Re: Punctuation

Dill Carver wrote:
Janet Taylor-Perry wrote:
Dill Carver wrote:

Creative use of punctuation?

http://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tena … =f&l=f

Or is it just bad grammar on the bad grandma?

I see no use of punctuation here, save the apostrophe in I'm. What I see is a tattoo artist with an in inventive style of calligraphy. The "me" could easily be a place where the pen skipped.

Sorry Janet, it wasn't serious... as I mentioned, a cheap nonsensical vehicle£ to post my 'bad grammar, bad grandma' play on words is all.

Still, a pretty talented tattooist.

Quote Post 126

127 Reply by Dill Carver (edited by Dill Carver 2015-11-01 04:12:30)

Re: Punctuation

corra wrote:

I own a copy of The Chicago Manual of Style and just glanced through it (quickly -- I'm headed to work), and it has nothing to offer on the topic. That means (so far as I can see) there is no standard on this question. In cases where there is no collective standard, you and your editor would just make a stylistic call and then be consistent throughout the document. If this is something you are going to be publishing, your publishing house may have a specific house style which would answer this question.

If I was writing this, I'd likely go with the comma, but I think the comma, the em-dash, or the lack of punctuation would be appropriate, so long as you're consistent throughout. (Bearing in mind that you can create emphasis within this consistency by breaking form.)

The comma would make the depiction of the reiteration more subtle (natural) than an em-dash. I think the dash would also be appropriate, especially if you want the reiteration to be pronounced. The lack of punctuation would run the phrase into the original sentence, as if it's so natural it isn't even noticed by the speaker -- as if there's no need to pause. It depends on what you want the punctuation to accomplish.

Thanks for that. No hard and fast rule for

"It's a nice day today -- it is."

"We were thinking of going down the pub -- we were."

"You'll regret that in the morning -- you will."
or
"That's not right -- that isn't."

then.

This thread has made me contemplate punctuation within creative writing and I think the debate (in general) is instigated by punctuation providing different functionality within different situations.

Within a legal document or formal writing the narrative is official and unambiguous. Punctuation is explicit in order to remove said ambiguity.

Within creative writing, the punctuation exists to aid the story telling in order to convey the story to the reader the way an orator would to a listener.

Within dialogue we need to represent the enunciation; the pregnant pause, the stutter, the accent, the turn or phrase and the colloquial mannerisms of the speaker, along with their temperament of the speaker at the time of speaking. The same is true, albeit to a lesser extent, to the narrator, for what is the narration if not the voice of the storyteller?

The being said, how would you punctuate this?


A woman without her man is nothing she isn’t

Quote Post 127

128 Reply by Charles_F_Bell (edited by Charles_F_Bell 2015-11-01 11:53:39)

Re: Punctuation

Memphis Trace wrote:
Charles_F_Bell wrote:
vern wrote:

What mistake?

A woman without; a man is nothing. uses a semicolon incorrectly according to a punctuation rule which is set in stone, and ordinary readers unfamiliar with an archaic use of without as an adverb would take that without to be a preposition without an object, and furthermore, even with reading without as an adverb, there is no verb or adjective within that phrase to modify. It is about as gross a violation of simple punctuation rules as there is, and yet you never acknowledged the mistake and even went on a tear against me for pointing this fact out even though there contained at the outset no comment from me about you personally and only about the "punctuated" sentence A woman without a man is nothing. that, in fact, requires no additional punctuation without an effort to change the obvious meaning as is.

Every punctuation rule is set in stone according to archivists and lingweenies.

You have only an interest in engaging a political/social polemic against the "wrong people" and can't be bothered to actually look up in reference the hard and fast rules that apply to the use of the semicolon and give an example how they may have been ignored in prose by known and accomplished authors in the last century.  See: Harbrace College Handbook chapter 14, for example. To say that those rules only apply to language snobs ("archivists and lingweenies", really whatever that is supposed to mean) is to deny any punctuation rules at all. In artistic license I have only come across one sort bending of the semicolon rules, and that is ...; and ... in Wilde's Dorian Gray, and that is really a bending of the rule that a main clause/sentence not begin with a conjunction.

Cite a single example in literature of Phrase;complete sentence. in which the Phrase also contains either a preposition without object or its homophone/homograph as an adverb used modifying nothing.

Harbrace 14c - Use the semicolon only between parts of equal rank, not between a clause and a phrase or between a main clause and subordinate clause.

Any exception is only apparent: "Burns compares his mistress to a 'red, red rose'; Wordsworth his to 'a violet by a mossy stone half hidden from the eye.'"  {C.S. Lewis} Either two clauses of comparison are being marked off by a semicolon or compares is implicit after "Wordsworth."

Your and Vern's rudeness and lack of attention to facts on this simple matter of punctuation does not reflect well on the sort of technical discussion, or certainly what ought to be a straightforward exchange, in TNBW forums.

Quote Post 128

129 Reply by Memphis Trace (edited by Memphis Trace 2015-11-01 12:57:37)

Re: Punctuation

Charles_F_Bell wrote:
Memphis Trace wrote:
Charles_F_Bell wrote:

A woman without; a man is nothing. uses a semicolon incorrectly according to a punctuation rule which is set in stone, and ordinary readers unfamiliar with an archaic use of without as an adverb would take that without to be a preposition without an object, and furthermore, even with reading without as an adverb, there is no verb or adjective within that phrase to modify. It is about as gross a violation of simple punctuation rules as there is, and yet you never acknowledged the mistake and even went on a tear against me for pointing this fact out even though there contained at the outset no comment from me about you personally and only about the "punctuated" sentence A woman without a man is nothing. that, in fact, requires no additional punctuation without an effort to change the obvious meaning as is.

Every punctuation rule is set in stone according to archivists and lingweenies.

You have only an interest in engaging a political/social polemic against the "wrong people" and can't be bothered to actually look up in reference the hard and fast rules that apply to the use of the semicolon and give an example how they may have been ignored in prose by known and accomplished authors in the last century.  See: Harbrace College Handbook chapter 14, for example. To say that those rules only apply to language snobs ("archivists and lingweenies", really whatever that is supposed to mean) is to deny any punctuation rules at all. In artistic license I have only come across one sort bending of the semicolon rules, and that is ...; and ... in Wilde's Dorian Gray, and that is really a bending of the rule that a main clause/sentence not begin with a conjunction.

Cite a single example in literature of Phrase;complete sentence. in which the Phrase also contains either a preposition without object or its homophone/homograph as an adverb used modifying nothing.

Harbrace 14c - Use the semicolon only between parts of equal rank, not between a clause and a phrase or between a main clause and subordinate clause.

Any exception is only apparent: "Burns compares his mistress to a 'red, red rose'; Wordsworth his to 'a violet by a mossy stone half hidden from the eye.'"  {C.S. Lewis} Either two clauses of comparison are being marked off by a semicolon or compares is implicit after "Wordsworth."

Your and Vern's rudeness and lack of attention to facts on this simple matter of punctuation does not reflect well on the sort of technical discussion, or certainly what ought to be a straightforward exchange, in TNBW forums.

A lingweenie is a term I coined from this discussion with you. It means a timid linguist, limp as a noodle in what he would allow creative writers to use for their art.

As to being straightforward and polite, I would say you are the rude one in this thread. ¿You get all adjectivial calling the opinions of others ludicrous and culturally anarchic and absolutely fu*king ridiculous; and those of us who espouse them, rubes and nihilists, and now you are become sensitive for being recognized as a timid linguist and a hidebound archivist? Stuff it or shush it.

Here, now, in this latest reply you hoist yourself on your own petard and suddenly cozy up to context when you find an example—Any exception is only apparent: "Burns compares his mistress to a 'red, red rose'; Wordsworth his to 'a violet by a mossy stone half hidden from the eye.'"  {C.S. Lewis} Either two clauses of comparison are being marked off by a semicolon or compares is implicit after "Wordsworth."—that uncarves your carved-in-stone rule that both the balanced sides of a semicolonic sentence must have a verb.

Keep looking, Sir, and I trust you will find more "apparencies" to uncarve your carved-in-stone rules. It is good that you have lost some of your aversion to reading a semicolonic sentence considering context. You could even develop an ounce of creativity.

You, Mr. Bell, don't even know what you hold so dear in your archives. Your carved-in-stone rules are the worst kind of conveniences, and careless counsel to be flinging about in a creative writer's workshop environment. It's the stuff of archivists and lingweenies with feet set in stone.

Memphis Trace

Quote Post 129

130 Reply by corra

Re: Punctuation

Dill Carver wrote:

Within dialogue we need to represent the enunciation; the pregnant pause, the stutter, the accent, the turn or phrase and the colloquial mannerisms of the speaker, along with their temperament of the speaker at the time of speaking. The same is true, albeit to a lesser extent, to the narrator, for what is the narration if not the voice of the storyteller?

(Emphasis above mine.) smile YES.

Dill Carver wrote:

The being said, how would you punctuate this?

A woman without her man is nothing she isn’t

That "she isn't" at the end adds so much voice to this line, and so effortlessly. I actually love it unpunctuated. It sounds breathless -- all run together. I can "hear" this voice. But, just as Janet suggested at the beginning of this thread, punctuation can alter the way the words impact, immensely:

A woman. Without her, man is nothing. She isn’t.
A woman without her man is nothing? She isn’t.
A woman, without her man, is nothing, she isn’t.
A woman without her man is nothing, she isn’t.
A woman without her man is nothing -- she isn’t.
A woman? Without her man? Is nothing, she isn’t.
A woman without her man! Is nothing -- she isn’t?

Quote Post 130

Re: Punctuation

Memphis Trace wrote:
Charles_F_Bell wrote:
Memphis Trace wrote:

Every punctuation rule is set in stone according to archivists and lingweenies.

You have only an interest in engaging a political/social polemic against the "wrong people" and can't be bothered to actually look up in reference the hard and fast rules that apply to the use of the semicolon and give an example how they may have been ignored in prose by known and accomplished authors in the last century.  See: Harbrace College Handbook chapter 14, for example. To say that those rules only apply to language snobs ("archivists and lingweenies", really whatever that is supposed to mean) is to deny any punctuation rules at all. In artistic license I have only come across one sort bending of the semicolon rules, and that is ...; and ... in Wilde's Dorian Gray, and that is really a bending of the rule that a main clause/sentence not begin with a conjunction.

Cite a single example in literature of Phrase;complete sentence. in which the Phrase also contains either a preposition without object or its homophone/homograph as an adverb used modifying nothing.

Harbrace 14c - Use the semicolon only between parts of equal rank, not between a clause and a phrase or between a main clause and subordinate clause.

Any exception is only apparent: "Burns compares his mistress to a 'red, red rose'; Wordsworth his to 'a violet by a mossy stone half hidden from the eye.'"  {C.S. Lewis} Either two clauses of comparison are being marked off by a semicolon or compares is implicit after "Wordsworth."

Your and Vern's rudeness and lack of attention to facts on this simple matter of punctuation does not reflect well on the sort of technical discussion, or certainly what ought to be a straightforward exchange, in TNBW forums.



As to being straightforward and polite, I would say you are the rude one in this thread.


Vern took the trouble to repeat how I enter this

Or: A woman without; her man is nothing.
Your first response to the above sentence: "Ordinarily the two parts of semicolon phrasing can stand alone, and the above fails. The first half ends in a preposition, has no verb, and does not make sense."
My response: "Really? I seldom deal with the ordinary. Take care. Vern"

Pointing out an a error in punctuation in a thread on punctuation without bringing any sort of personal attack, I pointed out the facts. Vern returned with a snarky remark because evidently he feels the whole thing is just a joke, and humor does not require proper punctuation. I pursued the tangent of the thing from the original post as a "funny," when it is un-funny feminist propaganda, elsewhere, and there being no need to add punctuation to the original unless the obvious meaning is to be changed, and those re-punctuated sentences were both improperly punctuated, and I showed how. It is not possible to have an intelligent discussion with you because at no time did you ever not inject your pathetic diatribes against people you don't like  and irrational excuses to employ poor punctuation such as the excuse you used against my example of the appearance of an improper semicolon in the C.S. Lewis example I provided when it is properly punctuated according to the hard rules on the semicolon. You have yet to cite any example of the use of the semicolon in published literature, that is to say: highly vetted writing, between expressions of unequal rank like A woman without; her man is nothing.

Quote Post 131

132 Reply by Dill Carver (edited by Dill Carver 2015-11-01 16:39:11)

Re: Punctuation

corra wrote:

A woman. Without her, man is nothing. She isn’t.
A woman without her man is nothing? She isn’t.
A woman, without her man, is nothing, she isn’t.
A woman without her man is nothing, she isn’t.
A woman without her man is nothing -- she isn’t.
A woman? Without her man? Is nothing, she isn’t.
A woman without her man! Is nothing -- she isn’t?

Without punctuation, "a woman without her man is nothing she isn't." Implies to me (in certain accents or colloquialisms), that a woman in essence is the same with, or without her man.

If I wanted to imply that a 'woman is considered nothing without her man in tow,' with the reiteration turn of phrase characteristic; I'd probably use your suggestion; 

A woman? Without her man? Is nothing, she isn’t.

I think that the three sentences, the first two questioning rhetorically, best represent the way the speaker would enunciate or express the passage vocally.

(Again, to form my opinion upon how best I'd punctuate this is, I'd 'Poem' it).

a woman
without her man 
is nothing she isn't

For clarity (my personal opinion) I'd probably write

A woman? Without her man? Well, she's nothing, she isn’t.

I think that I'd add the 'well,' because it indicates the speaker is contemplating the issue, and then at the risk of repetition, I'd replace the 'Is' for a 'she's' because I think the emphasis adds clarity to the phase for the sake of the reader.

I think that the words 'well,' and 'she's' are a form of punctuation in their own right, as they add, pause, conjunction and phonetic clarity the passage, and those factors are the 'aim' or function of punctuation.

Quote Post 132

Re: Punctuation

Elisheva Free wrote:

I am in complete agreement with Corra here. I think punctuation "creativity" enters the picture when multiple forms of punctuation are grammatically correct, but you choose one of them based on how you want to portray the scene, dialogue, etc.

Anywho, that's my two cents on this lengthy subject. smile

-Elisheva

corra is a sparkling mind, it's true.

But your two cents is a very worthy contribution. The subject is lengthy but the discussion is open and very enlightening. If nothing else it makes us pay attention upon how we are punctuating prose within our own work, whereas we might have been lapse or non-attentive (I know I was). I always seem to present reviewers with a harsh task in terms of punctuation correction when they look at my work.

Quote Post 133

134 Reply by vern

Re: Punctuation

Charles F Bell wrote:

Your and Vern's rudeness and lack of attention to facts on this simple matter of punctuation does not reflect well on the sort of technical discussion, or certainly what ought to be a straightforward exchange, in TNBW forums.

You failed to respond to my response to such allegations in a previous post as noted here:

Charles_F_Bell wrote:

  It's a yes-or-no question not directed to you whose invective has gone past annoying.  Even if Janet may answer in a way that I would not like, she would answer politely sans ad hominem.

The one who states,

Charles F Bell wrote:

A defender of such junk, presumably knowing better, is a cultural nihilist which is worse than being a dumbass hick.

is being polite?

Perhaps you might care to explain how your position is unlike the pot calling the kettle black as you've done nothing but dodge/ignore past invitations. You also refuse to admit that you know there are exceptions to all your supposed rules set in concrete as indicated by my prior post:

vern wrote:

Or: A woman without; her man is nothing.

Your first response to the above sentence: "Ordinarily the two parts of semicolon phrasing can stand alone, and the above fails. The first half ends in a preposition, has no verb, and does not make sense."

My response: "Really? I seldom deal with the ordinary. Take care. Vern"

As noted, you fully know that there are exceptions to every rule because you use "ordinarily" to qualify your statement, fully aware there are no concrete rules. I then acknowledge in the original humorous vein that ordinarily the punctuation would be wrong, but I seldom deal with the ordinary. And as stated elsewhere in this thread I assumed you accepted said exception to the rules with the understanding it was a humorous response. But no, you came back later and kept harping there is no circumstance it could be a creative use with humorous intent or otherwise. So I really don't see that challenging your inflexibility is a personal attack when you continued to attack the original humorous sentence ad nauseam.


I keep hoping you will come out of the closet and admit to either you do know there are exceptions for creativity in punctuation or as surmised earlier you are merely playing off your obstinance as a running joke with you playing the sarcastic role of Punctuation God. Alas, I probably hope in vain. Take care. Vern

Quote Post 134

135 Reply by corra

Re: Punctuation

...it is un-funny feminist propaganda...

“The history of men's opposition to women's emancipation is more interesting perhaps than the story of that emancipation itself.” ― Virginia Woolf

“Women have served all these centuries as looking glasses possessing the magic and delicious power of reflecting the figure of man at twice its natural size.” ― Virginia Woolf

“Possibly when the professor insisted a little too emphatically upon the inferiority of women, he was concerned not with their inferiority, but with his own superiority. That was what he was protecting rather hot-headedly and with too much emphasis, because it was a jewel to him of the rarest price.” ― Virginia Woolf

“All women together ought to let flowers fall upon the tomb of Aphra Behn, for it was she who earned them the right to speak their minds.” ― Virginia Woolf

(By way of comparison.)

Perhaps more on topic:

“So long as you write what you wish to write, that is all that matters; and whether it matters for ages or only for hours, nobody can say. But to sacrifice a hair of the head of your vision, a shade of its colour, in deference to some Headmaster with a silver pot in his hand or to some professor with a measuring-rod up his sleeve, is the most abject treachery, and the sacrifice of wealth and chastity which used to be said to be the greatest of human disasters, a mere flea-bite in comparison.” ― Virginia Woolf

Quote Post 135

136 Reply by Dill Carver (edited by Dill Carver 2015-11-01 17:19:00)

Re: Punctuation

Dill Carver wrote:

I think that the words 'well,' and 'she's' are a form of punctuation in their own right, as they add, pause, conjunction and phonetic clarity the passage, and those factors are the 'aim' or function of punctuation.

And it's true that some writers use words as punctuation. Yes  James Joyce and William Faulkner; as Charles Bell pointed out earlier within this thread (thanks), but also recent authors in recent times, like Cormac McCarthy (which if you've read 'The Road', you'll know for a fact) is very sparse with punctuation marks within his prose.

McCarthy feels that words themselves are the best form of punctuation (save for a capital letter at the start of the sentence and period at the end).

I think that if you take a passage of your own prose and try to write some of the punctuation out, using re-phrasing and word choice (maybe employing some principles of meter for poetry), that it might make a worthy exercise. Is you passage stronger and more eloquent with the less punctuation, or is it harder to read with increased ambiguity?

Quote Post 136

137 Reply by corra

Re: Punctuation

Quite an interesting suggestion, Dill! I found Charles's comment about words as punctuation in Joyce mighty interesting, too. A friend of mine keeps insisting I read The Road -- but I may have to read A Farewell To Arms first. smile

I agree -- this thread makes me look at punctuation with a sharper eye, as our shreds usually do.

Quote Post 137

Re: Punctuation

corra wrote:

...it is un-funny feminist propaganda...

“The history of men's opposition to women's emancipation is more interesting perhaps than the story of that emancipation itself.” ― Virginia Woolf

In-your-face feminism has had nothing to do with the mere right to vote and other citizen rights. It is pure up-and-down gender supremacy that from the bottom is about equal results, rather than equal opportunity, and from the top about more than just more. Who knows or cares to know about Leonard Woolf, by the way? Or Clive Bell, for that matter.

Quote Post 138

Re: Punctuation

corra wrote:

A friend of mine keeps insisting I read The Road ...

It is quite engaging and the writing style is immense, but I found the story deeply depressing (for such is the authors intent, and the quality of his story-telling) it put me in a dark mood for weeks. I was depressed as if I'd suffered a trauma in real life. If ever there was a 'feel-good' book this is a 'feel-bad' one. In some ways I've never recovered from it, for just like a real life experience I visit scenes from it in my mind now and again. When I do I'm always depressed with a prevailing feeling of hopelessness. 

If you are a sensitive soul, it is not a story that comes and goes; this one sticks. When I see the book in its jacket upon my shelf, a black ball of gnawing dread forms in the pit of my stomach.

Farewell to arms, on the other hand, is lifting my by my heart and opening my mind to dreadful and wonderful things. I feel the humanity within it.

(Sorry to the Thread if this post has gone off piste - no hijack intended smile)

Quote Post 139

140 Reply by Charles_F_Bell (edited by Charles_F_Bell 2015-11-01 17:47:44)

Re: Punctuation

vern wrote:
Charles F Bell wrote:

Your and Vern's rudeness and lack of attention to facts on this simple matter of punctuation does not reflect well on the sort of technical discussion, or certainly what ought to be a straightforward exchange, in TNBW forums.

You failed to respond to my response to such allegations in a previous post as noted here:

Charles_F_Bell wrote:

  It's a yes-or-no question not directed to you whose invective has gone past annoying.  Even if Janet may answer in a way that I would not like, she would answer politely sans ad hominem.

The one who states,

Charles F Bell wrote:

A defender of such junk, presumably knowing better, is a cultural nihilist which is worse than being a dumbass hick.

is being polite?

What I call Serious Farce (e.g, my Novella, Remembrances and Reconciliation published in full here is a "novel experiment in Serious Farce"), or just let's say farce, is not supposed to be polite but it is never personal or ever ad-hom or cruel, unless a reader wishes it to be so about him, which is interesting to note and remember.

Point of fact: I never set the tone; you did -1- ,  then MT went off into his paranoid tirade against some boogey men.

If you want to create and retain a serious tone for a discussion on punctuation, you can, or you can maintain that it has all been just a joke, then disengage, like I'd say the original poster has done, and go away.

-1-  Or do you think that this can be put as I never; you did like you "write," and MT think is efficient and elegant.

Quote Post 140

141 Reply by corra

Re: Punctuation

Charles_F_Bell wrote:
corra wrote:

...it is un-funny feminist propaganda...

“The history of men's opposition to women's emancipation is more interesting perhaps than the story of that emancipation itself.” ― Virginia Woolf

In-your-face feminism has had nothing to do with the mere right to vote and other citizen rights. It is pure up-and-down gender supremacy that from the bottom is about equal results, rather than equal opportunity, and from the top about more than just more. Who knows or cares to know about Leonard Woolf, by the way? Or Clive Bell, for that matter.

I offered you a few quotes by Virginia Woolf to show you what an actual feminist agenda looks like.  The exercise which began this thread is about the way different perspectives can alter the way we read -- and punctuate -- a sentence. And how with slight of punctuation, we can transform meaning.

I'm not sure how "who knows or cares to know Leonard Woolf, Clive Bell, or Charles Bell" has any relation to the topic of this thread. You seem to be wandering again. I'll leave you to it.

Quote Post 141

Re: Punctuation

Charles_F_Bell wrote:
Memphis Trace wrote:
Charles_F_Bell wrote:

You have only an interest in engaging a political/social polemic against the "wrong people" and can't be bothered to actually look up in reference the hard and fast rules that apply to the use of the semicolon and give an example how they may have been ignored in prose by known and accomplished authors in the last century.  See: Harbrace College Handbook chapter 14, for example. To say that those rules only apply to language snobs ("archivists and lingweenies", really whatever that is supposed to mean) is to deny any punctuation rules at all. In artistic license I have only come across one sort bending of the semicolon rules, and that is ...; and ... in Wilde's Dorian Gray, and that is really a bending of the rule that a main clause/sentence not begin with a conjunction.

Cite a single example in literature of Phrase;complete sentence. in which the Phrase also contains either a preposition without object or its homophone/homograph as an adverb used modifying nothing.



Any exception is only apparent: "Burns compares his mistress to a 'red, red rose'; Wordsworth his to 'a violet by a mossy stone half hidden from the eye.'"  {C.S. Lewis} Either two clauses of comparison are being marked off by a semicolon or compares is implicit after "Wordsworth."

Your and Vern's rudeness and lack of attention to facts on this simple matter of punctuation does not reflect well on the sort of technical discussion, or certainly what ought to be a straightforward exchange, in TNBW forums.



As to being straightforward and polite, I would say you are the rude one in this thread.


Vern took the trouble to repeat how I enter this

Or: A woman without; her man is nothing.
Your first response to the above sentence: "Ordinarily the two parts of semicolon phrasing can stand alone, and the above fails. The first half ends in a preposition, has no verb, and does not make sense."
My response: "Really? I seldom deal with the ordinary. Take care. Vern"

Pointing out an a error in punctuation in a thread on punctuation without bringing any sort of personal attack, I pointed out the facts. Vern returned with a snarky remark because evidently he feels the whole thing is just a joke, and humor does not require proper punctuation. I pursued the tangent of the thing from the original post as a "funny," when it is un-funny feminist propaganda, elsewhere, and there being no need to add punctuation to the original unless the obvious meaning is to be changed, and those re-punctuated sentences were both improperly punctuated, and I showed how. It is not possible to have an intelligent discussion with you because at no time did you ever not inject your pathetic diatribes against people you don't like  and irrational excuses to employ poor punctuation such as the excuse you used against my example of the appearance of an improper semicolon in the C.S. Lewis example I provided when it is properly punctuated according to the hard rules on the semicolon. You have yet to cite any example of the use of the semicolon in published literature, that is to say: highly vetted writing, between expressions of unequal rank like A woman without; her man is nothing.

How exactly does your C S Lewis meet your carved-in-stone hard rules on the semicolon? "Burns compares his mistress to a 'red, red rose'; Wordsworth his to 'a violet by a mossy stone half hidden from the eye.'"

You imply the verb compares for Wordsworth. In order to do that you call it apparent. In other words you create context out of thin air. Within the context I pulled out of thin air, how come it is not apparent to you that:  A woman is without; her man is nothing?

As to your challenge: What are your carved-in-stone rules? If you tell me these rules and I find a sentence in published literature that does not follow them, will you add it to your archives? What does unequal rank mean to you?

Memphis Trace

Quote Post 142

Re: Punctuation

corra wrote:
Charles_F_Bell wrote:
corra wrote:

“The history of men's opposition to women's emancipation is more interesting perhaps than the story of that emancipation itself.” ― Virginia Woolf

In-your-face feminism has had nothing to do with the mere right to vote and other citizen rights. It is pure up-and-down gender supremacy that from the bottom is about equal results, rather than equal opportunity, and from the top about more than just more. Who knows or cares to know about Leonard Woolf, by the way? Or Clive Bell, for that matter.

I offered you a few quotes by Virginia Woolf to show you what an actual feminist agenda looks like.

VW may have equated féminisme with equal civil rights, or just a moral sense that women are not inferior to men, and the quotes you cite reflect only that, but not the equality of results, and sometimes the undisguised hatred of men by womyn, that post-1960's feminism advocates, in the same vein as pre-1960's negro rights movement, which politically was complete in 1957 in the U.S.A.  with that year's Civil Rights Bill, is not the same as today's thoroughly racist-socialist tone.

Quote Post 143

144 Reply by corra

Re: Punctuation

Dill Carver wrote:
corra wrote:

A friend of mine keeps insisting I read The Road ...

It is quite engaging and the writing style is immense, but I found the story deeply depressing (for such is the authors intent, and the quality of his story-telling) it put me in a dark mood for weeks. I was depressed as if I'd suffered a trauma in real life. If ever there was a 'feel-good' book this is a 'feel-bad' one. In some ways I've never recovered from it, for just like a real life experience I visit scenes from it in my mind now and again. When I do I'm always depressed with a prevailing feeling of hopelessness. 

If you are a sensitive soul, it is not a story that comes and goes; this one sticks. When I see the book in its jacket upon my shelf, a black ball of gnawing dread forms in the pit of my stomach.

Farewell to arms, on the other hand, is lifting my by my heart and opening my mind to dreadful and wonderful things. I feel the humanity within it.

(Sorry to the Thread if this post has gone off piste - no hijack intended smile)

To be honest? My recent read of "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" affected me as you've described above. I was thinking about it for several days after I read it. I couldn't shake this sense of heavy darkness lit by humanity, weighted by regret. Not the first time, or the second time I read it. Then I was reading for "how he wrote." Looking at the mechanics to see the structure. (I've told you this is a flaw of mine.)

By the third read, I was able to forget all that and simply read for the magic he put to the page. That time I was deeply impacted.

The person who recommended The Road to me is an enormous fan of Hemingway. He's read everything Hemingway wrote, I think, and claims The Sun Also Rises as his favorite novel. He is forever after me to read that one. He didn't tell me anything about The Road. He just suggested I read it, and a few people around us groaned. smile He says it's incredible. If it's dark enough to get into the soul that way, it must be something, though I'm a bit hesitant, because I do get mooded by literature.

I think I'll begin with A Farewell To Arms tonight. That passage you cited in the other thread really got to me.

Quote Post 144

Re: Punctuation

Memphis Trace wrote:
Charles_F_Bell wrote:
Memphis Trace wrote:


As to being straightforward and polite, I would say you are the rude one in this thread.


Vern took the trouble to repeat how I enter this

Or: A woman without; her man is nothing.
Your first response to the above sentence: "Ordinarily the two parts of semicolon phrasing can stand alone, and the above fails. The first half ends in a preposition, has no verb, and does not make sense."
My response: "Really? I seldom deal with the ordinary. Take care. Vern"

Pointing out an a error in punctuation in a thread on punctuation without bringing any sort of personal attack, I pointed out the facts. Vern returned with a snarky remark because evidently he feels the whole thing is just a joke, and humor does not require proper punctuation. I pursued the tangent of the thing from the original post as a "funny," when it is un-funny feminist propaganda, elsewhere, and there being no need to add punctuation to the original unless the obvious meaning is to be changed, and those re-punctuated sentences were both improperly punctuated, and I showed how. It is not possible to have an intelligent discussion with you because at no time did you ever not inject your pathetic diatribes against people you don't like  and irrational excuses to employ poor punctuation such as the excuse you used against my example of the appearance of an improper semicolon in the C.S. Lewis example I provided when it is properly punctuated according to the hard rules on the semicolon. You have yet to cite any example of the use of the semicolon in published literature, that is to say: highly vetted writing, between expressions of unequal rank like A woman without; her man is nothing.

How exactly does your C S Lewis meet your carved-in-stone hard rules on the semicolon? "Burns compares his mistress to a 'red, red rose'; Wordsworth his to 'a violet by a mossy stone half hidden from the eye.'"

You imply the verb compares for Wordsworth. In order to do that you call it apparent. In other words you create context out of thin air. Within the context I pulled out of thin air, how come it is not apparent to you that:  A woman is without; her man is nothing?

What is being separated by the semicolon are the phrases red, red, rose and a violet... for the very same comparison by two different authors, and, yes, that is pulling context from the author, for he has the operative verb "compare" right there at the head of the sentence, but not creating context from nowhere but a reader's imagination, as you'd have us do for context-setting . In the junk authored by Vern, there is no verb on which to hook any comparison, or whatever. It is  the same as The number two; Julian likes his pie.

As to your challenge: What are your carved-in-stone rules?

-  already cited and quoted -

Quote Post 145

146 Reply by Dill Carver (edited by Dill Carver 2015-11-01 18:23:03)

Re: Punctuation

corra wrote:

If it's dark enough to get into the soul that way, it must be something, though I'm a bit hesitant, because I do get mooded by literature.

I think I'll begin with A Farewell To Arms tonight. That passage you cited in the other thread really got to me.

If I were to describe 'Farewell to arms' and 'the road' in a single sentence each, I'd say that 'Love shines through.' of one where 'Desperation shines through' in the other. I found both of them very moving.

Quote Post 146

Re: Punctuation

For fun and interest; anyone want to have a stab at punctuating this Cormac McCarthy passage?


he walked out in the gray light and stood and he saw for a brief moment the absolute truth of the world the cold relentless circling of the intestate earth darkness implacable the blind dogs of the sun in their running the crushing black vacuum of the universe and somewhere two hunted animals trembling like ground-foxes in their cover borrowed time and borrowed world and borrowed eyes with which to sorrow it

Quote Post 147

Re: Punctuation

quote=corra]

...it is un-funny feminist propaganda...


Charles_F_Bell wrote:

....Who knows or cares to know about Leonard Woolf, by the way? Or Clive Bell, for that matter.

Wasn't it Leonard Woolf who when asked, 'How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb? replied, "None, feminists can't change anything."

...and that's why his wife had, "change this you bastard" inscribed upon his headstone?

Quote Post 148

Re: Punctuation

Charles_F_Bell wrote:
Memphis Trace wrote:
Charles_F_Bell wrote:

Vern took the trouble to repeat how I enter this



Pointing out an a error in punctuation in a thread on punctuation without bringing any sort of personal attack, I pointed out the facts. Vern returned with a snarky remark because evidently he feels the whole thing is just a joke, and humor does not require proper punctuation. I pursued the tangent of the thing from the original post as a "funny," when it is un-funny feminist propaganda, elsewhere, and there being no need to add punctuation to the original unless the obvious meaning is to be changed, and those re-punctuated sentences were both improperly punctuated, and I showed how. It is not possible to have an intelligent discussion with you because at no time did you ever not inject your pathetic diatribes against people you don't like  and irrational excuses to employ poor punctuation such as the excuse you used against my example of the appearance of an improper semicolon in the C.S. Lewis example I provided when it is properly punctuated according to the hard rules on the semicolon. You have yet to cite any example of the use of the semicolon in published literature, that is to say: highly vetted writing, between expressions of unequal rank like A woman without; her man is nothing.

How exactly does your C S Lewis meet your carved-in-stone hard rules on the semicolon? "Burns compares his mistress to a 'red, red rose'; Wordsworth his to 'a violet by a mossy stone half hidden from the eye.'"

You imply the verb compares for Wordsworth. In order to do that you call it apparent. In other words you create context out of thin air. Within the context I pulled out of thin air, how come it is not apparent to you that:  A woman is without; her man is nothing?

What is being separated by the semicolon are the phrases red, red, rose and a violet... for the very same comparison by two different authors, and, yes, that is pulling context from the author, for he has the operative verb "compare" right there at the head of the sentence, but not creating context from nowhere but a reader's imagination, as you'd have us do for context-setting . In the junk authored by Vern, there is no verb on which to hook any comparison, or whatever. It is  the same as The number two; Julian likes his pie.

As to your challenge: What are your carved-in-stone rules?

-  already cited and quoted -

Please cite and quote them again. Are there dueling rules for use of semicolons?

I repeat for your convenience that my entry into this discussion was with this context supplied:
Within the context I'm thinking, it means: Minnie went somewhere with her girlfriends for a night out; Riley stayed home and can't even find the fixins for a sammich.

Doses my supplied context render the sentence efficient and elegant, and the punctuation correct; meeting all your carved-in-stone rules?

If it does not, tell me how the verb is is not understood as easily as your verb compares?

Memphis Trace

Quote Post 149

150 Reply by corra

Re: Punctuation

Dill Carver wrote:

quote=corra]

...it is un-funny feminist propaganda...


Charles_F_Bell wrote:

....Who knows or cares to know about Leonard Woolf, by the way? Or Clive Bell, for that matter.

Wasn't it Leonard Woolf who when asked, 'How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb? replied, "None, feminists can't change anything."

...and that's why his wife had, "change this you bastard" inscribed upon his headstone?

lol x 10,000!

Quote Post 150