During the interminable trip in to work this morning, I noticed a little graffito.

LUCY IS EXCELLENT MAN

I couldn't help wondering if the author was extolling Lucy's general excellent-ness to his fellow men, or whether the intention was actually to cast doubt on the poor girl's gender!

I realise it is probably considered just too passé to punctuate graffiti (except for exclamation marks), and indeed the lack of a comma in this phrase gave me several minutes of delighted amusement, but I'm sure Lucy wouldn't have been very impressed by the ambiguity!

Ros

Good timing! I have been on the warpath at work about our memos, letters, strategic plan, etc., that are sent to our stakeholders, constituents and board of directors with grammatical errors, especially associated with commas. And, this isn't grafitti!

My current example: (I changed the names; this was sent to a dean of a major nursing program and was signed by our Executive Director, who I am sure didn't write it):

"Joe Blow, and John Peabody as staff persons to the Practice, Regulation and Education, will be contacting you regarding the initial meeting date and to provide you with specific details relating to your committee."

Of course it should be Practice, Regulation and Education Committee, too.

Kalleh, that's certainly an interestingly structured sentence! I quite agree, and more power to your arm!

Ros

[This message was edited by Ros on Thu Jul 31st, 2003 at 8:10.]

I see sentences like this all the time: (from a Chicago Tribune editorial):
"It's dangerous and it's illegal."

Aren't those 2 complete sentences that should be separated by a comma? Or, is it now accepted to delete the comma at certain times? If so, when?

I think that sentence is fine. The conjunction shows that the item under discussion is both dangerous and illegal. I would only use a comma (or maybe a semi-colon) if the sentence had more than two adjectives, for example:

"It's dangerous, it's illegal, it's decadent - but it's fun!"

Richard English

Oh, Richard, I don't agree. "It's dangerous, it's illegal", etc. to me is a run-on sentence. To me a comma is needed in my example because it is a conjunction between 2 complete sentences. Now, if it were "It's dangerous and illegal", that would be fine. It's picky, I know. Yet, grammar is picky.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Oh, Richard, I don't agree. "It's dangerous, it's illegal", etc. to me is a run-on sentence. To me a comma is needed in my example because it is a conjunction between 2 complete sentences. Now, if it were "It's dangerous and illegal", that would be fine. It's picky, I know. Yet, grammar is picky.

---

In writing it is probably better form to say it this way but when speaking we use a different repertoire of tricks. Repetition for emphasis is one of them.

It's perfectly OK to say "Because it's dangerous and illegal" or "Because it's dangerous and it's illegal" or even "Because it's dangerous and because it's illegal" depending on the degree of emphasis you intend. The repetitive forms also seem to imply that you think the listener is so dumb he needs to have the point hammered home.

Non curo ! Si metrum no habet, non est poema.

Read all about my travels around the world here.
Read even more of my travel writing and poems on my weblog.

I would add to this only the rider that, because one form of expression is grammatically correct, that doesn't necessarily (or even usually) mean that all other forms are incorrect.

This is akin to Dubya's statement "You are either for us or against us", Which presumes that everything is black or white and there is no possiblity of shades of grey.

Wrong in his case and usually wrong in most other cases.

Richard English

On Monday we went out for a meal and Margeret ordered from the specials board:
"Chicken fries and salad".

She was very disappointed to receive chicken, fries and salad. She doesn't much like unprocessed chicken nor does she like fries (chips).

The restaurant was French and thus we forgave the eccentricities of their English - but next time we'll ask!

Richard English

Interesting. However, for cultural education, just what are "chicken fries"?

quote:

---

I would add to this only the rider that, because one form of expression is grammatically correct, that doesn't necessarily (or even usually) mean that all other forms are incorrect.

---

I am beginning to lose my grammatical mind here! What? If one way of writing is correct (for example, using a comma between 2 complete sentences), then surely the other form (i.e. no comma) is incorrect. I will agree that many authors--and good ones--don't always follow this rule. However, there are grammatical rules written in style books, and I think they should be followed.

No, Kalleh, it doesn't follow that if one way of doing something is "correct", all other ways must be "incorrect". There are often several acceptable ways. The "rules" are not as rigid as you may think. They are guidelines and even stylebooks disagree over them. Here are Jack Lynch's comments on "rules":

Rules.

There ain't a rule in the language what can't be broke. The so-called rules of English grammar and style were not spoken by a burning bush; they're just guidelines about what's likely to be effective. If you learn to treat them that way, you'll live a happier life. To that end, read my entry on Prescriptive versus Descriptive Grammars.

Here's how to think about your task in writing. Step one: figure out where your audience is now. Step two: figure out where you want your audience to end up. Step three: take them from one to the other. If you can pull it off, anything goes.

Does that mean all the entries in this guide are superfluous? Not at all. The question is how you can drag your audience from one to the other — an audience filled with people of widely varied knowledge, backgrounds, and prejudices. You don't get to pick what hangups your readers suffer from: you have to take them as they are. Writing is an inescapably psychological game, since you have to crawl inside your readers' heads and figure out what's likely to have the desired effects on them.

That's where the rules come in: they're attempts to lay out systematically the effect certain usages will have on certain audiences. A rule that says "Don't split an infinitive" can be translated, "If you split an infinitive, then at least part of your audience will think less of you, and you're less likely to win them over." If you break these rules without a good reason — by which I mean a reason evident to your audience — you lose your audience. It's that simple.

Rules are tools. Don't think of them as bureaucratic regulations designed to get in your way, and don't think of the chance to bend them as a special treat. Instead, think of them as a collection of techniques that are likely to have the desired effect on your readers.

A corollary: there's no single set of rules. Every style, every genre, has its own guidelines. A Nobel Prize speech demands a different style than an MTV Music Awards speech (to my knowledge, the former has never included the word "dudes," nor the latter the word "ineluctable"). Most of the guidelines I lay down here are appropriate for college English papers, a genre calling for a middling degree of formality — that's also roughly the level that most business communication should have. Other styles have other rules, and all you can do is learn what works in what genre. Keep your audience constantly in mind, and learn to use the rules — even the ones you find silly — to win them over.

The one unbreakable rule: Whatever works works. All that's left for you is to figure out what works. Most of us will spend our lifetimes on that puzzle, and the so-called rules are the closest thing we have to a solution. [Entry added 3 November 2000.]

Tinman

We had assumed that they would be some sort of rissole made from minced chicken - maybe a bit like a burger.

The misunderstanding was made more likely since the expression "fries" is not all that commonly used. We prefer to call them chips.

"French Fries" is usually used in the posher restaurants and "fries" in American restaurants such as McDonald's.

Richard English

Tinman, I respectfully disagree with you; that takes a lot of courage because you are usually right. However, I don't think you are this time.

First, the question to which I was referring was 1) to use a comma between 2 complete sentences, or 2) not to use a comma between 2 complete sentences. Period. End of story. If one considers one way correct, the other way is incorrect, and vice versa. However, of course someone (and perhaps that someone is you, Tinman) could be a grammatical moderate or agnostic, or whatver you want to call it; in that case, you would use either way. That is inconsistent to me, but each to his own.

Secondly, I would imagine that, were I to pose the question to 100 grammatical specialists, 99 would agree with me. (There's always a CJ in the audience! )

Third, in no way was I saying that all grammatical rules are set in stone. I agree that the style books are often different, and therefore confusing. For example, there are many style books that don't use apostrophes the way we do on this board. And, I won't even mention the dangling modifier scenario.

I maintain that 2 complete sentences should be separated by a comma. By the way, could someone please show me a "grammar rule" or style book that says a comma isn't need in this instance?

Now, Richard, you reminded me of a story in your mentioning "French fries". [We have "chicken fingers" here, and perhaps that is what your wife had expected?] Anyway, a friend ordered French wine in a fine restaurant very recently, and the waiter actually said, "I am sorry. We no longer carry anything French." Can you imagine? They walked out, in a huff.

quote:

---

Tinman, I respectfully disagree with you; that takes a lot of courage because you are usually right.

---

See, I knew I shouldn't have disagreed. I checked some style manuals today, and, yes, it is now acceptable not to use a comma when separating 2 complete sentences with a conjunction. I am surprised--but once again I am wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
[I checked some style manuals today, and, yes, it is now acceptable not to use a comma when separating 2 complete sentences with a conjunction.

---

Thank you, Kalleh. That saves me the trouble of looking up sources. Let me say that a comma is still generally used to separate two long independent clauses, but not two short ones. Quoting from REA's Handbook of English Grammar, Style, and Writing (Research and Education Association, 2001):

"When a sentence contains more than two subjects and verbs (clauses) and the two clauses are joined by a connecting word (and, but, or, yet, for, nor), use a comma before the connecting word to show that another clause is coming." (p. 189)

And on the next page:

"If the two parts of the sentence are short and closely related, it is not necessary to use a comma."

I think there is a mistake in that first sentence. I think "more than" should be deleted.

Another connecting word is so. I don't know why it was left out.

The Guide to Grammar & Writing (maintained by Professor of English Charles Darling for English courses at Capital Community College, Hartford, Connecticut and for the general online public) says you can remember these coordinating conjunctions by the fact that they all contain fewer than four letters, and by remembering the acronym FANBOYS (For, And, Nor, But, Or, Yet, So).

Tinman

[This message was edited by tinman on Mon Aug 11th, 2003 at 2:56.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
... it is now acceptable not to use a comma ...

---

I'm not picking on you, Kalleh, but you use a construction I see often and which I think is incorrect. Rather than "acceptable not to use", I think it should be "acceptable to not use".

Tinman

quote:

---

Rather than "acceptable not to use", I think it should be "acceptable to not use".

---

Forgive me butting in, but aren't you now splitting an infinitive, tinman?

It is not always wrong to deliberately split an infinitive (providing, of course, that one knows what one is doing, and why).

Richard English

quote:

---

but you use a construction I see often and which I think is incorrect. Rather than "acceptable not to use", I think it should be "acceptable to not use".

---

Because?....

And, as far as "picking on me", you're just lucky that I like you, Tinman! After all, I was complimenting you when I wrote that!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ros:

quote:

---

Rather than "acceptable not to use", I think it should be "acceptable to not use".

---

Forgive me butting in, but aren't you now splitting an infinitive, tinman?

---

Feel free to butt in any time, Ros.

Yes, I am splitting an infinitive, but what's wrong with that? The "rule" against splitting infinitives was based on the assumption that the rules of English grammar should be the same as the rules of Latin grammar; since infinitives can't be split in Latin, they shouldn't be split in English. This makes no sense. An infinitive in Latin is one word and is impossible to split. An infinitive in English is two words: to + a verb. Sometimes it is desirable to modify the verb. The modifier (adverb in most cases) is often most effective when placed as close to the verb as possible. To place it in front of to often gives a stilted sentence and sometimes changes its meaning. Placing it after the verb is also undesireable. Consider one of the most well-known split infinitives from Star Trek:

"Space, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds; to seek out new life and new civilizations; to boldly go where no man has gone before."

Would you change it to "boldly to go" or "to go boldly"? Either change would destroy the euphony of the sentence.

James J. Kilpatrick wrote about the split infinitive on April 29, 2001 and again on May 26, 2002., and Bill Bryson commented on it in his 1990 book, The Mother Tongue.

Tinman

[This message was edited by tinman on Tue Aug 12th, 2003 at 0:38.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
And, as far as "picking on me", you're just lucky that I like you, Tinman! After all, I was complimenting you when I wrote that!

---

Ah, shucks, thanks, Kalleh! I like you, too.

Tinman

quote:

---

Sometimes it is desirable to modify the verb. The modifier (adverb in most cases) is often most effective when placed as close to the verb as possible

---

Okay, I see your point, Tinman. All I can say is that the U.S. Post Office is damned lucky!

Originally posted by Ros:

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than "acceptable not to use", I think it should be "acceptable to not use".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forgive me butting in, but aren't you now splitting an infinitive, tinman?

---

Entering late into the fray, but.

May I offer the alternative "...acceptable to omit" ?

(The best way to resolve an awkward construction is to rephrase it.)

quote:

---

May I offer the alternative

---

Since it was my bungle in the first place , I will take the liberty of saying "of course"! I do like your rephrasing of the sentence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by haberdasher:
Entering late into the fray, but.

May I offer the alternative "...acceptable to omit" ?

(The best way to resolve an awkward construction is to rephrase it.)

---

I don't consider this a "fray", just a friendly discussion. I like your alternative.

Tinman