Search options (Page 47 of 58)

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:

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

And you "politely" bring it up again:

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 –

-- 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."

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. But as noted in previous posts, I now accept that it just your way of showing humor. And it really is funny when you think about it. Take care. Vern

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, "A defender of such junk, presumably knowing better, is a cultural nihilist which is worse than being a dumbass hick" is being polite? Hmm...that's you if you didn't recognize it. Oh, never mind, I get it now. You're joking; you finally realized that this thread started off in a humorous manner. LOL That is funny. Glad to see you coming around. Take care. Vern

So, everyone is inept except Charles F Bell. There is no creative use of punctuation; it's all set in concrete according to Bell. Well, hells bells, I freely admit I'm no expert and I think most everyone who has responded has agreed the sentence in question does not follow concrete standard Bell fare, but it is creative. To that creative argument, I offer the following article by Mark Allen, an editor for over thirty years. He seems to disagree with your expertise. But then we don't know what your expertise is other than what you spout here. Does the world abide by your declarations of correctness with no room for creativity in an evolving language. Who knows. Nonetheless, if you can show us your punctuation-god credentials to dispute what is offered, then I will concede there is no such thing as valid creative punctuation. Take care. Vern

***
Submitted by Mark Allen on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 11:03am
Share This:     

Creative Punctuation Can Be Key to the Narrative

Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that's no matter — tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms further... And one fine morning —

So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.

So, how would you edit that? Of course, you had better not edit it. But a copyeditor hungrily wielding a red pen eager for blood might seize on those stops and starts and odd punctuation. And the literary world would be a bit worse off for the loss of that disjointed ending to The Great Gatsby.

Great writing takes us out of the familiar and forces us to look at the written word and the written world in a different light. This is true for us as readers and as copyeditors. Frankly, it can be difficult to decide when an author is being brilliant and when an author is being goofy.

I expected to see Fitzgerald's final paragraphs to The Great Gatsby in a wonderful collection of the five best punctuation marks in literature. Fitzgerald’s dashes and beautifully placed ellipsis didn’t make the list, compiled by Kathryn Schulz for New York Magazine’s entertainment site, Vulture. Fitzgerald’s ellipsis lost out to T.S. Eliot’s The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, though I am unconvinced on that choice. Schulz suggests that the ellipsis at the end of the introduction to the original Star Wars really should take the honor.

I don’t disagree with her choice for the em dash, the slap in the face provided at the start of chapter 29 of Middlemarch:

One morning, some weeks after her arrival at Lowick, Dorothea — but why always Dorthea?

Schulz, book critic for New York Magazine, says “Good writing involves obsessing over punctuation marks.” Good editing does, too, and really good editing involves knowing when creative use of punctuation adds to the narrative in ways that the words alone cannot.
.- See more at: http://www.copyediting.com/creative-pun … dAnTv.dpuf

LOL, don't judge a book by the cover. You, my good man, are simply ignoring the plea because you can't offer any reasonable explanation since there is none. Your addition, in some futile attempt to make your argument more acceptable, is sounding more like an old man who has seen the error of his ways, but has no idea how to change them and save face. Take care. Vern

Edited for PS: The avatar btw is a picture of the protagonist of my novel Root Hog or Die.

Please broaden my horizons and explain how arbitrarily adding "offering no artistic merit" to your statement changes anything. Art as most things dwells in the eye or heart of the beholder. If people -- other than you, that is -- can understand the meaning of the words offered, then how is that inept? For ancient mankind it was a giant leap forward to understand the meaning of those early sounds which became words.

Merely because I don't appreciate an artist such as Picasso doesn't banish him from the ranks of great artists. I may be blind to what is represented, but that doesn't make the world blind also. After all the discussion within this thread, are you still blind to any meaning, humorous or otherwise, conveyed in the "sentence" under consideration? If so, I reckon my last hope for reason on your part is down the punctuated-drain. Take care. Vern

As much as I would like to take credit as the “progenitor” of this thread, I did not give birth to it, nor did I create it, originate it, found it, or build, invent, or pioneer it. What I did do was offer a humorous alternative to the humorous differences presented as gender specific choices of punctuation.

Now for someone who can’t even look back to the beginning and clearly see who started this thread, it seems rather preposterous for them to declare anything inept, kind of like the pot calling the kettle black.  Going back to my first post within this thread:

In response to the link provided by Janet Taylor-Perry (the progenitor/originator),  I wrote “Or: A woman without; her man is nothing.

You responded with: “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.”

And I responded with: “Really? I seldom deal with the ordinary.”

Since you didn’t respond again, I assumed you must have figured out that if you don’t get all bent out of shape over some technical punctuation issues which are irrelevant in creative writing since the “ordinary” use can be thrown out the window, then the sentence does indeed offer something within the context of the link provided. Who wants to strive for ordinary? Certainly not me.

At any rate since you seem to still be having trouble coming up with any sensible interpretation of “without” in the phrase, “A woman without” I shall endeavor to explain in a way you might appreciate (or not).

In the phrase under consideration, the word “without” takes on the connotation that the woman is literally doing without. Doing without what, you ask. Well, since music sometimes makes things easier to understand and remember, let me refer to the lyrics of a marvelous 60s song: I can’t get no SATISFACTION. So as not to run afoul of the censors, I am going to assume you do indeed know what that refers to and that though the song was from a male perspective, I do believe we can extrapolate to the female gender without too big a stretch.

So, now, if you are still following me here, we continue on to the second phrase of “her man is nothing." Now considering that we have established that the woman is indeed “without” in the sense that she ain’t getting none – I hope the use of double negatives here and within the lyrics doesn’t throw you for a technical hissy loop – we could postulate that the man is either lacking in size or performance or both.

Now, I’m sure you can probably come up with other scenarios for alternate meanings of the poor woman without, but hopefully this will at least put you on track – no, maybe it would be more appropriate to say get you off the track of such restrictive thinking about the proper use of punctuation. At any rate, I felt I should at least try to save you from yourself as well as save some other weak-minded soul from falling for such asinine rigidity of thinking regarding punctuation or any other aspect of constantly evolving language. May your commas, semi-colons, etc, keep you warm at night should you befall the plight of the woman without. Take care. Vern

I took it to be the plural of "ax" as in an "ax to grind." Sorry for the misunderstanding, but if you're looking for tension, I visualize them chasing each other with axes, rather than revolving around one another, but either way, the solution is the same albeit one picture is a little less colorful, lol. Take care. Vern

I'm not sure why meetings should be treated different from any other scene; you don't need a separate set of guidelines for each type of scene whether a family gathering, a car chase, a romantic dinner, an alien abduction, or whatever. You cover enough to paint the picture and let the reader fill in the rest. You don't have to cover every speaker or every word of those who do speak and you don't have to show all the actions and reactions. You only need to present what is necessary to move the story to the next stage. That's the way I see it anyway. Take care. Vern

If so, I will try not to dig it any deeper. Thanks for responding. Take care. Vern

What? You haven't seen a ventriloquist smile words? lol. I have said many times, it is the author's ultimate decision on what to use. No one has the right to "tell" them what to do; we merely offer suggestions or opinions which might sway one way or the other or be thrown in the garbage bin, hopefully with no emotional baggage. Take care. Vern