Post by thuhjesheekuh on Jul 20, 2005 4:39:17 GMT
Technically, yes. You're never supposed to separate a dependent clause with a comma like that. However, this is informal writing. Commas are often used like that to give an informal "pause" of sorts. It would have been more technically correct to use an ellipsis, but those things REALLY begin to clutter up a writing like this.
Yes, this may be informal writing, and, yes, commas are often used to show pauses, however, this technique is usually- usually- confined to verse. Even informal writing should be presentable and follow the rules of grammar.
Writer's discretion. Most of the time, "upon" IS just a fancy way of saying "on", but that's also its greatest strength. (Am I right in believing you subscribe to Strunk's and White's rule of "Omit Needless Words!"?)
"Upon" is just a fancy way of saying on, but compared to the rest of the piece, a fancy word like “upon” is out of place. The diction throughout the story is fairly casual, so using fancy words could be considered just as egregious an error. (By the way, I have never heard of Strunk or his/her partner White. There was a teacher at my middle school named Mrs. White, but she was more or less unimportant to the school, let alone the writing community at large.)
Not necessarily, I think. Even if it is technically correct, I would never do it. It breaks up the sentence in an unforgivable way. But I still think you can legitimately do it.
Again, the pause created by a comma is usually restricted to verse. Also, even if the comma created a pause, I subscribe to the opinion that it’s better to follow the rules of grammar than to deviate whenever you see fit. (Note: I don’t think that all rules are unbreakable or unbendable. Fragments, for example, I think can be used strategically once in a while… not that I would allow one of my reporters to use one in an article.)
WHAT!? That makes absolutely no sense, and totally messes up the sentence. You're saying that, instead of writing, "Ever since I started missing the bus, I had to walk to school," you should write, "Ever since, I started missing the bus, I had to walk to school."? Please, explain. (That there's one o' those "informal commas".)
The example you provided works in the same manner as an “If… then” statement, where one clause is a result of the other, much the same as the cause and effect pattern. Cause: I started missing the bus. Effect: I had to walk to school. In your example, the cause is indicated by the “ever since,” but in the case of “ever since both Numbuh Two and Numbuh Four came down with a 'mysterious illness' and went home,” “ever since” indicates a cause provided in a previous sentence, so the comma after “since” would serve the same purpose as the one after “bus” in your example.
No. No, no, no. See, Nigel is speaking. Dialogue is SUPPOSED to be riddled with errors. If everyone spoke perfectly, we'd have some pretty dry dialogue. Most people use "good" when they should use "well". Most people speak in fragments. Most people slur words or cut parts off entirely. In essence: the words of dialogue are without rules, only guidelines.
Nigel is indeed speaking, and dialogue is often riddled with errors, but not always, especially when the character in question usually speaks correctly. In the case of Nigel, his character is deemed intelligent. One of the wonders of accents is that they often indicate the personality of the character in question, and a British accent is associated with intelligence. As a result, having an intelligent character speaking significantly deficiently detracts from characterization.
Dialogue; no rules. (Hey, a fragment!) (That was, too!)
I again call upon characterization, where proper speaking is correct for Nigel’s personality.
WRONG! That is a lie told to young writers in order to stop them from writing lines upon lines of, "And then he...", "And after that he...". Same with "because" and "but". THEY ARE ALL USABLE! Because of these lies, we've lost many a good sentence. And another thing, they often add a common, general, informal flair to writing. But, if people won't use them, they won't use them.
Okay, I’ll give you this one. And I will be taking it up with my teachers this year because they still tell us not to start sentences with “and.” But I looked it up and apparently the conjunction at the beginning of a sentence is one of seven outdated rules (a few of which I do disagree with).
Onomatopoeia really doesn't have rules. "Awww" is longer than "Aw". Simple enough.
The second part, though, I think is blatantly wrong. To put it bluntly, words that have letters omitted like that CONSTANTLY often find new forms, which don't require apostrophes at all. Take "until", for example. To shorten it, you write "'til" (hard to see the apostrophe, I know). However, the word "till" has become widely used, which means the same thing, but is, in itself, a new word. This is also the case with "cuz". It's dialogue; it's slang. You want slang to LOOK like slang. Would I write it as "'cause"? Probably. But that's my choice.
The second part, though, I think is blatantly wrong. To put it bluntly, words that have letters omitted like that CONSTANTLY often find new forms, which don't require apostrophes at all. Take "until", for example. To shorten it, you write "'til" (hard to see the apostrophe, I know). However, the word "till" has become widely used, which means the same thing, but is, in itself, a new word. This is also the case with "cuz". It's dialogue; it's slang. You want slang to LOOK like slang. Would I write it as "'cause"? Probably. But that's my choice.
“Aw” doesn’t fall under the category of onomatopoeia. Onomatopoeia are sounds, but “aw” is an expression. And “aw” is usually whined or cooed anyway, so the elongation is built in.
As far as “‘cause” goes, I do respect- to a certain degree- the author’s choice, but in the case of non-standard words, it’s better to go with the a more widely accepted spelling. Also, I can’t think of any words that find new forms when they have letters omitted. The example you provided is etymologically incorrect. Till was actually the original word and the “un-,” meaning “up to” was later added.
I disagree. "Byeee!" isn't nearly as efficient as "Byeeeeeee!" in conveying the whiny nature of Kuki's voice.
The emotion in the expression is why I left the extra two “e”s. Too many “e”s come off in much the same way as our forum’s spam and makes the story look cluttered.
Whew. It's impressive that you're an editor for a newspaper, but I think you may need to be a bit more lax when it comes to fiction. Newspapers are supposed to tell the truth and, on occasion, opinions. It's therefore good that they follow a set of strict, no-nonsense rules like that. But newspapers aren't supposed to be emotionally moving like fiction is. And, sometimes, in order to get the point across, you need to bend the rules.
Grammar's all about knowing the rules, because, once you know them, you can break them.
Grammar's all about knowing the rules, because, once you know them, you can break them.
Just because a story doesn’t follow the rules of the real world, doesn’t mean the readers and writers don’t exist in the real world, so those rules should still apply. This is the same reason that all published works- even fiction and fantasy- go through an intense editing process before being printed. If we are going to write, it only makes sense to write to the best of our abilities, or else we do ourselves a great dishonor. Some people think rules are meant to be broken. I’m not one of them. However, even if rules are okay to break once in a while, you shouldn’t break them constantly and noticeably. And even if it’s okay to break them, they are still broken, and that is why I gave the 6 in my review and why I went through and showed them when requested.
...HAHAHAHAHA! That is so Nigie...