Occupy the language

I wish I had been following this thread as I imagine this is a reply. But your post stands alone quite well - maybe even better as its own declaration.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by patchen:

i came, i saw, he roared, i barked.

Impression. Not.

---

Patchen, thanks for digging up this article, which I found interesting, though ultimately not very useful, practically speaking. While there is, I think, some validity to the concerns about very subtle shades of meaning they discuss, such concerns are at such a high level of abstruseness that nearly all writers can function perfectly well without ever considering them, which is why they're entirely ignored by most sources that discuss the use of the semicolon. These writers themselves say, "The distinction between desirable and deplorable commas of this class is often subtle and paper-thin." In fact, these concerns are so picky that they mostly end up in the realm of subjective judgments about what rhythm is best, which will vary from editor to editor and reader to reader. The subjective nature of their judgments is shown by the fact that they aren't even able to clearly state any objective criterion for those judgments; they say that we may join independent clauses with a comma instead of a semicolon "...when the second clause is to be understood as looping back to catch up and carry forward the sense of the first", but as far as I can see, that's always the case when we join independent clauses with a semicolon! The writers complain about someone's "extreme of pedantry", but to me their own tone seems pretty pedantic--"more sensitive and picky than thou"--and to what purpose? Everyone reading these words will do just fine for the rest of their lives if they just apply the semicolon rules I've already mentioned in this thread, including the rule that allows commas to be used when the independent clauses involved are items in a list. But thanks for sharing an interesting article anyway, Patchen.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by patchen:

From Modern American Usage - A Guide:
by Wilson Follett. Edited by Jacques Barzun. In collaboration with: Carlos Baker, Frederick Dupee, Dudley Fitts, James Hart, Phyllis McGinley and Lionel Trilling.
Excerpted: The Sentence: 4.
Rhetorical unity in prose is equally destroyed by the opposite of fragmentation—namely, the presence of two or more wholes pretending to be one. Examples from sources of some dignity and prestige follow:
Posthumous examination of her teeth gave away her youth, she was less than a year old / Often the sketchy quality of joined lines in space makes for a static illusion, a line drawing cannot work in all four directions at once / There were times when P. felt a special quality in himself, a strange unpleasant quality that seemed to force everyone he touched into making drastic decisions about their own lives, no wonder people did not like to be around him / pull out the jar rubber with a pair of pliers, then there is no danger of injuring either the lid or the jar.
Because the sign of this piling up is the presence of a comma between independent clauses unconnected by a conjunction, this error is called the comma fault or comma splice. These labels serve as a pedagogical device for the young, but as a description of what is wrong they contain elements of fallacy: (a) the trouble is more than one of punctuation, the comma being only a symptom of the failure to grasp the relation between clauses; (b) the implied corrective of the comma splice takes in altogether too much territory. It suggests that independent clauses not joined by a conjunction need more than a comma to separate them. This rule encourages the semicolon as a panacea. Many teachers would recommend it in each of the foregoing examples, and it is indeed possible in each; but what is really needed is a sharpened awareness of the true relation between clauses, which may be marked by a semicolon, a colon, a dash, a new sentence, a sentence in parentheses, or an expressive conjunction to be supplied.


Moreover, independent clauses separated by a comma are often desirable and not to be improved upon, especially when the second clause is to be understood as looping back to catch up and carry forward the sense of the first. Caesar’s well-known dispatch Veni, vidi, vici, commonly rendered I came, I saw, I conquered, is to be understood as something more than an a, b, c series of equal members. It makes use of what in a ballad would be called incremental repetition; we feel it as a condensed and witty version of I not only came but also saw, and I not only saw but also conquered. There is an extreme of pedantry that would insist on I came; I saw; I conquered, but these semicolons would neutralize the cumulative force that each clause gains from its predecessor. They would do the same in many modern examples: Conventions may be cruel, they may be unsuitable, they may even be grossly superstitious or obscene / Life is the higher call, life we must follow / This is not due merely to the daring splendour of the speculations and the vivid picture of Athenian life, it is due also to something analogous in the personalities of that particular ancient Greek and this particular modern Irishman. In each of these, the comma bids us turn back and gather up what precedes, very much like a not only...but also construction. Such an effect would be vitiated by the semicolon or other divisive substitute. The distinction between desirable and deplorable commas of this class is often subtle and paper-thin. He composed this symphony in 1885, it was never performed until after his death is illiterate. This was not only his first concerto, it was his best is neither illiterate nor colloquial: it is swift and emphatic. The difference is definable, yet difficult to define for those writers who most need the definition. Whoever finds it hard to perceive the difference between the comma fault and the legitimate splicing by commas will do well to avoid the second form and seek safety through semicolons, conjunctions or separate sentences.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by patchen:

i came, i saw, he roared, i barked.
Impression. Not.

---

Maybe I'm just dense, but I don't get it. Am I the only one?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Maybe I'm just dense, but I don't get it. Am I the only one?

---

maybe it reads better in the original latin??

Quote:

---

Meanwhile, how about we ban the use of “clearly,” “obviously,” “It is clear...,” and “awesome,” for, say, 10 years? Then, maybe let them back on parole.

---

Those words were the bane of my life as an engineering student in the 60's! Many of the authors of our textbooks cavalierly referred to the concepts they were unwilling to explain with such terms, implying that students who didn't follow the sketchy reasoning were deficient.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by patchen:

Meanwhile, how about we ban the use of “clearly,” “obviously,” “It is clear...,” and “awesome,” for, say, 10 years?

---

I too am just a bit tired of "awesome", though wouldn't go so far as to totally ban any word. As for the other three terms you mention, I have no problem with any of them.

How about we ban "invite"

-

"Well, there ain’t no Academy of Engleesh."

Patchen,

While I agree with your comments about idiosyncratic punctuation. (Let's not forget syntax and style!) Your claim, quoted above, quixotic as it is, is literally false.

It's called the MLA.

Your's in epiphenomenal badinage,

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by patchen:

Nope. The MLA is just one of a fistful of self-anointed organizations .....

---

so who's supposed to anoint them, then? it's just another case of turtles all the way down.

They sound like they fit the description "Academy of Engleesh" as well as anyone.