Occupy the language

Thanks so much Pam, I only had a vague recollection of being told that it could be considered a stand-in for the the word "and" functionally.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Bird Watcher:

Pardon me not being Dixon here, but I'm a copy editor and love questions about punctuation. Semi-colons join two phrases that could grammatically stand alone as complete sentences, but for reasons that Joan Didion (and all of us) might not be able to explain, it's desirable to keep them together. -Pam

---

And I still love the rythymns of Joan Didion's words.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Califoon:

Grammer is a piano I play by ear, since I seem to have been out of school the year the rules were mentioned. All I know about grammer is its infinite power. To shift the structure of a sentence alters the meaning of that sentence, as definitely and as inflexibly as the position of a camera alters the meaning of the object photographed. -Joan Didion

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Bird Watcher:

Ah, but single spaces between sentences are now the accepted style, ever since the advent of computer word-processing. Double spaces are only necessary in print with non-proportional type, such as generated by a typewriter.

---

Hey, Bird Watcher (I'm a bit of a birdwatcher too), pardon my ignorance, but I've never really understood the reasoning behind the change in that rule. If I could impose on you with a question or two--
What is the difference between the typewriter type and computer type that necessitates or justifies the change in that punctuation rule? I'm not necessarily against it, because I don't understand the reasoning behind it. I'm resistant to that change, because it seems sort of intuitively valid to increase the space between elements of language the "higher" you go (in terms of level of chunks of meaning). In other words, there's minimal space between letters in a word, then a bit more space ("one space") between words in a sentence, then there (should be) more space yet between sentences (two spaces), then more space (an indentation or even a skipped line) between paragraphs, then even more space between chapters. It seems to me that this logical progression of spacing helps us keep the material organized in our heads, at least on some subconscious level. Changing the rule to one space between sentences, instead of two, means the space between sentences is the same as that between words in a sentence, which kind of messes up the pattern. So if you could help me understand the reason why writing in the world of computers necessitates that change, I'd appreciate it.

Honestly, I have no idea who she is but I DID love this. Partly on it's own merits and also as a photographer I know she is spot-on.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by meherc:

And I still love the rythymns of Joan Didion's words.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sara S:

from delancyplace.com:
In today's encore excerpt - certain grammatical "rules" that are widely viewed as
correct come from the invalid application of grammatical rules from Classical Latin
and Greek to the English language by British authors writing hundreds of years ago.
Two such "rules"-which have been beautifully and routinely violated by writers from
Shakespeare to Hemingway-are the prohibitions against split infinitives and ending
a sentence with a preposition...

---

Nice article, Sara. It gives two good examples of stupid "rules" that make no sense, except that these aren't really rules that real experts in the language endorse nowadays; they're pseudo-rules that people think are real ones. I've been happily violating these for years.

Well, I'm not bird watcher but I can tell you that typewriter spaces are a fixed width and computer generated spaces are proportional. Functionally this means that on a typewriter 3 spaces are exactly 3 times wider overall than 1. On a computer they get narrower as you pile them up and it becomes very difficult to get the effect you are talking about. I've never heard a good reason why and it usually seems like overkill to use a tab. My guess is it's in the encoding of blank space to conserve code and file size overall. This would have been really important in 1978 or 80 when 1 megabyte was considered enormous... -Cal


Dixon said:
So if you could help me understand the reason why writing in the world of computers necessitates that change, I'd appreciate it.[/QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Califoon:

Dixon, perhaps you could help me with something. I have a basic confusion over the use of semi-colons and I know they must be good for something. Your thoughts? -Cal

---

Well, I'm flattered that you ask me, but really you're better off googling these things; you'll get more up-to-date, authoritative advice.

But since you ask, here's the deal as I understand it: Semicolons are for those situations in which you need something stronger than a comma but weaker than a period. So if you have two independent clauses (which means they could each stand alone as a sentence) and they're closely enough related that you want to connect them rather than making them separate sentences, you could join them with a comma and a conjunction (but, and, or, etc.), or, if you think it'd sound better, you could join them with a semicolon, which is strong enough that it doesn't require a conjunction along with it. Example: "Believe me; it was my pleasure." Joining two independent clauses with a mere comma is called a "comma splice", and it's considered an error, which will reflect poorly on you—in formal writing, anyway.

The other main use for semicolons is to separate the items in a list. Usually a comma is used for that, but if any of the listed items has an internal comma, you need to separate them with semicolons to avoid confusion. Example: "We're going to visit Kalamazoo, Michigan; Williamsport, Pennsylvania; Santa Barbara, California; and Fayetteville, Arkansas."

The only other use for a semicolon that I can think of offhand is that sometimes people use it after a salutation in a letter, as in "Dear Mr. Foon;", but that sort of usage varies a lot, and I don't know exactly what the "powers that be" currently recommend in those situations.

I hope that's helpful. There may be other, less common uses for semicolons that you'll find if you google.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Bird Watcher:

Pardon me not being Dixon here...

---

LOL! Actually, I have to pardon myself for being Dixon a lot, or, more accurately, resist people's insistence that I pardon myself for being Dixon!

Ah, but "Occupy the Language" itself has such a lovely lilt and resonance.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Califoon:

BTW, the genesis of the phrase "Occupy the language" was my internal response to a sign on the occupy Sebastopol tent- A sign who's (?) grammatical error changed it's meaning entirely from what was intended. Did anyone else see that sign? It involved God and the possessive apostrophe...All those signs are gone now, I wish I could remember exactly what it said.

---

I believe the more accepted use would be "Dear Mr. Foon:" - full not semi.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Well, I'm flattered that you ask me, but really you're better off googling these things; you'll get more up-to-date, authoritative advice.

But since you ask, here's the deal as I understand it: Semicolons are for those situations in which you need something stronger than a comma but weaker than a period. So if you have two independent clauses (which means they could each stand alone as a sentence) and they're closely enough related that you want to connect them rather than making them separate sentences, you could join them with a comma and a conjunction (but, and, or, etc.), or, if you think it'd sound better, you could join them with a semicolon, which is strong enough that it doesn't require a conjunction along with it. Example: "Believe me; it was my pleasure." Joining two independent clauses with a mere comma is called a "comma splice", and it's considered an error, which will reflect poorly on you—in formal writing, anyway.

The other main use for semicolons is to separate the items in a list. Usually a comma is used for that, but if any of the listed items has an internal comma, you need to separate them with semicolons to avoid confusion. Example: "We're going to visit Kalamazoo, Michigan; Williamsport, Pennsylvania; Santa Barbara, California; and Fayetteville, Arkansas."

The only other use for a semicolon that I can think of offhand is that sometimes people use it after a salutation in a letter, as in "Dear Mr. Foon;", but that sort of usage varies a lot, and I don't know exactly what the "powers that be" currently recommend in those situations.

I hope that's helpful. There may be other, less common uses for semicolons that you'll find if you google.

---

Ahhhh, this is Mr Foon Speaking...LOL..I'm liking that.

Dixon I really like the list separator usage. That one is new and helpful. - Cal i. Foon

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Well, I'm flattered that you ask me, but really you're better off googling these things; you'll get more up-to-date, authoritative advice.

But since you ask, here's the deal as I understand it: Semicolons are for those situations in which you need something stronger than a comma but weaker than a period. So if you have two independent clauses (which means they...

The other main use for semicolons is to separate the items in a list. Usually a comma is used for that, but if any of the listed items has an internal comma, you need to separate them with semicolons to avoid confusion. Example: "We're going to visit Kalamazoo, Michigan; Williamsport, Pennsylvania; Santa Barbara, California; and Fayetteville, Arkansas."

The only other use for a semicolon that I can think of offhand is that sometimes people use it after a salutation in a letter, as in "Dear Mr. Foon;", but that sort of usage varies a lot, and I don't know exactly what the "powers that be" currently recommend in those situations.

I hope that's helpful. There may be other, less common uses for semicolons that you'll find if you google.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Califoon:

Honestly, I have no idea who she is but I DID love this. Partly on it's own merits and also as a photographer I know she is spot-on.

---

Didion is (was? not sure she's still publishing) an incredible essayist and novelist who wrote about Western American culture with excruciating objectivity. Slouching Towards Bethlehem or The White Album are great books with which to explore her work. She was a UC Berkeley alum and married the poet John Gregory Dunne. I read a profile about her in The Atlantic some months ago. It was not completely flattering, but genius is often accompanied by social dysfunction.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Hey, Bird Watcher (I'm a bit of a birdwatcher too), pardon my ignorance, but I've never really understood the reasoning behind the change in that rule. If I could impose on you with a question or two--
What is the difference between the typewriter type and computer type that necessitates or justifies the change in that punctuation rule? I'm not necessarily against it, because I don't understand the reasoning behind it. I'm resistant to that change, because it seems sort of intuitively valid to increase the space between elements of language the "higher" you go (in terms of level of chunks of meaning). In other words, there's minimal space between letters in a word, then a bit more space ("one space") between words in a sentence, then there (should be) more space yet between sentences (two spaces), then more space (an indentation or even a skipped line) between paragraphs, then even more space between chapters. It seems to me that this logical progression of spacing helps us keep the material organized in our heads, at least on some subconscious level. Changing the rule to one space between sentences, instead of two, means the space between sentences is the same as that between words in a sentence, which kind of messes up the pattern. So if you could help me understand the reason why writing in the world of computers necessitates that change, I'd appreciate it.

---

Mr. 'Foon' gets as close as I can with the explanation. All I ever heard was about the proportional spacing of fonts vs. the mono-space of leaded type. But you're right--logic does not prevail in this case! Perhaps a little research is in order. I'll weigh in again if I find anything.

Is anything truly what it was meant to be?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

What was it meant to be? What do you think is the appropriate category for it?

I think it's gone on too long to be in General Community. I left a persistent link in GC.

---

As I look around me I would have to say no...And yes :wink:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by meherc:

Is anything truly what it was meant to be?

---

She wrote a book about the deaths of her husband and daughter not too long ago so she's still writing.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Bird Watcher:

Didion is (was? not sure she's still publishing) an incredible essayist and novelist who wrote about Western American culture with excruciating objectivity. Slouching Towards Bethlehem or The White Album are great books with which to explore her work. She was a UC Berkeley alum and married the poet John Gregory Dunne. I read a profile about her in The Atlantic some months ago. It was not completely flattering, but genius is often accompanied by social dysfunction.

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Califoon:

As I look around me I would have to say no...And yes :wink:

---

Patchen, in this case they're not considered comma splices because what she has here is a list of items (sensory impressions); thus it's appropriate to divide them with commas even though all the items in the list happen to be phrased as independent clauses.

Even if it were a punctuation error, so what? Writing fiction is different from writing formally, and often the needs of the writing require "bad" grammar, "wrong" punctuation, or misspelling to create the desired effect.

Having said all that, I'll confess that I'm a bit puzzled as to the point of your post, Patchen.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by patchen:

“His head turns sideways, his hair rests in his own vomit, the dog barks, Walter roars, and bells peal out across the water.”

Who does she think she is, writing like that, in the opening pages, no less?

All those comma splices.

She is Hilary Mantel, author of Wolf Hall, winner of the 2009 Man Booker Prize.

Also, essayist and reviewer for The New York Times, The New York Review of Books, The London Review of Books.

---

I think it's a rather wry look at the subject matter and I appreciate it. -Cal

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Patchen, in this case they're not considered comma splices because what she has here is a list of items (sensory impressions); thus it's appropriate to divide them with commas even though all the items in the list happen to be phrased as independent clauses.

Even if it were a punctuation error, so what? Writing fiction is different from writing formally, and often the needs of the writing require "bad" grammar, "wrong" punctuation, or misspelling to create the desired effect.

Having said all that, I'll confess that I'm a bit puzzled as to the point of your post, Patchen.

---

Sleepers Awake! 8>o

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by patchen:

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

Impression. Not.

---

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.