|
|
| Author |
Message |
nephi
|
|
The Grammar Item
| 
Mar 19 21:42 UTC 1995 |
As you can probably tell, *my* grammar is terrible. Do you have
a grammar question? Do you have a grammar answer?
Well, this is the place for you!
|
| 346 responses total. |
nephi
|
|
response 1 of 346:
|
Mar 19 22:18 UTC 1995 |
My first question is about the whole who, that, which thing.
How do I know when I should use who instead of that, and which
instead of who?
|
zook
|
|
response 2 of 346:
|
Mar 20 01:20 UTC 1995 |
Nephi, see previous agora for discussion of restrictive vs non-restrictive
clauses. In brief, parenthetical information (non-restrictive clause, non-
essential info) gets set off by commas. In that situation you would use
who (if a person) or which (if not). Otherwise, use that. Whom, of course,
is used in a clause where you would ordinarily have used who, except the
clause is such that the who(m) is actually the object and not the subject
of the clause.
Examples:
Ralph, whom I saw yesterday, seemed cheerful.
Dogs that bark in the middle of the night are annoying.
Cats, which are good hunters, are very independent creatures.
(Some would use "who" with cats to personalize them, but strictly speaking
this is incorrect. If you prefer to think of cats as people, substitute
"hyenas" in the example.)
|
nephi
|
|
response 3 of 346:
|
Mar 20 05:23 UTC 1995 |
Wow, Bret! I've never seen such a concise, easy to understand answer.
Now for my next question. How in the heck do I use commas in quotes
when the comma is part of the sentence and not the quote? For example:
Jane said "Dick has herpes", but dick denied it.
I definitely regret the fact that I did not pay more attention in
my grade school grammar class. Now I wish I had not just rented my
grammar book, but had been able to keep it for reference.
|
scg
|
|
response 4 of 346:
|
Mar 20 06:15 UTC 1995 |
Jane said, "Dick has herpes," but Dick denied it.
|
nephi
|
|
response 5 of 346:
|
Mar 20 06:18 UTC 1995 |
How about: Jane asked, "Does Dick have herpes?" and dick denied it.
|
carl
|
|
response 6 of 346:
|
Mar 20 11:07 UTC 1995 |
Okay, which is more proper?
1) When you get to the prompt, type "!fortune."
2) When you get to the prompt, type "!fortune".
Number one is correct English syntax, although if you type what
is in the quotes, you'll get an error message. Number two is
good "computerese," but poor English.
|
gregc
|
|
response 7 of 346:
|
Mar 20 13:16 UTC 1995 |
I guess the answer is "When in Rome......"
|
zook
|
|
response 8 of 346:
|
Mar 20 17:03 UTC 1995 |
I never understood the punctuation/quotation mark thing, but I believe the
rule is to include the punctuation before the quotation unless the
quotation marks clearly set off something meant as a single unit. So,
type "!fortune". should have the period after, but in most circumstances
it should be before. I would place the period/comma/whatever afterwards
for things like coined words (eg. Jane wanted to see sixteen "Floof
Bork's", but I only wished to see three.). Like I said, I was never too good
with this rule...
Here's one for you. The following sentence can be punctuated using the
usual conventions to make perfect sense. How should it appear?
Mary while John had had had had had had had had had had had the teacher's
approval
|
gregc
|
|
response 9 of 346:
|
Mar 20 17:37 UTC 1995 |
Mary, while John had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had the
teacher's approval.
|
aruba
|
|
response 10 of 346:
|
Mar 21 05:01 UTC 1995 |
Re #3: I always thought the rule, "Put the comma inside the quotes", was a
crock, so I refuse to do it.
I don't understand #9.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 11 of 346:
|
Mar 21 05:27 UTC 1995 |
This response has been erased.
|
nephi
|
|
response 12 of 346:
|
Mar 21 06:54 UTC 1995 |
Well, whenever *any* of you see any of my grammar mistakes, please
point them out here. I really want to get my grammar back on track.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 13 of 346:
|
Mar 21 07:30 UTC 1995 |
That is, when your grammar derails?
|
nephi
|
|
response 14 of 346:
|
Mar 21 07:32 UTC 1995 |
<nephi wakes up the neighbors with laughter>
|
nephi
|
|
response 15 of 346:
|
Mar 21 20:59 UTC 1995 |
Also, enter your pet grammar peeves here, too. If many people are
making the mistake, this might help.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 16 of 346:
|
Mar 21 22:44 UTC 1995 |
This response has been erased.
|
bjt
|
|
response 17 of 346:
|
Mar 21 23:33 UTC 1995 |
I have anew grammar pet peeve. (I really do have a lot of them). It
seems people are so paranoid about not mistakenly using the objective
pronouns as subjects (i.e. Him and I went), that they are often using
the nominative case as objects (i.e I gave it to he and Sue).
|
helmke
|
|
response 18 of 346:
|
Mar 22 00:20 UTC 1995 |
If you love the file, you will loose it in the wilds. You will also be
losing it.
|
sac
|
|
response 19 of 346:
|
Mar 22 03:12 UTC 1995 |
My pet peeve: Many people incorrectly use the term "I could care less!"
when they should be saying "I couldn't care less!" If you COULD care less,
then you have room to care less. If you couldn't care less, then you are at
the point where nothing about this subject is worthy of you attention cares)
Anyway, I could care less about this item (meaning, of course, that...
I CARE!) :~)
|
janc
|
|
response 20 of 346:
|
Mar 22 03:30 UTC 1995 |
But if I *say* that I could care less, then that implies that the my
level of caring differs from zero by a sufficiently small amount that it
is necessary for me to point it out to you. If I cared *alot* then pointing
out that I could care less would be silly.
On the other hand, if I told a mother she should care less about her
children, she might well respond, "No! I couldn't care less." The
implication here is that her care so overwhelms her thaat it is beyond
her control.
There are lots of ways to look at that phrase.
|
sac
|
|
response 21 of 346:
|
Mar 22 04:09 UTC 1995 |
re 20: Not quite able to digest the first paragraph. Could you explain it?
Second paragraph: "No! I couldn't care less" is a double negative which
is a positive. She *could* care less, but she doesn't because she's a
mother. It's beyond her capabilities to care less about her children.
Which way would you respond to "Was Nicole Brown's melting ice cream
vanilla or strawberry?"
|
janc
|
|
response 22 of 346:
|
Mar 22 04:14 UTC 1995 |
View hidden response.
|
janc
|
|
response 23 of 346:
|
Mar 22 04:15 UTC 1995 |
No. It is not a double negative.
|
bjt
|
|
response 24 of 346:
|
Mar 22 14:19 UTC 1995 |
re 21:ice cream flavor? I couldn't care less!
|