Grammar Police - Graduate School

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by 21C

Not a grammar question per se but where do you stand on the use of periods in acronyms or abbreviations?

For example, do you write U.S.A. or USA? Mr. or Mr?

I just realized that I forego the periods completely. Like when I write homework on the board for a class, I will write Ex 5F p172 Q1-10 instead of Ex. 5F p.172 Q.1-10.

This only occurred to me when I saw a written piece with a period being employed in every conceivable place.

I let my instinct guide me here. Basically, as long as the abbreviation is clear to my reader and appropriate for the setting, I probably drop the periods.

In the US, we use a period in "Mr." and that isn't really optional. It's one of many intra-English disputes across borders... Brits omit the period, I'm not certain if it's the whole British Empire like many of these differences.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by say it ain't so

Clay Matthew's

...

[QuikSand]

I would not be surprised if the phrase "Nicki Minaj's cousin's friend's balls" becomes some sort of standard test of apostrophe deployment for generations to come.

[sterlingice]

I hate this timeline

SI

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by 21C

Not a grammar question per se but where do you stand on the use of periods in acronyms or abbreviations?

For example, do you write U.S.A. or USA? Mr. or Mr?

I just realized that I forego the periods completely. Like when I write homework on the board for a class, I will write Ex 5F p172 Q1-10 instead of Ex. 5F p.172 Q.1-10.

This only occurred to me when I saw a written piece with a period being employed in every conceivable place.

Depends on the context and writing situation. USA is always USA, Mr./Mr depends on if it's formal writing or informal.

I increasingly see the period falling out of use for abbreviations/acronyms in general, though. In most contexts, they're simply not necessary and I fully suspect we'll eventually see it relegated to the role of as-needed full stop (witness its shift to a severe tone in text messaging and the evolution on social media of period-less sentences on the last sentence).

[21C]

I've got a new one. Adverbs wrapped in commas. To me, they seem completely unnecessary.

I started to see this sort of thing - He, eventually, completed the task.
Then this - That, also, is an example of it.
But this one seems the worst - They, too, would do the same thing.

[sabotai]

I've always interpreted the 'word wrapped in commas' like that as a way to add emphasis to the word. A written way to add the short pauses around a word that a speaker would use to emphasis the word.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by sabotai

I've always interpreted the 'word wrapped in commas' like that as a way to add emphasis to the word. A written way to add the short pauses around a word that a speaker would use to emphasis the word.

There is not unanimity about the use of a comma to indicate a natural pause. I find it acceptable, some do not.

In all these cases, in addition, the commas are used to set off a one-word addition that is immaterial to the construct of the sentence - much like a formal appositive, this is a recognized use for commas, like it or not.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by sabotai

I've always interpreted the 'word wrapped in commas' like that as a way to add emphasis to the word. A written way to add the short pauses around a word that a speaker would use to emphasis the word.

Offsetting dashes are a much better and cleaner way to accomplish this emphasis - they're also then fulfilling their function as dashes in upending the hierarchal structure of English sentences. Commas do not and can not perform this function.

(Funnily enough, I'm *literally* having a related debate to this in the AP Lang/Comp group I'm in on Facebook).

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

There is not unanimity about the use of a comma to indicate a natural pause. I find it acceptable, some do not.

In all these cases, in addition, the commas are used to set off a one-word addition that is immaterial to the construct of the sentence - much like a formal appositive, this is a recognized use for commas, like it or not.

The issue is that the latter creates confusion as to whether the comma is meant for pause or emphasis (hence my above call for dashes in cases of emphasis - it eliminates the ambiguity).

As for commas indicating a natural pause... my off-the-cuff answer is it depends on the writing situation (including what time period we're dealing with). Maybe we should bring back Aristophanes' three-tiered dot system to further clarify things.

[britrock88]

Quick response to Izulde's point... somewhere along the way, I picked up that there's a hierarchy of emphasis punctuation. A dash is the most emphatic; a comma pair is the middle ground; and parentheses are used for sub-emphasis.

Just my two cents.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by britrock88

Quick response to Izulde's point... somewhere along the way, I picked up that there's a hierarchy of emphasis punctuation. A dash is the most emphatic; a comma pair is the middle ground; and parentheses are used for sub-emphasis.

Just my two cents.

While there *is* a hierarchy of punctuation, I haven't heard of it in terms of emphasis strategy (though I'm sure it exists).

The main use of a dash is to subvert the hierarchy of English sentence structure. See, in a normal English sentence, the first part has the most emphasis, attention, etc. The end of the sentence is second, and the middle is there.

But when you use a dash, the emphasis shifts to what comes after the dash. Use bracketing dashes and the emphasis shifts to what's between the dashes.

[sabotai]

Just finished reading The Language Hoax by John McWorter and thought of this thread when I read this passage. Stand back, I think I'm about to trigger a few people.

(emphasis the same as in the book)

Popular Whorfianism is hardly the only symptom of a slip between folk consciousness and the empirical when it comes to language. Prescriptivism—the idea that there are “bad” grammatical forms, mistaken in some scientifically unexceptionable way—is another. One aspect of being a linguist is an eternal crusade against the folk notion that it is “broken” to say Billy and me went to the store; Each student can hand in their paper; or There were less books there than I thought. The idea that such locutions are “wrong,” while so widespread and thus so seemingly plausible, is rooted in fiats laid down centuries ago by men learned but of limited linguistic horizons, thinking that English should pattern like Latin, or equating linguistic logic with mathematical logic regardless of whether linguistic logic accomplishes its goal of conveying meaning accurately. The linguist awaits the day when the general public will understand that the prescriptivism we are raised on is based on illusory commandments that have no scientific basis.

McWhorter, John H.. The Language Hoax (pp. 153-154). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

*mic drop*

[Izulde]

Like all things, prescriptivism in moderation is a good thing. One, after all, wants to control the pace at which languages evolve and change so we aren't whiplashed to and fro with sharp, sudden linguistic veers.

But, yes, too rigid a prescriptivism completely ignores language's history - for example, we've only had our current standardized punctuation for about 600ish years (thanks, Mantua the Elder and Younger!).

As I joked to the other English teacher who complained about the freshman class's lack of punctuation, perhaps scriptio continua is making a comeback.

[thesloppy]

The quality and quantity of work produced in here is absolute informative. Thanks for sharing. 안전토토사이트

[cuervo72]

Ok, THAT'S weird.

[thesloppy]

That was me being funny.

[cuervo72]

Ah, ok. I'd zapped that user and didn't know if the forum mixed up posts somehow. The link makes it look like pretty authentic spam.