. or if it ever needs to be used?
Generally avoid semi-colon usage. There is almost always a better way to structure your sentences. The primary exception is a list of phrases that use commas internally. In that case, precede the list with a colon and place semi-colons between list items. In most other cases, replace the semi-colon with a comma or period and tweak the resulting sentence(s) accordingly.
Grammar and punctuation are so last century anyway. In the future there will be millions of e-dialects in existence linked together through a globally recognised list of emoticons and gramelins.
Grammar and punctuation are so last century anyway.
Fact is, the English language is constantly changing. What are rules today, might not be tomorrow.
Just look back every 100 years for the last 500 to see how people were using English and hows it's changed.
I for one can't wait until I can use "ur" and no one gives me slack.
True. English is a vibrant living language. I mean, a dude could even say "slack" when what he meant was "flack", and twenty years from now, that could be a new accepted meaning of "slack."
Grammar and punctuation are so last century anyway.
Fact is, the English language is constantly changing. What are rules today, might not be tomorrow.
Just look back every 100 years for the last 500 to see how people were using English and hows it's changed.
I for one can't wait until I can use "ur" and no one gives me slack.
True. English is a vibrant living language. I mean, a dude could even say "slack" when what he meant was "flack", and twenty years from now, that could be a new accepted meaning of "slack."
Well to be honest. There are many many ways one could use the work "slack".
When I was in school "a lot" was TWO SEPARATE FUCKING WORDS.
"A lot" is still two separate words, dammit! I've given up on salvaging the correct definition of "beg the question," but "a lot" is something that can still be preserved.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Grammar and punctuation are so last century anyway. In the future there will be millions of e-dialects in existence linked together through a globally recognised list of emoticons and gramelins.
And here I am still pissed that we aren't still speaking Latin at all, let alone using it in its grammatically correct format.
I'm not too sure they'll not just give in on irregardless, and make it a word...like they fucking did for all the knownots that came with "enormity" as a synonym for "enormous." Fucking cowards.
So it never was one word? I just remember it being formally switched to two words when I was in school. Another change was whether or not to use a comma before "and" when listing. I can't even remember what the rule is, I just don't use it. A comma and "and" seems totally redundant. Professor Hair? Your thoughts?
-1993, The Columbia Guide to Standard American English calls alot ?substandard? and notes that it is ?increasingly found in Informal correspondence and student writing? and ?has as yet received no sanction in print except on the op-ed and sports pages.? -1996, The American Heritage Book of English Usage states that ?alot is still considered an error in print? but notes that standard words have formed by fusion of the article with a noun, such as another and awhile, and suggests the possibility that alot may like them eventually enter standard usage. -2004, Jack Lynch Guide to Grammar and Style flatly states this to be a two-word expression. -2004, The Cambridge Guide to English Usage also compares alot to awhile. It states alot to be ?still regarded as nonstandard? and notes 50 appearances in the British National Corpus, ?almost entirely from three sources: e-mail, TV autocue data, and TV newscripts.? It suggests that some usages of alot in typewritten use are to be considered merely typos of the standard a lot though its appearance in handwriting and typescript is ?more significant, as the shadow of things to come.?
Another change was whether or not to use a comma before "and" when listing. I can't even remember what the rule is, I just don't use it. A comma and "and" seems totally redundant. Professor Hair? Your thoughts? ?
That comma is referred to as the "serial comma." Its use is optional ? both using and omitting it are acceptable. Most publications have a style preference, however. My organization uses the serial comma in our publications.
Another change was whether or not to use a comma before "and" when listing. I can't even remember what the rule is, I just don't use it. A comma and "and" seems totally redundant. Professor Hair? Your thoughts? ?
That comma is referred to as the "serial comma." Its use is optional ? both using and omitting it are acceptable. Most publications have a style preference, however. My organization uses the serial comma in our publications.
Yeah, neither one is more correct than the other; the Chicago Manual of Style says use the serial comma, while AP style says don't use it. I prefer the serial comma myself, but the most important thing is that its use (or non-use) be consistent.
the publication i work for doesn't use the serial comma, which i find annoying.
imo (and those of others who have written on the topic), the purpose of punctuation is to eliminate vagueness that would otherwise arise without it. the serial comma often helps to remove any vagueness that perhaps what follows the "and" is not part of the series, and it hardly adds any cumbersome weight to a sentence, nor does it cause a sentence to read unnaturally.
More on this so-called serial comma. My news organization, which several months back put its style guide online, expounds further and keeps it record related, i.e. No serial comma unless you are breaking up a list of modern musical duos.
However, a comma should be used in this position if to leave it out would risk ambiguity, e.g. He admired Irving Berlin, Rodgers and Hart, and Leonard Bernstein.
It is so called because it was traditionally used by printers, readers, and editors at Oxford University Press.
These items are available in black and white, red and yellow, and blue and green.
b/w
not really feeling that band
Total Brit-centricity. WE CALL THE PERIOD AN OXFORD DOT BECAUSE THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS TRADITIONALLY USES IT TO END DECLARATIVE SENTENCES.
OUP: Brit-centric since 1480.
Whatever, dude. Just because a town has a printing press and a school for privileged dress shoes doesn't give it the right to own punctuation. That shit is for the people, son!
It is so called because it was traditionally used by printers, readers, and editors at Oxford University Press.
These items are available in black and white, red and yellow, and blue and green.
b/w
not really feeling that band
Total Brit-centricity. WE CALL THE PERIOD AN OXFORD DOT BECAUSE THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS TRADITIONALLY USES IT TO END DECLARATIVE SENTENCES.
OUP: Brit-centric since 1480.
Whatever, dude. Just because a town has a printing press and a school for privileged dress shoes doesn't give it the right to own punctuation. That shit is for the people, son!
I thought you might appreciate that I found a youtube of them playing on the BBC for added Brit-centricity.
Comments
COLON-KLENZ.
Fu[/b]ckin' semicolons--how do they work?
(I can't stop using that joke--it's rapidly approaching the Yakov Smirnoff contruction as one of the best ever.)
Fact is, the English language is constantly changing. What are rules today, might not be tomorrow.
Just look back every 100 years for the last 500 to see how people were using English and hows it's changed.
I for one can't wait until I can use "ur" and no one gives me slack.
True. English is a vibrant living language. I mean, a dude could even say "slack" when what he meant was "flack", and twenty years from now, that could be a new accepted meaning of "slack."
Well to be honest. There are many many ways one could use the work "slack".
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slack
I mean, no where near as many ways as to describe your lovely locks. But close...
"A lot" is still two separate words, dammit! I've given up on salvaging the correct definition of "beg the question," but "a lot" is something that can still be preserved.
And here I am still pissed that we aren't still speaking Latin at all, let alone using it in its grammatically correct format.
neither is irregardless.
Just 'cause you ain't into health food doesn't mean that spelt doesn't exist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelt
I also ride for amarinth.
a lot used to be one word
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/alot.html
VINDICATION!!!
I'm not too sure they'll not just give in on irregardless, and make it a word...like they fucking did for all the knownots that came with "enormity" as a synonym for "enormous." Fucking cowards.
iz amberlamps now aka wtlw
Umm, I believe that it's two words.
Amber Lamps
So it never was one word? I just remember it being formally switched to two words when I was in school.
Another change was whether or not to use a comma before "and" when listing. I can't even remember what the rule is, I just don't use it. A comma and "and" seems totally redundant.
Professor Hair? Your thoughts?
-1993, The Columbia Guide to Standard American English calls alot ?substandard? and notes that it is ?increasingly found in Informal correspondence and student writing? and ?has as yet received no sanction in print except on the op-ed and sports pages.?
-1996, The American Heritage Book of English Usage states that ?alot is still considered an error in print? but notes that standard words have formed by fusion of the article with a noun, such as another and awhile, and suggests the possibility that alot may like them eventually enter standard usage.
-2004, Jack Lynch Guide to Grammar and Style flatly states this to be a two-word expression.
-2004, The Cambridge Guide to English Usage also compares alot to awhile. It states alot to be ?still regarded as nonstandard? and notes 50 appearances in the British National Corpus, ?almost entirely from three sources: e-mail, TV autocue data, and TV newscripts.? It suggests that some usages of alot in typewritten use are to be considered merely typos of the standard a lot though its appearance in handwriting and typescript is ?more significant, as the shadow of things to come.?
That comma is referred to as the "serial comma." Its use is optional ? both using and omitting it are acceptable. Most publications have a style preference, however. My organization uses the serial comma in our publications.
Yeah, neither one is more correct than the other; the Chicago Manual of Style says use the serial comma, while AP style says don't use it. I prefer the serial comma myself, but the most important thing is that its use (or non-use) be consistent.
imo (and those of others who have written on the topic), the purpose of punctuation is to eliminate vagueness that would otherwise arise without it. the serial comma often helps to remove any vagueness that perhaps what follows the "and" is not part of the series, and it hardly adds any cumbersome weight to a sentence, nor does it cause a sentence to read unnaturally.
It is so called because it was traditionally used by printers, readers, and editors at Oxford University Press.
These items are available in black and white, red and yellow, and blue and green.
b/w
not really feeling that band
Total Brit-centricity. WE CALL THE PERIOD AN OXFORD DOT BECAUSE THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS TRADITIONALLY USES IT TO END DECLARATIVE SENTENCES.
OUP: Brit-centric since 1480.
Whatever, dude. Just because a town has a printing press and a school for privileged dress shoes doesn't give it the right to own punctuation. That shit is for the people, son!
I thought you might appreciate that I found a youtube of them playing on the BBC for added Brit-centricity.
Hahaha! I know this guy. He is actually a stylist, and it's so funny to see that this even exists.