In our new "Style: Guide to Grammar, Style and Graphics", I note that we are to use 1 space, rather than 2, after periods. Much to my surprise, in looking at other writing, I see the same. Has this rule changed? Are there other grammar/writing-style changes that you've seen?

Actually, I've seen just the opposite. I was taught that when using a computer, THREE spaces were required following a period (full stop) ending a sentence. This was back in the dot matrix days so that may have something to do with it. Just one space between sentences, though? That would have to be rough on the eyes.

(sidenote: "Dot Matrix" = great name for a fictional aged female computer enthusiast. I picture her deeply wrinkled with grey hair wrapped in a tight bun, also somewhat rough on the eyes.)

I have always typed with two spaces at the end of a sentence. Even though it seldom appears to keep them on a forum such as this.

In school I learned that a period was followed by two spaces. Of course, that referred to typewritten material. Newspapers and newer books seem to use only one space, apparantly to conserve space. I've looked at some of my older books, and most of them used two spaces. In the world of cyberspace it seems spaces are anathema. I use two spaces after periods in my postings but only one shows up. The other one is eaten by the cyber-gods.

Tinman

This is a hangover from the old days of typewriters. Each character would take up the same space on the page. This resulted in the text looking cramped if two spaces were not left after a full stop, so typists were taught to add the extra space. This carried over to computers and word processors when they were intoduced into the office.

Nowadays we all use variable-width fonts so the problem does not arise. However, some tutors are still living in the dark ages and blindly teach the "rule" about leaving the extra space.

To show what I mean, I've typed ten letters I and ten Ws below in fixed-width and ordinary variable-width fonts:

IIIIIIIIII
WWWWWWWWWW
This is a sentence in a fixed-width font. One space is left after the full stop.

IIIIIIIIIII
WWWWWWWWWW
This is a sentence in a variable-width font. One space is left after the full stop.

[This message was edited by arnie on Fri Oct 25th, 2002 at 3:28.]

Thanks, guys. That explains why my 2-spaces always disappear when using the computer. So, it is merely a habit--and the dark ages--when I try to use 2 spaces after periods? In a manuscript I am writing, I actually searched for 1-space following periods and replaced it with 2 spaces. Now I hear that 1-space is totally acceptable?

A grammar question came up this morning that seems to appropriately belong in this thread; it speaks to the modernization of grammar. My editor told me that the following is now considered correct: "...the majority of the 61 state boards of nursing have the responsibility..." Do you agree?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
A grammar question came up this morning that seems to appropriately belong in this thread; it speaks to the modernization of grammar. My editor told me that the following is now considered correct: "...the majority of the 61 state boards of nursing _have_ the responsibility..." Do you agree?

---

No.
I'd agree that it's a common spoken usage but that doesn't make it correct. I wouldn't correct it if any of my Somalian students said it as it would be too difficult to explain
a) the concept and
b) why something they hear all the time is wrong.

On the other hand if I were teaching English Grammar to English children I would correct it.

"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatsoever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible."
Betrand Russel

Edited to add

Actually re-reading the example I can make a case either way. It's an ambiguous example.

If it means that there is a responsibility which is the burden of the whole group which comprises the majority then my comments above stand. The majority is a singular entity and needs a singular verb.

If on the other hand it means a responsibility which is individually the burden of each of the state boards that comprise the majority then you could argue that 'the majority' is shorthand way of writing 'those states which comprise the majority' in which case 'have' would be perfectly acceptable as 'states' is plural.

Did any of that make any sense?

si hoc legere scis nimium eruditiones habes

Read all about my travels around the world here.

[This message was edited by BobHale on Fri Oct 25th, 2002 at 14:35.]

[This message was edited by BobHale on Fri Oct 25th, 2002 at 14:44.]

Yes, Bob, it is an ambiguous example and that was exactly why I approached my editor about it. Definitely each one of the state boards, individually, has the responsibility, and they do comprise the majority. So have is grammatically correct?

In that case I'd say that either 'have' or 'has' is OK.
I know others will disagree with me on this (indeed have disagreed with me on this in the past) but I have most modern grammar authorities on my side.

It's analagous to words like 'team' and 'orchestra' and the verb chosen depends on whether you mean the whole thing or the members.

The team has a lot of support.
The team play well at home.

The orchestra was magnificent.
The orchestra were tuning up.

Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum viditur

Read all about my travels around the world here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
My editor told me that the following is now considered correct: "...the majority of the 61 state boards of nursing have the responsibility..." Do you agree?

---

This is called "notational agreement" or "notational concord". Either singular or plural verbs can be used with collective nouns, at least in some cases. Here are a few sources:

The American Heritage® Book of English Usage.
A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English. 1996.
(http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/060.html#SUBJECTANDV1)

Kenneth G. Wilson (1923–). The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. 1993. (http://www.bartleby.com/68/28/4128.html)

The Oxford Companion to the English Language, © Tom McArthur 1992 (http://w1.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=441582&secid=-)

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics, © Oxford University Press 1997 (http://w1.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=572430)

Tinman

Thanks so much for those sources, Tinman! You always have the best sources. Any secrets?

The original question here was about spaces following periods, and I thought we had all agreed that 2 spaces following a period with computers is antiquated (I believe arnie's term was "dark ages"); it is now 1 space. However, I have a question. Why does my Word software automatically make a little green squiggly line (meaning grammatical error) when I have only 1 space following a period?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
...I thought we had all agreed that 2 spaces following a period with computers is antiquated (I believe arnie's term was "dark ages"); it is now 1 space.

---

I think two spaces following a period is still used when writing letters, even if you use a computer. At least it is by me!

Tinman

This will be because you have set this as a preference in your spelling and grammar check options.

The double space after a full stop (period), like the double line space after a paragraph, is a hangover from the days of typewriters where the letters were all of the same size, as were the line spaces.

It is possible to set a word processor up in the same way (indeed, the entry boxes for this board are set like this, which is why I use double line spacing for the paragraphs)) but for normal writing most people use variable space fonts and proper leading for paragraphs.

If this is done then there is no need for double spacing - indeed, it is a positive disadvantage when using justified columns since it may well upset the justification.

Richard English

I despise the green squiggly lines because it seems like Word is yelling at me, "You stupid fool! Your writing stinks!"

Most Microsoft programs have their defaults set on the apparent assumption that nobody is capable of making his or her own decisions about style or preferences. Thus the grammar-checking software, by default, tells you that you've done something wrong (say, started a sentence with a conjunction). Even worse, it may automatically correct something that you chose to do (like capitalising the lower-case letter that you chose to start a sentence with).

Fortunately it is possible to disable all these over-protective features simply by using the preferences tool. It's even possible to get rid of that unbelievably irritating animated paper clip that accompanies the help facility.

Richard English

I do agree with that annoying paper clip, and I always disable it immediately.

I am treating this as our "grammer forum", and I have the best quote from none other than George W. Bush (dear Brits, this is what we have to put up with on a daily basis!):

"And the founding ideals of our nation and, in fact, the founding ideals of the political party I represent was, and remains today, the equal dignity and equal rights of every American."

Not only grammatically inaccurate but historically inaccurate as well!

Richard English

Bush is to the presidency what Budweiser is to beer - insanely popular for no particularly good reason!

I think I asked this once before (possibly elsewhere? I don't recall.) but do you all on the other side of the Atlantic get the TV show "The West Wing"? Martin Sheen as President Jeb Bartlett is thoughtful and articulate, the very model of what I would look for in any leader in regards to usage of the English language. Our actual White House resident appears to be befuddled by even the simplest sentance constructions and I shudder to think where he and his like-minded (no sarcasm intended) cohorts may take us.

I love it: Now presenting President Budweiser.....oh, I mean....Bush! I am a little guilty criticizing him in front of all our Brits, and I do try to like him. But that smirk! And, you're right, he always looks so befuddled. My daughter graduated from Yale and just cannot believe that he also went to Yale....and graduated besides! You should have heard his graduation address at Yale a few years ago. "I am proof that you can get Cs and still make something of yourself". Sheeesh! (Kalleh is now officially off her soapbox.)

I despise the green squiggly lines because it seems like Word is yelling at me, "You
stupid fool! Your writing stinks!"
******************************************
Golly, Kaleh, I thought those were gummy worm candies, which explains the saliva on my computer screen.

Have you women noticed that your punctuation concerns change with age? My women friends "of a certain age" tell me that they're no longer concerned with periods, but are now worried about their colons.

Oh, Asa! I resemble that remark!

Well, folks, I need help. I recently came to this job and inherited an administrative assistant. Part of her job is to help me with getting our minutes posted on our website for all our 61 state boards of nursing to access. Obviously, the format has to be good. I have spent a great deal of time editing her work and talking with her about grammar (forget the damn apostrophe rules; I am talking sentences with verbs and subjects, as well as periods at the end and capitals at the beginning.) She has always given me what she calls "first drafts". Finally I said, "Give me the next minutes in your final version." Here is a typical sentence:

There are two reasons individual states regulate online programs one is to look after the best interest of the students and what if the school closes.

What would you do?

It's hard to know what you can do. One thing you can't do is let the situation continue unchanged. It's taking your time to correct her work and if the quoted sentence was an example from her "final" draft then it's clear that she isn't able to do the job without further training.

Is it possible to send her on a course or to arrange for some other kind of tuition ?
Can someone else take over that aspect of her duties ?
Clearly it isn't enough to just talk to her about grammar and something more formal is needed. Have you spoken to your line manager about it. The real problem will come if you do speak to him (or her, but let's not get bogged down with gender neutral pronoun problems again) and he can't see what's wrong with that sentence.

Purgamentum init, exit purgamentum

Read all about my travels around the world here.

There are many writing courses available (I run one myself) although most are run on a face-to-face basis (as is mine). However, if you need to use one that is delivered over the Web, I believe Jennifer (who runs the FOTA board) offers one such.

Just follow the link on her main page.

And I agree with Bob - it can't go on. Clearly your assistant has not learnt the basics of English that are essential for the job.

Richard English

quote:

---

What would you do?

---

Suggest a career change, maybe? I understand there are great opportunities for advancement in the field of exotic dancing.

I meant that advice for your administrative asistant, Kalleh, not you.

(But then again, well, what the hell, right? If you ever decide on such a drastic career move yourself I'll be first in line with a fist full of singles!)

Well, CJ, seeing that you've never met me--aren't you brave?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Well, CJ, seeing that you've never met me--aren't you brave?

---

Kalleh, this was your 777th posting. Since we all know what the number 666 signifies, might the 777 somehow be the mark of a satanic over-achiever? Or that, as I originally suspected, that you would make one devil of an exotic dancer?

(Phew! Gettin' warm in here!)

CJ, you are definitely keeping closer track of my posts than I am. Remember, I have been here since the start of this forum--and I do love to talk! At any rate, I did consider making a career change to exotic dancing as you had suggested, but decided that those thong outfits--or whatever they're called--would be too damned uncomfortable. So--I think I'll stay in nursing regulation.

Thanks, everyone, for your suggestions on dealing with my Administrative Assistant (oh for the days when they still called them "secretaries"!) I have decided to have a serious talk with her about writing. Richard & Bob, you are right. If she is to stay with me, she will have to take some kind of course in writing. I am only half through her 3-page report of my teleconference, and it is full of red marks. I think I would be doing her a favor because I cannot fathom a career where one doesn't have to write accurately.

When I write I don't normally put a comma before 'and', but I do put one before 'but'. Is this correct? I can't find the rules in the grammar books about this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by museamuse:
When I write I don't normally put a comma before 'and', but I do put one before 'but'. Is this correct? I can't find the rules in the grammar books about this.

---

More or less correct.

When you have two independent clauses joined by but, nor or for it's usual to use a comma.

I go to the theatre regularly, but I rarely enjoy it.

When you have two independent clauses joined by and or or it's usually left out but not actually wrong if used.

I go to the theatre regularly and I always enjoy it.


Where a comma shouldn't be used is before the and in a list.

I eat pies, pizzas, plums, pears and peaches.

There is a use of a comma in some style guides where it can be used for clarity in lists.

I eat jelly and ice cream, apples and pears, and fish and chips.

Here it has to be used to avoid giving the impression that I like the apples,pears,fish and chips altogether on one plate.

I remember discussing this once before (possibly at APS or FOTA). This use has a name. I can't remember what it's called over here but I think it's called a "Harvard comma" over there. Richard was involved in the original discussion. Maybe he can remember.

Purgamentum init, exit purgamentum

Read all about my travels around the world here.

quote:

---

Where a comma shouldn't be used is before the and in a list.

I eat pies, pizzas, plums, pears and peaches.

---

Here I must disagree, Bob. As a matter of fact, my guide says in regard to the use of commas with items in a series:

"Words, phrases, and clauses joined in a series are separated by commas. i.e. Men, women, and children crowded aboard the train."

~~from Merriam-Webster's Notebook Guide to Punctuation, copyright 1996

Regarding possessives and apostrophes:

"The possessive of plural nouns ending in an s or z sound is formed by adding only an apostrophe:

dogs' leashes
birds' migrations
buyers' guarantees

The possessive of plural proper names, and of some singular proper names ending in an s or z sound, is made by adding just an apostrophe.

The Browns' driveway
Massachusetts' capital
New Orleans' annual festival
The United States' trade deficit

The possessive of singular proper names ending in an s or z sound may be formed by adding either 's or just an apostrophe. Adding 's to all such names, without regard for the pronunciation of the resulting word, is more common that adding just the apostrophe.

Jones's car or Jones' car
Bliss's statue or Bliss' statue
Dickens's novels or Dickens' novels"


It does list many other rules here, but these are the ones I have seen on the board. I have always used just an apostrophe after a word that ends in "s" as the above illustrates.

I agree with what this guide says - which guide is it?

The question of whether to add "apostrophe s", or simply "s" to singular proper nouns is where the dispute arises, as this guide implies. My own rule is to do this only when the word ends in "s sounded vowel s" (Ulysses') since this avoids the pronunciation difficulty.

What the guide does make clear, of course, is that there is never any actual obligation to omit the final "s" from most singular possessives, even though it suggests it is acceptable (although the "standard" method is the more common).

I'm for the standard method since it ensures that there is no ambiguity between the plural "Jones' car" (meaning the car belonging to several several people called Jone) and the singular "Jones's car" (meaning the car belonging to one person called Jones). As I have said previously, why complicate a perfectly simple construction by making it ambigious?

Richard English

I swear--I will never get it, and that's that. Until Morgan's and Richard's last posts, I thought I understood it. And--I believe I am fairly well-educated, with a BSN, MSN and a PhD. So, Richard, while the rules may not be ambiguous to you, they sure are to me. Since reading both the FOTA board and the AP (apostrophe peoples') posts here (as well as Strunk & White and the Chicago's style manual), I never thought Jones' would be considered correct. Perhaps it is just a block for me.
The funny thing is--a friend asked me to edit a book of hers that is coming out in Feb. Now--obviously I am not the one & only editor. However, in her book she had the possessive of Moses to be Moses's. I, while being apostrophe demented, actually suggested that she change it to Moses' (based on the exceptions). I will never advise on apostrophes again since I will probably be wrong anyway!

As I said, if you stick to the "usual" rule, you will be right 99% of the time. Indeed, you could probably defend your choice even in the odd 1%. Moses is one of the 1% of words where an exception is usually made, simply on the grounds of pronunciation. As I said, when a word ends in "s sounded vowel s" then it is usual to omit the final "s" in the possessive. Moses'; Jesus'; ulysses' are some of the words when this can be done. However, it is NOT wrong to write Moses's, Jesus's or Ulysses's - just awkward to say.

Jones', in spite of what some US style books apparently suggest, is unecessary for reasons of pronunciation and, to my mind, wrong if only because of the ambiguity it creates. And don't forget, even the style books that suggest it is in order, still comment that the "normal" style is more commonly used.

Stick to "apostrophe s" for all singular possessives and you will never actually be wrong; stick to "s apostrophe and you frequently will.

One rule that hasn't be subject to mention here is the apostropisation of words that are only ever plural (that is, those that do not form their plural by taking an "s"). For example, words like men, women and people. These are treated as singular when being made possessive.

So it is "men's shirts"; "women's blouses" and "the people's choice". The expression "mens' shirts" for example, would be wrong.

Richard English

Known as the Oxofrd comma here (for similar reasons since it is the house style for both these respected institutions).

As Bob says, it is used to avoid amibiguity and his example is as good as any.

An example I have seen, which make the point well, is the apocryphal story of a dedication made: "To my parents, Fred and Mary and God"

Unless the offspring was truly of divine birth, the insertion of an Oxford comma would make the dedication read, "To my parents, Fred and Mary, and God" Much happier, I suggest!

Richard English

Regarding the comma before the "and," I come down on the side who endorse its use since it adds clarity. In Bob's example "I eat pies, pizzas, pears and peaches" what this implies to me is that he eats:
1. pies
2. pizzas
3. pears & peaches (some sort of combination, possibly canned and in a heavy syrup)

Conversely, "I eat pies, pizzas, pears, and peaches" points out four separate items he enjoys (not to mention a strange predilection for foodstuffs beginning with the letter P) because of that last comma.

If the list includes a combination item that you would want to avoid being seen as two separate items, I'd put it in the middle of the list:
"The baby likes corn, peas and carrots, green beans, and boiled beets."
as opposed to "The baby likes corn, green beans, and peas and carrots."

Regarding the book dedication, clarity would have dictated the wording "To my parents Fred and Mary, and to God." One could quibble about God getting second billing there but I'm sure He/She/It has more pressing matters to be concerned with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by C J Strolin:
Regarding the comma before the "and," I come down on the side who endorse its use since it adds clarity. In Bob's example "I eat pies, pizzas, pears and peaches" what this implies to me is that he eats:
1. pies
2. pizzas
3. pears & peaches (some sort of combination, possibly canned and in a heavy syrup)

Conversely, "I eat pies, pizzas, pears, and peaches" points out four separate items he enjoys (not to mention a strange predilection for foodstuffs beginning with the letter P) because of that last comma.

If the list includes a combination item that you would want to avoid being seen as two separate items, I'd put it in the middle of the list:
"The baby likes corn, peas and carrots, green beans, and boiled beets."
as opposed to "The baby likes corn, green beans, and peas and carrots."

Regarding the book dedication, clarity would have dictated the wording "To my parents Fred and Mary, and to God." One could quibble about God getting second billing there but I'm sure He/She/It has more pressing matters to be concerned with.

---

The trouble with this theory (apart from it being wrong of course) is that the comma is being used in place of the word "and" so that you do not need to write

I eat pies and pizzas and pears and peaches.

By including that final comma you are effectively writing

I eat pies and pizzas and pears and and peaches.

The rule I learned in school, have checked in several grammar books today and had repeated to me while doing my CELTA training is as I stated.

Except in the limited case of the Harvard (or Oxford) comma the and preceding the final item of a list is not preceded by a comma.
Actually none of the books even mentioned the Harvard comma. They just listed the rule as being that the and should never be preceded by a comma.

Purgamentum init, exit purgamentum

Read all about my travels around the world here.

Bob, I have two reference books here.

1. Merriam-Webster's Notebook Guide to Punctuation, copyright 1996 , which as I noted above:
Words, phrases, and clauses joined in a series are separated by commas. i.e.
Men, women, and children crowded aboard the train.

2. The New International Webster's Pocket Grammar, Speech, and Style Dictionary of the English Language, New Revised Edition, copyright 2000 which states:
Commas are used to separate words, phrases, and clauses in a series. (In journalistic writing the comma is frequently omitted before the final conjunction in a series. This practice is not sanctioned in formal writing.) i.e.
"Our American professors like their literature clear, cold, pure, and very dead." ~~ Sinclair Lewis
"All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening" ~~ Alexander Woollcott



Hmmm...I like that last quote!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard English:
Jones', in spite of what some US style books apparently suggest, is unecessary for reasons of pronunciation and, to my mind, wrong if only because of the ambiguity it creates. And don't forget, even the style books that suggest it is in order, still comment that the "normal" style is more commonly used.

---

You're mellowing, Richard. In the past you would have said "Jones'" was wrong! wrong! wrong! Now you just say it's "to my mind, wrong"... Now you and C J can kiss and make up.

Tinman

When I debated this subject originally I said I had yet to find any style book, US or UK, that sanctioned the omission of the final "s" in singlar possessives (except in the special case of "s sounded vowel s" endings). Now that I have been shown some that do suggest it is acceptable, then I change my stance. I still think it is wrong (and, more to the point, quite unecessary) but concede that a minority of style books do suggest is is allowable.

However, even those sources quoted state (or imply) that the "standard" system is preferrable. So I stand by what I said; constructions such as "Jones'" instead of "Jones's" are unecessary and ambigious and those who are concerned about the effective use of the English klanguage should eschew them.

Richard English

quote:

---

Originally posted by Morgan:
Bob, I have two reference books here.

1. _Merriam-Webster's Notebook Guide to Punctuation, copyright 1996 _, which as I noted above:
Words, phrases, and clauses joined in a series are separated by commas. i.e.
Men, women, and children crowded aboard the train.

2. _The New International Webster's Pocket Grammar, Speech, and Style Dictionary of the English Language, New Revised Edition, copyright 2000_ which states:
Commas are used to separate words, phrases, and clauses in a series. (In journalistic writing the comma is frequently omitted before the final conjunction in a series. This practice is not sanctioned in formal writing.) i.e.
"Our American professors like their literature clear, cold, pure, and very dead." ~~ Sinclair Lewis
"All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening" ~~ Alexander Woollcott



Hmmm...I like that last quote!

---

H.W.Fowler (which I tend to use as my "bible" on the subject) says

quote:

---

Within enumerations.
The usual way of punctuating an enumeration is

French, German, Italian and Spanish: the commas between French and German and German and Italian take the place of ands; there is no comma after Italian because, with and, it would be otiose *.
There are, however, some who favour putting one there, arguing that since it may sometimes be required to avoid ambiguity it may as well be used always for the sake of uniformity.

---

* Fowler does have an unfortunate tendency to use obscure vocabulary - otiose (which I needed to look up) means "serving no useful purpose".

A small but quite useful Style guide that I have (Write Right!) which was originally an American publication suggests that the comma before the and is optional but that the author prefers its use on the grounds cited by Fowler.

Maybe this is another area where the US and UK styles differ.

Purgamentum init, exit purgamentum

Read all about my travels around the world here.

I am wondering why there can't be one style manual for all English that we all follow.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard English:
...and those who are concerned about the effective use of the English klanguage should eschew them.

---

Normally I would never bother to jump on an obvious typo but "English klanguage" brings to mind a picture of hooded men on horses terrorizing poor writers and burning crosses on the lawns of greengrocers who insist on advertising "Apple's for sale."

R.E. mellowing? Never!

quote:

---

...there is no comma after Italian because, with and, it would be otiose *.

...otiose (which I needed to look up) means "serving no useful purpose".

---

Well, the way I read that is, the comma is unnecessary, not unwanted.

It is an undoubted truism of humanity that want and necessity have but tenuous links. There are many things we don't need but that does not stop us from wanting them!

Richard English