151 Reply by corra (edited by corra 2015-11-01 22:04:21)

Re: Punctuation

Charles_F_Bell wrote:

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.

I'm not sure how you can possibly suggest that the Civil Rights Movement politically ended in 1957? I find such a remark sickening. Google Jim Crow.

I did enormous research a few months ago on the struggle for the ERA in Georgia in the 1970s and early 1980s, and I can tell you that it was a sight more complicated than "we hate men." I read of a woman in Georgia who proposed in the state Senate that a law which insisted that no rape charge go through without a witness be amended: after all, a charge of theft could go through without a witness. She was the only woman there, and the reaction among the men? Was laughter, and the general consensus that any woman who gets raped asked for it. She was disgusted and certainly did role up her sleeves to fight. Then she went home to the husband who loved and respected her. It wasn't men she abhorred, you see: it was stupidity.

(By the way, I was forced to research the archives of primary source material within our university's library to find this information. It naturally didn't make it into any of the institutional history books. Which is actually what Virginia Woolf was writing about. You appear to be enormously uneducated on this topic.)

You've heard of The Harlem Renaissance. Not actually a united front. Within the movement were those who wanted to present black Americans before the public without the stereotypes which had been shackled around black American necks since before the American Civil War. Others wanted to exercise their artistic freedom and write of black characters with raw honesty. (See Richard Wright.) Then there were the white benefactors like Charlotte Osgood Mason, who paid writers like Langston Hughes and Zora Neale Hurston to work according to her agenda.

A civil war existed within the movement. The same is true of feminism.    

In the 1960s, white women who had the time and the money ("give a woman 500 pounds and a room of her own") took on the feminist movement in America. One of their central goals was to get women out of the house and working. They were strongly inspired by the book The Feminine Mystique: what is this feeling of deadness in middle class white women in America? why aren't we happy? perhaps because we have no meaning in our lives, and simply exist to wash the dishes. we should get jobs. (Was the basic trajectory.)

Women who had to work to keep body and soul alive didn't see how winning the right to work was such a victory. They'd been working all along. Women of color and women who had immigrated to America? Were left behind.  They wanted help supporting their children, help against abusive husbands, help for mothers who were deserted, help in the face of rape, help existing as marginalized figures three times oppressed in America: for their gender, for their color, and for their lower "class" existence.

Many of the women at the forefront of  the movement in the 1960s (generally middle class white women with a nuclear family) felt that winning the right to work alongside men was the end of the feminist movement. Objections from marginalized groups within the movement were ignored. Some women starting protesting loudly that men were the enemy and female power was EVERYTHING. These people often caught the attention of the media, and still do today. Some women scorned other women who chose to marry and stay at home as RUINERS OF feminism. They insisted upon a radical stance. Others strongly felt (and feel) that feminism should defend the right to choose, and worked to defend women who went to college to get an M.R.S., married, spent twenty years at home with no work history that was valued by the public (for they certainly were working all along), and then found themselves deserted by husbands who preferred a younger wife. Women in this position were left with children to feed, no work history, and no hope. Feminists both fought in defense of them and aggressively attacked them, because feminists (shockingly enough) come with different personalities and agendas.

I was chatting with my mother recently (pardon me, I may begin to babble here) about the pay inequality situation in America. She mentioned that women currently make 78 cents on the dollar compared to men, which is a three cent increase from the pay difference when she was a secretary before she married my dad. There was a long moment of silence, and then we both burst out laughing. Part of feminism today is about that. The moments when mothers and daughters glance at one another and realize that in the entire life which has passed between them, we have achieved three cents.

Much of the movement today is generated within Women's Studies classes in universities (where the average college student is illiterate.) The current discussion centers on how to get the movement out of the classroom and back into the media. The radical stuff you see in the media doesn't represent the movement as a whole: it represents personalities within the movement who scream loudly enough the media notices. Meanwhile, you don't hear as much about the quiet souls who haven't a drop of aggression in them, but who want to work for peace. On behalf of the mothers who fought before them, on behalf of a history entirely ignored by the media. Much of that struggle centers today on an awareness of the reality of intersectionality, and seeks to gain equality for everyone -- male or female, American or Saudi Arabian, gay or straight, black or white. It's a movement in defense of humanity.

During the struggle for the vote in America, many women picketed outside the White House and created all sorts of havoc to force the President's hand: give us the vote, sir, or you are fighting for democracy overseas and denying it to half the population here at home. That certainly offended a few staunch gentlemen (and ladies) who had no idea why the women were picketing but sure as  shoot knew they were doing something which hadn't always been done.

The picketing made it into the media and was certainly an in-your-face tactic. Thank goodness.

I say all of the above in response to your remark "and sometimes the undisguised hatred of men by womyn, that post-1960's feminism advocates." You have no idea what post-1960s feminism advocates. You're just a fussy-breeches with a bee in his bonnet, who makes the same disgusting jokes that those men in the courtroom in Georgia did forty years ago ("ride-side-up"). We have advanced three cents, apparently, but you, sir, haven't advanced at all. (That's the college student in me talking, not the feminist. You'll have to forgive me. I'm ridiculously ignorant, as well as illiterate.)

PS: If you Google the woman you imply needs a ride, you'll find that she is a soul who suffers from depression, and that she imprinted that tattoo on her leg to artistically capture the way the world sees her ("I'm fine") and the way, when she glances down at the same tattoo, she sees herself ("Save me.") Shame on you. For your filthy mind, for your filthy remark, and for your misogynistic lack of sensitivity. Poor you. So a few women are angry. Is it any wonder?

That, sir, is the feminist speaking.

Quote Post 151

152 Reply by Charles_F_Bell (edited by Charles_F_Bell 2015-11-02 00:37:51)

Re: Punctuation

corra wrote:
Charles_F_Bell wrote:

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.

I'm not sure how you can possibly suggest that the Civil Rights Movement politically ended in 1957?

I said all there is to say on the subject of "civil rights" for blacks and women after 1957 in the U.S. when legally enforceable segregation had ended and voting rights assured. What now is passed off as "civil rights" is a socialist movement of legally enforceable takings by some from others through special rights according to class.  If VW today might also be a feminist today is speculation, and nothing I know of her and by what you quoted indicates that. That it really was a "woman" who won for the U.S in 1976 the men's Olympic decathalon I suspect would be beyond her ken.

P.S.: I commented (again) on why I did not think the premise behind the original post was funny, in addition to being wrong on punctuation, in contrast to what Vern thought. Any more exchanges of a political nature will (again) be deleted like the last time, I suspect. I think it is important to discuss how punctuation can change meaning even if done correctly, but you people cannot leave it at that.

Quote Post 152

153 Reply by Charles_F_Bell (edited by Charles_F_Bell 2015-11-02 01:07:22)

Re: Punctuation

Memphis Trace wrote:

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?

Again, I already supplied my argument for "context."  Universally, nothing can be understood by any sentient creature without context. It is the author's duty to set the context, or at least provide the means for the reader to be directed to the context, of the words he puts to paper. Even modernist, absurdist authors understand, if not acknowledge, that.

It is ridiculous anyone should attempt to pontificate about the use and abuse of the semicolon without having remembered the basics of established rules or have handy any third-party reference.

Adverbs cannot modify states of being -2-, and I deny that a woman without can be implicitly directed into a state of being in a location such as she was outside, rather only of what she may be outside -- of the building, and such an example is again using the meaning (whether of without or outside (of) as a preposition, and the whole phrase, preposition plus object, is then an adverbial phrase indicating a state of being itself. If the author wishes to express an adverbial phrasing to modify a form of "to be" with no to-be verb and no object for the preposition, he provides no context for the reader and had better ask the reader to make up his own story.

-2- P.S., for example She moves fast. cannot be expressed She is fast in her car. and rather than implying she is slutty (fast as an adjective), her state of being is expressed adverbially by means of a propositional phrase fast with her car but not very well because the fast can again be an adjective.

Quote Post 153

Re: Punctuation

corra wrote:

PS: If you Google the woman you imply needs a ride, you'll find that she is a soul who suffers from depression, and that she imprinted that tattoo on her leg to artistically capture the way the world sees her ("I'm fine") and the way, when she glances down at the same tattoo, she sees herself ("Save me.") Shame on you. For your filthy mind, for your filthy remark, and for your misogynistic lack of sensitivity. Poor you. So a few women are angry. Is it any wonder?

That, sir, is the feminist speaking.

In fairness, the sarcasm I employed is as "funny" as is the original post is "funny", but you never hear any such concession from "feminists" who are really just female sexists or lesbians.

Quote Post 154

155 Reply by vern (edited by vern 2015-11-02 15:10:35)

Re: Punctuation

Charles F Bell wrote:

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.

Yes, it did all start as a humorous response to the initial gender specific punctuation link provided. But then you know that as it has been covered several times within this thread.

As pointed out previously, I did disengage after our initial encounter as noted here among other times:

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.

And your “politeness” which you find so reprehensible comes through again:

Charles F Bell wrote:

There is no context to A woman without written as a complete sentence which the use of semicolon or full stop requires except that the writer is incompetent. A writer presenting a single word without punctuation, for example, may deliberately create his "work" with no context to be had can call it "artistic," but it is really just junk. A defender of such junk, presumably knowing better, is a cultural nihilist which is worse than being a dumbass hick.

And you "politely" bring it up again:

Charles F Bell wrote:

In the junk authored by Vern,

And you still don’t acknowledge that you admit there are no concrete rules by your use of “ordinarily” in our first exchange. So, I invite you again to admit you deliberately stoke the fire by claiming the rules to be set in concrete or you are simply treating it like the humorous intent of the initial post. Or you can take your own advice and disengage from trying to perpetuate your role as the Punctuation God.

From Wikipedia, we learn:

***“The first printed semicolon, was the work of the Italian printer Aldus Manutius the Elder in 1494.[3] Manutius established the practice of using the semicolon to separate words of opposed meaning and to allow a rapid change in direction in connecting interdependent statements.[4] Ben Jonson was the first notable English writer to use the semicolon systematically. The modern uses of the semicolon relate either to the listing of items or to the linking of related clauses.”***

So we learn at least two things from this: You masquerade as a false Punctuation God as you didn’t create the semicolon and retain omnipotent control; and unlike your position, its use has changed over the years so is not set in concrete any more than any other punctuation or grammatical rule. From your staunch stand on the subject at hand, I dare say it is reasonable that you consider all other such standard rules set in concrete also. I mean how could one standard rule be set in concrete and not the others?

To summarize, you accept no concessions that the thread and my take were initially humorous, you can’t admit you qualified your so-called concrete rules initially with “ordinarily”, you call others impolite while instigating attacks on their opinions, and you wish me to disengage so you don’t have to put up with these reminders. Sound about right?

I’ve accepted and proclaimed early on I’m no expert on “standard punctuation” and never pretended to be; my initial response was and continues to be in a creative humorous vein –

vern wrote:

I seldom deal with the ordinary.

-- where your “concrete” rules do not apply. When you can accept that and take your own advice to disengage your obstinate disparaging remarks, then you will hear the last from me on this subject. Until then I will strive to make room on my schedule. Take care. Vern

PS: Edited to emphasize "concrete."

Quote Post 155

156 Reply by Memphis Trace (edited by Memphis Trace 2015-11-02 04:50:08)

Re: Punctuation

Charles_F_Bell wrote:
Memphis Trace wrote:

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?

Again, I already supplied my argument for "context."  Universally, nothing can be understood by any sentient creature without context. It is the author's duty to set the context, or at least provide the means for the reader to be directed to the context, of the words he puts to paper. Even modernist, absurdist authors understand, if not acknowledge, that.

(deleted)

Adverbs cannot modify states of being -2-, and I deny that a woman without can be implicitly directed into a state of being in a location such as she was outside, rather only of what she may be outside -- of the building, and such an example is again using the meaning (whether of without or outside (of) as a preposition, and the whole phrase, preposition plus object, is then an adverbial phrase indicating a state of being itself. If the author wishes to express an adverbial phrasing to modify a form of "to be" with no to-be verb and no object for the preposition, he provides no context for the reader and had better ask the reader to make up his own story.

(deleted)

In the context I 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.]]] to support Vern's power punctuation, without would be a noun meaning somewhere outside Riley's sammich-making purview
See definition 10 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/without?s=t
[[[noun
10.
the outside of a place, region, area, room, etc.]]].

In my haste to recognize the context within which Vern supplied the power punctuation, I'm afraid I misled you by calling without an adverb. I preceded the context with [[[If without is an adverb meaning outside, then using the semicolon is power punctuation and the sentence is wonderfully efficient.]]] I apologize for leading you down a wrong, long road by suggesting that my context used without as an adverb.

Now that we recognize that I supplied context in which without was used as a noun meaning in a place outside Riley's sammich-making purview, would you say that the sentence is properly punctuated?

Memphis Trace

Quote Post 156

157 Reply by vern

Re: Punctuation

Charles F Bell wrote:

In fairness, the sarcasm I employed is as "funny" as is the original post is "funny", but you never hear any such concession from "feminists" who are really just female sexists or lesbians.

I must say, you are on a roll; problem is it's headed downhill toward a cliff dropping into never-never land. It may be time to deploy a parachute. Take care. Vern

Quote Post 157

158 Reply by Dill Carver (edited by Dill Carver 2015-11-02 10:30:30)

Re: Punctuation

Charles F Bell wrote:

In fairness, the sarcasm I employed is as "funny" as is the original post is "funny", but you never hear any such concession from "feminists" who are really just female sexists or lesbians.

The Taliban will be discharging their AK-47's into the air in support of your views. For that I commend you. The more ammunition they expend harmlessly, the better IMO.

Feminists?

I am born of one, married another and sired two more.

Whilst your statement provides me with a niggling inclination that you might be right, I shall put it to them today for the authoritative view.

Quote Post 158

Re: Punctuation

vern wrote:

As pointed out previously, I did disengage after our initial encounter as noted here among other times:

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,

Ordinarily does not have to mean without exceptions; in fact, it rarely means that. It means: it can have other uses, such as separating lists.

vern wrote:

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.

So far, I had never referred to you at all.  I was sticking to the subject. Your punctuation is always wrong for any purpose.

vern wrote:

And your “politeness” which you find so reprehensible comes through again:

Charles F Bell wrote:

There is no context to A woman without written as a complete sentence which the use of semicolon or full stop requires except that the writer is incompetent. A writer presenting a single word without punctuation, for example, may deliberately create his "work" with no context to be had can call it "artistic," but it is really just junk. A defender of such junk, presumably knowing better, is a cultural nihilist which is worse than being a dumbass hick.

Again, no reference to you, or anyone at all.

vern wrote:

And you "politely" bring it up again:

Charles F Bell wrote:

In the junk authored by Vern,

vern wrote:

And you still don’t acknowledge that you admit there are no concrete rules by your use of “ordinarily”

 

I was not addressing you, nor did I think you were even paying attention. That sentence was junk.

ordinarily = commonly = usual use (of the three possible] of the semicolon, and your use is not one of them and is always wrong

vern wrote:

in our first exchange.

You offered nothing of any substance in reply.

vern wrote:

So, I invite you again to admit you deliberately stoke the fire by claiming the rules to be set in concrete

The punctuation rules for the semicolon are rules are set in concrete.

Quote Post 159

160 Reply by Charles_F_Bell (edited by Charles_F_Bell 2015-11-02 23:58:34)

Re: Punctuation

Dill Carver wrote:
Charles F Bell wrote:

In fairness, the sarcasm I employed is as "funny" as is the original post is "funny", but you never hear any such concession from "feminists" who are really just female sexists or lesbians.

The Taliban will be discharging their AK-47's into the air in support of your views. For that I commend you. The more ammunition they expend harmlessly, the better IMO.

Feminists?

I am born of one, married another and sired two more.

Whilst your statement provides me with a niggling inclination that you might be right, I shall put it to them today for the authoritative view.

Hey, ask them what "feminists" want today that is not equal results through legal coercion? The view that the U.S. (I won't speak for E.U. nations, though I suspect it applies) has not had any need for "feminism" after 1957 was shared by many feminists at the time. The movement shifted to gender supremacists pleas -- that somehow women deserved more than they had and have had since 1957.

Quote Post 160

161 Reply by vern

Re: Punctuation

Charles_F_Bell wrote:
vern wrote:

As pointed out previously, I did disengage after our initial encounter as noted here among other times:

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,

Ordinarily does not have to mean without exceptions; in fact, it rarely means that. It means: it can have other uses, such as separating lists.

vern wrote:

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.

So far, I had never referred to you at all.  I was sticking to the subject. Your punctuation is always wrong for any purpose.

vern wrote:

And your “politeness” which you find so reprehensible comes through again:

Charles F Bell wrote:

There is no context to A woman without written as a complete sentence which the use of semicolon or full stop requires except that the writer is incompetent. A writer presenting a single word without punctuation, for example, may deliberately create his "work" with no context to be had can call it "artistic," but it is really just junk. A defender of such junk, presumably knowing better, is a cultural nihilist which is worse than being a dumbass hick.

Again, no reference to you, or anyone at all.

vern wrote:

And you "politely" bring it up again:

Charles F Bell wrote:

In the junk authored by Vern,

vern wrote:

And you still don’t acknowledge that you admit there are no concrete rules by your use of “ordinarily”

 

I was not addressing you, nor did I think you were even paying attention. That sentence was junk.

ordinarily = commonly = usual use (of the three possible] of the semicolon, and your use is not one of them and is always wrong

vern wrote:

in our first exchange.

You offered nothing of any substance in reply.

vern wrote:

So, I invite you again to admit you deliberately stoke the fire by claiming the rules to be set in concrete

The punctuation rules for the semicolon are rules are set in concrete.

LOL You now add selective reading to your "politeness" and obstinance and other fine qualities.  Duh, you list me by name in at least one statement above and elsewhere and refer directly to my writing in others. From this point on, anything you say on the subject at hand will be considered as a joke. Thanks for the past and future laughs. You are now officially the funniest stump I've ever talked to. LOL Take care. Vern

Quote Post 161

Re: Punctuation

vern wrote:
Charles_F_Bell wrote:
vern wrote:

As pointed out previously, I did disengage after our initial encounter as noted here among other times:

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,

Ordinarily does not have to mean without exceptions; in fact, it rarely means that. It means: it can have other uses, such as separating lists.

vern wrote:

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.

So far, I had never referred to you at all.  I was sticking to the subject. Your punctuation is always wrong for any purpose.

vern wrote:

And your “politeness” which you find so reprehensible comes through again:

Again, no reference to you, or anyone at all.

vern wrote:

And you "politely" bring it up again:

vern wrote:

And you still don’t acknowledge that you admit there are no concrete rules by your use of “ordinarily”

 

I was not addressing you, nor did I think you were even paying attention. That sentence was junk.

ordinarily = commonly = usual use (of the three possible] of the semicolon, and your use is not one of them and is always wrong

vern wrote:

in our first exchange.

You offered nothing of any substance in reply.

vern wrote:

So, I invite you again to admit you deliberately stoke the fire by claiming the rules to be set in concrete

The punctuation rules for the semicolon are rules are set in concrete.

LOL You now add selective reading to your "politeness" and obstinance and other fine qualities.  Duh, you list me by name in at least one statement above and elsewhere and refer directly to my writing in others. From this point on, anything you say on the subject at hand will be considered as a joke. Thanks for the past and future laughs. You are now officially the funniest stump I've ever talked to. LOL Take care. Vern

Sure, I "listed" your name in connection to a sentence written by you that is junk. I have more than once, even from friendly reviewers, been told that what I have authored won't sell. What's the difference? Absolutely, your punctuation-doesn't-matter junk won't sell. You can't have it both ways. Either you take the entire subject as a joke and walk away from it, or you engage with someone who does not think it is joke (in reality) with more than shallow or completely absent reasoning and ad-hom invective while disingenuously claiming that any calling of your poorly punctuated junk for what it is in any way a personal attack.

Quote Post 162

163 Reply by corra

Re: Punctuation

Dill Carver wrote:

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

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 163

Re: Punctuation

corra wrote:
Charles_F_Bell wrote:

Going down the slippery slope to youre from you're goes on down to ur with no trace of proper English and the beginnings of an argument of why have proper English anyway.

There is no such thing as "proper English." There is standard written English, there is stuffy academic English, there is "no one can even focus on what you're saying because your placement of prepositions is so distracting" English, & there are a great many spoken variants upon standard written English which communicate quite beautifully to their listeners. All of which can be captured artistically with a clever finagling of letters and punctuation, and all of which are "proper."

You mention the rule about not ending a sentence with a preposition somewhere above. That, sir, is archaic. Rules change as language matures. In standard written English? Yes, the preposition thing is still discouraged in academic circles -- but in many dialects within spoken English, to tuck the preposition deep within the sentence sounds silly and pompous. I think it's on its way out of standard written English, too.


I have a comment about "proper English". Of course, labelling the language as "proper" immediately creates the image of the "improper English", or the one you must avoid because it's not correct. While this is clear in some cases ("I didn't come" vs "I didn't came") it is not so clear in some others because of spoken variants. However, I would adventure saying that the proper English is the one everybody understands. Among so many local variations (from Brit to American, to Australian, not to mention  all the variations on the islands), one of the objectives of having grammar rules is to make sure everybody understands the language. Without them, it would be impossible to understand ourselves.

Punctuation obeys the same purpose. Commas, for example. When you speak, you make pauses that emphasise your message. These pauses are graphically represented by commas in the written language. Long ago, somebody issued rules about commas. In the end, these rules are the way in which the spoken language inflections are translated to written language, which otherwise would be cold and convey every message the wrong way ("Let's eat grandma" vs "Let's eat, grandma").

From my standpoint, proper English exists. It's the written language following a set of common sense rules that allow all of us understand it.

Kiss

Gacela

Quote Post 164

165 Reply by corra

Re: Punctuation

I was objecting specifically to the word "proper." What is "proper" -- civilized? superior? Says who?

From my standpoint, proper English exists. It's the written language following a set of common sense rules that allow all of us understand it.

That's actually called "standard written English," though. smile And it changes A LOT. Style books (which themselves vary) have to keep updating their books to keep to date on conventions.

One can be linguistically astute and ignore the conventions of standard written English:

"Nay, nay, he's noan at Gimmerton," said Joseph. "Aw's niver wonder bud he's at t' bothom uf a bog-hoile. This visitation worn't for nowt, and Aw wod hev ye tuh look aht, Miss — yah muh be t' next. Thank Hivin for all ! All warks togither for gooid tuh them as is chozzen, and piked aht froo' th' rubbidge ! Yah knaw whet t' Scripture ses." - Wuthering Heights

“What's the use you learning to do right when it's troublesome to do right and ain't no trouble to do wrong, and the wages is just the same?” - Huck Finn

If I approached either of these two characters with-whiching, would they be "improper," or would I? Language is elastic.

Quote Post 165

166 Reply by Dill Carver (edited by Dill Carver 2015-11-05 01:41:41)

Re: Punctuation

("Let's eat grandma" vs "Let's eat, grandma").

As a standalone phrase this looks conclusive, but within the context of a full conversation or dialogue the erroneous (or completely and utterly out of context) meaning is hardly likely to be mistaken for the inherent meaning.

Can you read this?

Have you read that? 

Did you mix those meanings up? Do we need to write...

Can you reed this?

Have you red that? 

How about;

The wind filled the sail and the boat lurched forward.

He bent to wind the clock.

or

The wind blew the leaves from the trees.

He has to wind the clock before he leaves for work..

I'd be surprised if anyone gathered the wrong meanings from these  sentences. Context is key. If the context is clear then punctuation is more or less redundant because your brain takes over.

Commas are important, I'm just saying that understanding "Let's eat, grandma" depends more upon the context than the punctuation.

Quote Post 166

167 Reply by corra (edited by corra 2015-11-04 21:04:08)

Re: Punctuation

Really great point. It's like those exercises they have online that fill in numbers and such for letters within words, and the brain just fills in what's missing. Poorly described smile but perhaps people know what I'm talking about.

“Sometimes I could put myself to sleep saying that over and over until after the honeysuckle got all mixed up in it the whole thing came to symbolize night and unrest I seemed to be lying neither asleep nor awake looking down a long corridor of grey halflight where all stable things had become shadowy paradoxical all I had done shadows all I had felt suffered taking visible form antic and perverse mocking without relevance inherent themselves with the denial of the significance they should have affirmed thinking I was I was not who was not was not who.”

- Faulkner (The Sound & the Fury)

I feel like the brain supplies missing punctuation here? At least in the first few sentences. At the start of the passage, the cadence is intact, so one can naturally place punctuation without seeing it. By the end, the cadence is so frayed (I) had to reread the final words to make sense of them. Faulkner sets up a pattern with the cadence, allowing us to fill in the missing punctuation. Then he changes the rhythm. The effect is disorientation and chaos.

The form matches the scene. smile An attempt?

“Sometimes I could put myself to sleep saying that over and over, until after the honeysuckle got all mixed up in it. The whole thing came to symbolize night and unrest. I seemed to be lying neither asleep nor awake, looking down a long corridor of grey half-light where all stable things had become shadowy, paradoxical. All I had done? Shadows. All I had felt suffered, taking visible form: antic and perverse, mocking, without relevance, inherent themselves with the denial of the significance they should have affirmed, thinking, 'I was. I was not. Who was? Not was. Not who.'”

Quote Post 167

Re: Punctuation

Thought this thread was closed due to the uncivilized turn it took.

Quote Post 168

169 Reply by vern

Re: Punctuation

Charles_F_Bell wrote:
vern wrote:
Charles_F_Bell wrote:

Ordinarily does not have to mean without exceptions; in fact, it rarely means that. It means: it can have other uses, such as separating lists.



So far, I had never referred to you at all.  I was sticking to the subject. Your punctuation is always wrong for any purpose.



Again, no reference to you, or anyone at all.



 

I was not addressing you, nor did I think you were even paying attention. That sentence was junk.

ordinarily = commonly = usual use (of the three possible] of the semicolon, and your use is not one of them and is always wrong



You offered nothing of any substance in reply.



The punctuation rules for the semicolon are rules are set in concrete.

LOL You now add selective reading to your "politeness" and obstinance and other fine qualities.  Duh, you list me by name in at least one statement above and elsewhere and refer directly to my writing in others. From this point on, anything you say on the subject at hand will be considered as a joke. Thanks for the past and future laughs. You are now officially the funniest stump I've ever talked to. LOL Take care. Vern

Sure, I "listed" your name in connection to a sentence written by you that is junk. I have more than once, even from friendly reviewers, been told that what I have authored won't sell. What's the difference? Absolutely, your punctuation-doesn't-matter junk won't sell. You can't have it both ways. Either you take the entire subject as a joke and walk away from it, or you engage with someone who does not think it is joke (in reality) with more than shallow or completely absent reasoning and ad-hom invective while disingenuously claiming that any calling of your poorly punctuated junk for what it is in any way a personal attack.

LOL Ahh, good one. ROTFLMAO. Take care. Vern

Quote Post 169

170 Reply by vern

Re: Punctuation

Janet Taylor-Perry wrote:

Thought this thread was closed due to the uncivilized turn it took.

Well, it was closed. Who knows what is going on? The Shadow knows. Take care. Vern

Quote Post 170

171 Reply by vern

Re: Punctuation

So, let me throw something else into the mix here. Some writing has been called junk and supposedly "junk" can't possibly sell. My contention is that although the junk referenced by someone earlier was never intended to sell or even be read by anyone other than those participating in this thread, there are some books which some folks would consider "junk" which have done very well. My choice for a best seller piece of junk would be A Million Little Pieces by James Frey.

Admittedly my choice for junk received a tremendous boost from Oprah Winfrey who obviously didn't consider it junk and thus recommended it on her show sending sales through the roof. Of course, she later called out the author for fabricating the story which was supposedly a memoir, but what difference does that make as far as the writing being "junk" or not. It seems to me that the saying, "One person's junk is another's treasure" can surely apply to books as well as garage sale items, etc.

It's been a while since I read it and only finished it because I figured it had to get better at some point due to all the hype it received. Well, no, it didn't in my opinion. I recall it being rather unorthodox in the way it was presented also with weird capitalization, para breaks, and even one single word on a page, four letter word beginning with F and ending in K with a U and C in the middle (I could be remembering wrong of course). None of the strange style bothered me (just the story overall imo) but it does make me wonder about the "junk" status of anything being merely in the eye of the beholder. Just curious about other opinions on this particular book or one which may have had the same "junk" status for you, yet did quite well in the market. Take care. Vern

Quote Post 171

172 Reply by Dill Carver (edited by Dill Carver 2015-11-05 01:19:23)

Re: Punctuation

vern wrote:

...it does make me wonder about the "junk" status of anything being merely in the eye of the beholder. Just curious about other opinions on this particular book or one which may have had the same "junk" status for you, yet did quite well in the market. Take care. Vern

Hi Vern

we were discussing similar in an adjacent group forum/thread;

In this case it is the current bestseller, (and now a major movie) ‘The Martian’

You can read the opening in the Amazon ‘Look Inside’ feature.

http://www.amazon.com/Martian-Andy-Weir … he+martian

If you read the opening three or four pages and perform a tNBW-type review upon it, I think you’ll find the writing could be considered poor or defective within several aspects.

Yet there it is; passed the agents, editors and publishers....

It’s most certainly not for me, yet people love it. It has gone to the top of the charts and the movie is massive too.

There must be a good story in there under the ‘junk’ prose.

Quote Post 172

Re: Punctuation

Janet Taylor-Perry wrote:

Thought this thread was closed due to the uncivilized turn it took.

If you are using the Chrome browser in Windows 10 you can hold down the [Ctrl]+[Alt] keys and triple tap on the '$' key then the '#' key whilst the mouse pointer has focus upon the 'Post Reply' text; then a 'Closed' thread is reopened.

Quote Post 173

174 Reply by Dill Carver (edited by Dill Carver 2015-11-05 01:37:32)

Re: Punctuation

corra wrote:

Really great point. It's like those exercises they have online that fill in numbers and such for letters within words, and the brain just fills in what's missing. Poorly described smile but perhaps people know what I'm talking about.

“Sometimes I could put myself to sleep saying that over and over until after the honeysuckle got all mixed up in it the whole thing came to symbolize night and unrest I seemed to be lying neither asleep nor awake looking down a long corridor of grey halflight where all stable things had become shadowy paradoxical all I had done shadows all I had felt suffered taking visible form antic and perverse mocking without relevance inherent themselves with the denial of the significance they should have affirmed thinking I was I was not who was not was not who.”

- Faulkner (The Sound & the Fury)

I feel like the brain supplies missing punctuation here? At least in the first few sentences. At the start of the passage, the cadence is intact, so one can naturally place punctuation without seeing it. By the end, the cadence is so frayed (I) had to reread the final words to make sense of them. Faulkner sets up a pattern with the cadence, allowing us to fill in the missing punctuation. Then he changes the rhythm. The effect is disorientation and chaos.

The form matches the scene. smile An attempt?

“Sometimes 


I could put myself to sleep saying that over and over

until after the honeysuckle

got all mixed up in it

the whole thing came to symbolize night

and unrest

I seemed to be lying neither asleep nor awake

looking down a long corridor of grey halflight

where all stable things had become shadowy

paradoxical

all I had done

shadows all

I had felt

suffered

taking visible form

antic and perverse mocking without relevance

inherent themselves

with the denial of the significance they should have affirmed

thinking I was

I was

not who was not was not

who.”
-
Faulkner (The Sound & the Fury)

Quote Post 174

175 Reply by vern

Re: Punctuation

Dill Carver wrote:
vern wrote:

...it does make me wonder about the "junk" status of anything being merely in the eye of the beholder. Just curious about other opinions on this particular book or one which may have had the same "junk" status for you, yet did quite well in the market. Take care. Vern

Hi Vern

we were discussing similar in an adjacent group forum/thread;

In this case it is the current bestseller, (and now a major movie) ‘The Martian’

You can read the opening in the Amazon ‘Look Inside’ feature.

http://www.amazon.com/Martian-Andy-Weir … he+martian

If you read the opening three or four pages and perform a tNBW-type review upon it, I think you’ll find the writing could be considered poor or defective within several aspects.

Yet there it is; passed the agents, editors and publishers....

It’s most certainly not for me, yet people love it. It has gone to the top of the charts and the movie is massive too.

There must be a good story in there under the ‘junk’ prose.

Hello, Dill, I checked it out and yeah, it would probably get quite a few comments and questions on site. The storyline does sound intriguing, it's just the "monologue" and nothing happening detail starting out. I've seen some ads for the movie which might be better than crawling through the book in this case. I might have to check it out and see. Thanks for pointing it out. Take care. Vern

Quote Post 175