Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: The dreaded apostrophe...!  (Read 9130 times)
jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #80 on: October 20, 2011, 06:28:46 AM »
ReplyReply

...|WORDS|...

I don't recall you questioning my manhood, but that's not an apology, Jack.

I don't "follow you around" ... I simply read the forum.  You are omnipresent ... and very wordy.
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #81 on: October 20, 2011, 06:46:03 AM »
ReplyReply


By what convoluted logic do you call strict adherence "lazy" and random placement "logical?"

Jack


.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, Jack.  You've messed up a grammatical rule.  Notice the red question mark.  In American grammar periods always go inside the quote irrespective of whether the period is yours or of the quoted passage (note I didn't say 'the passage's'  Smiley ).  With other forms of punctuation; however, (and yes, a semicolon before 'however' is perfectly acceptable) the punctuation is placed where it should logically go (ooops, sorry, there's that dastardly British thing again).  If the quoted passage is a question, the question mark goes inside the quotes.  If the quoted passage is part of a question you are asking the question mark goes outside the quotes.  Back to Grammar 101 for you, Jack.   Grin

That quote from Trevor is brilliant. 

To your actual question:  It's not 'random' placement at all.  The British follow the same guideline as for other forms of punctuation.  You Yanks have 'randomly' decided that for one form of punctuation you're going to have one rule and for other forms of punctuation you'll have another rule.  I guess maybe you're right.  Maybe it isn't lazy.  It's just odd.  Grin Cheesy
Logged
Robert Roaldi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 446


WWW
« Reply #82 on: October 20, 2011, 11:46:44 AM »
ReplyReply

My day job is copy-editing (English) scientific text, but I would never hold myself up as an authority on grammar. Our office is filled to bursting with style guides, word usage manuals, and grammar texts. (Did you notice that I placed a comma before the "and" in that series? That's something that some people object to, based on yet more "rule".) There are a few hard and fast grammatical rules, but they are outnumbered by about two orders of magnitude (that's hyperbole) by conventions, arbitrary style requirements, exceptions, unthought-of-before new uses, etc. Endlessly quoting rules is quite funny to me, considering how often all these style guides and grammar texts contradict each other. Spend the day reading a few, you may never quote another "rule" again. And even if you can find three that agree on something, odds are that they will disagree in their next edition(s). (Did you notice that I started a sentence with "And"? Somewhere, someone wrote a "rule" about that, I'm certain of it.)
Logged

--
Robert
robertroaldi.zenfolio.com
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #83 on: October 20, 2011, 12:28:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Agreed, Robert.  It's just a bit of fun poking at Jack is all.   Grin
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #84 on: October 20, 2011, 12:55:14 PM »
ReplyReply

The following arrived today in my daily email from Wordsmith.org:
A THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
Pedantry and mastery are opposite attitudes toward rules. To apply a rule to the letter, rigidly, unquestioningly, in cases where it fits and in cases where it does not fit, is pedantry ... To apply a rule with natural ease, with judgment, noticing the cases where it fits, and without ever letting the words of the rule obscure the purpose of the action or the opportunities of the situation, is mastery. -George Polya, mathematician (1887-1985)
Cheers
Trevor


Interesting quote, Trevor.

If American English mandates that all punctuation be placed inside quotation marks (except the semicolon/colon), while the English vacillate between inside/outside, does that make all Americans "pedants" and all British "masters"? (Note the question mark outside the quotation mark Wink )

If there are more Americans on the planet than there are English, then (if we accept the premise that "majority rules"--not even getting into the fact that the American whipped the English in battle, and subsequently saved them from destruction twice), who is correct?

Regarding George Polya, the mathemetician, let us examine his statemement closely. Would you say that if George wanted to find the surface area of a circle, for example, do you think he emloyed the rule of π (pi) x r2, or do you think he applied some other "random formula" with "natural ease"?

If George wanted to find the surface area of a rectangle, do you think he applied the rule of L x W,  or do you think he applied some other formula with "natural ease"?

If George likewise wanted to find the surface area of a triangle, do you think he applied the rule of 1/2xB x H,  or do you think he applied some other formula with "natural ease"?

Etc., etc. ...

In other words, if George Polya knew (and followed) all of the rules of mathematics to achieve the solutions to his mathematical problems, do you think this made him a "pedant" or a "master" in mathematics?

Jack

PS: BTW, do you think that a person who mindlessly follows little "quotes for the day," without taking the time to analyze them and see if they make sense under scrutiny, that such a person is a pedant or a master of what he reads? Or would you say he's just a parrot, who repeats what he reads, with no real independent understanding of his own?




.
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #85 on: October 20, 2011, 12:59:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Tsk, tsk, tsk, Jack.  You've messed up a grammatical rule.  Notice the red question mark.  In American grammar periods always go inside the quote irrespective of whether the period is yours or of the quoted passage (note I didn't say 'the passage's'  Smiley ).  With other forms of punctuation; however, (and yes, a semicolon before 'however' is perfectly acceptable) the punctuation is placed where it should logically go (ooops, sorry, there's that dastardly British thing again).  If the quoted passage is a question, the question mark goes inside the quotes.  If the quoted passage is part of a question you are asking the question mark goes outside the quotes.  Back to Grammar 101 for you, Jack.   Grin
That quote from Trevor is brilliant.  
To your actual question:  It's not 'random' placement at all.  The British follow the same guideline as for other forms of punctuation.  You Yanks have 'randomly' decided that for one form of punctuation you're going to have one rule and for other forms of punctuation you'll have another rule.  I guess maybe you're right.  Maybe it isn't lazy.  It's just odd.  Grin Cheesy


Wrong.

Question marks, etc., go inside the quotation marks; semicolons go outside.

Also, a quotation mark of a direct quote follows different guidelines than the aribrary use of these marks to "call attention to" distinctive words. In other words, "Bob said something incorrect," follows different rules from Bob is "wrong".

Jack


.
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #86 on: October 20, 2011, 01:10:53 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't recall you questioning my manhood, but that's not an apology, Jack.
I don't "follow you around" ... I simply read the forum.  You are omnipresent ... and very wordy.


If I am "omnipresent" in your eyes, then you must be filled with the very "man crush" I described earlier.

The truth is, I only post regularly on maybe 3-5 of the 28 total forums on this board, and within these few sub-forums, the truth is I post on only a small fraction of the threads contained therein. The tendency to exaggerate is its own form of pathology, Jeremy, so you really have a lot of work to do to unravel yourself from the twisted ideas that seem to possess you.

You will also note that everyone else here (except you) originally was debating only topics related to the use of the English language, whereas only you attacked me specifically in your opening post, with no mention made of the thread topic at all. Go back to your original post, and you will see this.

Jack




.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2011, 01:52:48 PM by John Koerner » Logged
Bryan Conner
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


WWW
« Reply #87 on: October 20, 2011, 01:13:28 PM »
ReplyReply

By the time that this silly pissing contest contest is over, the punctuation rules of both British English and American English will have evolved.  After all, the languages are constantly evolving.  I wish that a certain inflated ego would evolve into a normal sized mature one.
Logged

RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #88 on: October 20, 2011, 01:25:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry, Jack.  You're mistaken.  And do you see how that's a much softer way of putting it than saying 'wrong'?  'Wrong' is very much a conversation ender.  It's offensive and far too blunt for polite company.

From the University of Toronto on using quotations:

"In Canada and the United States, commas and periods never go outside a quotation mark. They are always absorbed as part of the quotation, whether they belong to you or to the author you are quoting:

    'I am a man / more sinned against than sinning,' Lear pronounces in Act 3, Scene 2 (59-60).

However, stronger forms of punctuation such as question marks and exclamation marks go inside the quotation if they belong to the author, and outside if they do not:

    Bewildered, Lear asks the fool, 'Who is it that can tell me who I am?' (1.4.227).

    Why is Lear so rash as to let his 'two daughters' dowers digest the third' (1.1.127)?"

From Grammarbook.com on using quotation marks and punctuation:

"Rule 2.    The placement of question marks with quotes follows logic. If a question is in quotation marks, the question mark should be placed inside the quotation marks.
Examples:    She asked, 'Will you still be my friend?'
     Do you agree with the saying, 'All's fair in love and war'?
Here the question is outside the quote.
NOTE:    Only one ending punctuation mark is used with quotation marks. Also, the stronger punctuation mark wins. Therefore, no period after war is used."

AP Stylebook:

"a question mark is inside quotation marks if that part is the question and outside the quotation marks if the whole sentence is a question. (The same rule applies to exclamation marks and dashes. Periods and commas always go inside quotation marks.)"  Note: the final reference is, of course, in relation to American Grammar.

Comparing mathematical and scientific formulae to 'conventions' of language use and suggesting that the former should be used in relation to the latter insofar as adherance to 'rules' goes might just be the height of pedantry (and ignorance).  This was fun up till now, Jack.  But it's starting to get a bit tiresome.  Here's what I know:  You don't know as much as you think you do.  There's an old saying that perhaps you ought to consider.  Better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth (or put fingers to keyboard) and remove all doubt.  

Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #89 on: October 20, 2011, 01:45:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry, Jack.  You're mistaken.  And do you see how that's a much softer way of putting it than saying 'wrong'?  'Wrong' is very much a conversation ender.  It's offensive and far too blunt for polite company.

I am never mistaken; once I thought I was mistaken, but I was wrong.




From the University of Toronto on using quotations:
"In Canada and the United States, commas and periods never go outside a quotation mark. They are always absorbed as part of the quotation, whether they belong to you or to the author you are quoting:
    'I am a man / more sinned against than sinning,' Lear pronounces in Act 3, Scene 2 (59-60).

Precisely my point.




However, stronger forms of punctuation such as question marks and exclamation marks go inside the quotation if they belong to the author, and outside if they do not:
    Bewildered, Lear asks the fool, 'Who is it that can tell me who I am?' (1.4.227).
 

You have shown no difference here: the question mark goes inside the question asked in the quote, while the period ending the full sentence goes outside.




Why is Lear so rash as to let his 'two daughters' dowers digest the third' (1.1.127)?"

I agree with this logic, as the question falls outside the actual quote.




From Grammarbook.com on using quotation marks and punctuation:
"Rule 2.    The placement of question marks with quotes follows logic. If a question is in quotation marks, the question mark should be placed inside the quotation marks.
Examples:    She asked, 'Will you still be my friend?'
     Do you agree with the saying, 'All's fair in love and war'?
Here the question is outside the quote.
NOTE:    Only one ending punctuation mark is used with quotation marks. Also, the stronger punctuation mark wins. Therefore, no period after war is used."
AP Stylebook:
"a question mark is inside quotation marks if that part is the question and outside the quotation marks if the whole sentence is a question. (The same rule applies to exclamation marks and dashes. Periods and commas always go inside quotation marks.)"  Note: the final reference is, of course, in relation to American Grammar.

I actually agree with all of this.





Comparing mathematical and scientific formulae to 'conventions' of language use and suggesting that the former should be used in relation to the latter insofar as adherance to 'rules' goes might just be the height of pedantry (and ignorance).

Actually, no it isn't.

Logic in manners of speech actually attempts to reflect mathematical truths and consistencies. This is how the entire concept of LOGIC was created: precision of word use. Thus your denial of this fact (hilariously) reflects the height of your own ignorance.




This was fun up till now, Jack.  But it's starting to get a bit tiresome.  Here's what I know:  You don't know as much as you think you do.  There's an old saying that perhaps you ought to consider.  Better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth (or put fingers to keyboard) and remove all doubt. 

I am sorry you are no longer having fun (but this is the sign of your own weakness, I'm afraid).

The truth is, I do know as much as I think I know; it is you who do not.

I would suggest you pay attention to your own adage, and stop moving your own fingers so fast

Jack




.
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #90 on: October 20, 2011, 03:32:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Jack, if you're going to start moving into ad hominem comments then this really won't be fun any longer.  So, in very plain English, stuff the 'weakness' type comments up your ass. 

You said
Quote
Question marks, etc., go inside the quotation marks; semicolons go outside.

Then said
Quote
I agree with this logic, as the question falls outside the actual quote.
in response to this passage: Why is Lear so rash as to let his "two daughters' dowers digest the third" (1.1.127)?  I think you may have confused the double quotes I used in quoting the passage and the single quotes I modified for the quoted passage from the source I cited - using single quotes to cite a quote inside another quoted passage is the correct use - which comes from the last section here, http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/using-sources/quotations titled How is punctuation affected by quotation

There is a glaring inconsistency in your comments.  Whether you see it or are prepared to admit it, it's there.  Flat out:  You're wrong.  Yes, I'm using that very strong word.  Admit it, don't, it matters not.  The fact remains, you are.  End of story.

WRT
Quote
Precisely my point
once again you're referring to American grammar.  And while I am Canadian, I prefer to use the Queen's English. 
Logged
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1607


WWW
« Reply #91 on: October 20, 2011, 04:10:08 PM »
ReplyReply

This is how the entire concept of LOGIC was created: precision of word use. Thus your denial of this fact (hilariously) reflects the height of your own ignorance.

No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_logic

That you then proceed with a logical fallacy is sweetly ironic.
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7443



WWW
« Reply #92 on: October 20, 2011, 04:14:15 PM »
ReplyReply

No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_logic

That you then proceed with a logical fallacy is sweetly ironic.
You mean Logic wasn't invented by either Humpty-Dumpty or by Jack? Whoda thunk?  Grin
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #93 on: October 20, 2011, 04:45:53 PM »
ReplyReply

No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_logic
That you then proceed with a logical fallacy is sweetly ironic.


Actually, my point was made by your link.

Poor Bob said, "Comparing mathematical and scientific formulae to 'conventions' of language use and suggesting that the former should be used in relation to the latter insofar as adherance to 'rules' goes might just be the height of pedantry (and ignorance)," proved his own ignorance, as I stated.

I made the irrefutable point that "Logic in manners of speech actually attempts to reflect mathematical truths and consistencies," and as a person who holds a degree in this subject, I stated that this is how the entire concept of LOGIC was created: precision of word use. Thus, once again, your denial of this fact (hilariously) reflects the height of your own ignorance.

Therefore, the very fact that you posted a link which directly states: "Logic in manners of speech actually attempts to reflect mathematical truths and consistencies," completely proves my point ... and the very fact that you (and others like you) are too clueless about the nature of logic to recognize this immediately is an embarrassment to you and your ancestors.

Jack


.
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #94 on: October 20, 2011, 04:46:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Read Carefully from your own link:

"Logic was revived in the mid-nineteenth century, at the beginning of a revolutionary period when the subject developed into a rigorous and formalistic discipline whose exemplar was the exact method of proof used in mathematics. The development of the modern so-called 'symbolic' or 'mathematical' logic during this period is the most significant in the two-thousand-year history of logic, and is arguably one of the most important and remarkable events in human intellectual history."

Jack



.
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5717



WWW
« Reply #95 on: October 20, 2011, 05:23:29 PM »
ReplyReply

For Heaven's sake, Jack, stop digging!
Logged

Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1607


WWW
« Reply #96 on: October 20, 2011, 05:34:07 PM »
ReplyReply

I read it all, Jack.  I also understood it.  None of it supports your assertion that, "This is how the entire concept of LOGIC was created: precision of word use."

The concept of logic predates any concept of lexical or grammatical precision.  Logic lead to precise word use, not the other way around.

That you continue to engage in personal insults with abusive language and references to national origins, personal ancestors and other such nonesense is deplorable.

It is not possible to conduct a discussion with you, Jack, because you have already determined that everything that you say is correct without the possibility of correction, education or elucidation by others.  Unfortunately, you are frequently wrong.  Your grasp of logic is at best inconsistent.  Your attitude of excreable.  This combination makes any dialogue with your utterly pointless and, to that end, I will not continue any engagement with you.  

Please feel free to have the last word.  With any luck, that will be true, and this wonderful site will be spared your further vapidity.
Logged

JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #97 on: October 20, 2011, 06:10:36 PM »
ReplyReply

I read it all, Jack.  I also understood it.  None of it supports your assertion that, "This is how the entire concept of LOGIC was created: precision of word use."

We disagree then.




The concept of logic predates any concept of lexical or grammatical precision.  Logic lead to precise word use, not the other way around.

It doesn't matter what original, elder, unformed attempts at logic were (or were not). The fact that (and again I quote your own link), "The development of the modern so-called 'symbolic' or 'mathematical' logic during this period is the most significant in the two-thousand-year history of logic, and is arguably one of the most important and remarkable events in human intellectual history," means everything, and in fact supports MY belief system and not yours.




That you continue to engage in personal insults with abusive language and references to national origins, personal ancestors and other such nonesense is deplorable.

Forgive me, then, for the insults.

The fact that you cannot see the point of this discussion, ultimately, has been supported by your link, which confirms what I have been asserting all along is likewise deplorable, though for different reasons.




It is not possible to conduct a discussion with you, Jack, because you have already determined that everything that you say is correct without the possibility of correction, education or elucidation by others. 

Sure it is possible to conduct a discussion with me. What is not possible is for 'you' to beat 'me' at my own game, which is wherein your frustration lies.

The trouble you're having in this particular conversation is the fact that I have been right all along, and that your own reference link proved my point, to which fact you are not yet noble enough to admit.




Unfortunately, you are frequently wrong.  Your grasp of logic is at best inconsistent.  Your attitude of excreable.  This combination makes any dialogue with your utterly pointless and, to that end, I will not continue any engagement with you.

My grasp of logic carries a degree from UCLA, how about yours?

I admit, my attitude is one of disdain for folks such as you, who have no such degree in logic, and who make mindless references to "links" which they clearly have not read (or do not understand) themselves, and yet which links they provide (unbeknownst to them) actually support what I have been saying all along.




 
Please feel free to have the last word.  With any luck, that will be true, and this wonderful site will be spared your further vapidity.

Thank you, I have had the last word, provided you do not succumb to the urge to retort.

As far as vapidity goes, that is the last thing my words carry. I tend to inspire passion in people (for better or worse), which is why so many people tend to "follow" me (for better or worse), while in fact your own words are what carry no weight, no understanding, and inspire no passion.

Have a good night Farmer,

Jack


.
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #98 on: October 20, 2011, 06:25:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Nothing you've said proves my ignorance nor anyone else's except your own, Jack.  There is nothing in that passage you highlighted, nothing, that indicates that scientific/mathematical logic is based on precision in use of language.  Did you write that Wikipedia entry on the history of logic?  If so then I can understand why you might stand behind it so firmly.  But nothing in it supports your position.  The sentence preceding the one you highlight contradicts your position. 

Logged
William Walker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 414



WWW
« Reply #99 on: October 21, 2011, 12:47:56 AM »
ReplyReply


PS: BTW, do you think that a person who mindlessly follows little "quotes for the day,"
.

One of the best "Quotes of the Day" I have ever read, and it certainly seems to apply here is, "When you argue with a fool - there are two fools arguing".

William
Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad