|
Grex > Agora35 > #153: Computer references changing written language? |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 151 responses total. |
brighn
|
|
response 25 of 151:
| 
Nov 13 04:41 UTC 2000 |
I don't know about England. The American standard is:
Periods and commas ALWAYS go inside the quotation marks.
Semi-colons, colons, question marks, and exclamation points go inside the
quotes if they're relevant to what's in the quotation marks, and outside if
they're not.
The reason is aesthetic. Quotes are high, and periods are low, so periods
outside of the quotes look "lonely."
Of course, many people don't follow the standard, in which case, come up with
your own dang rules. =}
|
janc
|
|
response 26 of 151:
|
Nov 13 05:18 UTC 2000 |
Re #24: Control-clicking opens the URL in Netscape. Yeah, gterm.
Yes, brighn, we know that. The rule was written when punctuation marks were
just punctuation marks and not significant characters. According to the rule:
INCORRECT: To move to the parent directory, type "cd ..".
CORRECT: To move to the parent directory, type "cd ..."
Yeah right. In computer literature, the aesthetic rule is a non-starter.
Prettiness is not as important as clarity. The punctuation-inside-the-quotes
rule is OBSOLETE, at least in documents where punctuation marks often have
non-punctuation uses. I'd say you should pick one rule or the other and use
it consistantly through a document, but you do not need to follow the old rule
when it a hinderance.
And yes, I know that the sentences above can be rewritten to avoid the
problem, but why should I be forced to rewrite me sentences merely to work
around a broken aesthetic rule?
Anyway, no sentence with "cd .." in it is aesthetically salvagable no matter
what you do. Unix commands are unlovely creatures.
|
i
|
|
response 27 of 151:
|
Nov 13 05:20 UTC 2000 |
This reminds me of old conversations about writing that was full of
case-sensitive function names. When printf() is right and Printf()
will result in a non-functional program, you get into the same sorts
of issues. I think one CS (computer science) TA (teaching assistant)
dealt with self-appointed grammer police by saying that their final
grades would be submitted using a program that capitalized thing the
way they wanted...giving them Incompletes on their report cards.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 28 of 151:
|
Nov 13 05:24 UTC 2000 |
Reminds me that US documents written for a South Korean audience could not
capitalise the "n" in "north Korean", even at the beginning of sentences.
|
raven
|
|
response 29 of 151:
|
Nov 13 08:32 UTC 2000 |
Hey thanks for the tip about ccontrol clicking in gterm to open a URL.
Now linkked to cyberpunk your conf of ccyberspace and social issues.
|
polygon
|
|
response 30 of 151:
|
Nov 13 17:19 UTC 2000 |
Re 19-26. The rule about putting punctuation inside quotation marks,
even if it's ludicrously inappropriate, is obsolete even outside of
computer documentation. Punctuation now goes OUTSIDE the quotes unless
it's part of the quote.
Yup, style books written fifty years ago disagree with the new rule.
But things have changed in the last two generations.
|
pfv
|
|
response 31 of 151:
|
Nov 13 18:39 UTC 2000 |
I never let the "rules" interfere with sensibility: "the period
belongs outside the goddamned quote". The MLA was insane to
suggest otherwise, and I use the MLA in a lot of things.
When I quote someone, I quote them. Or, paraprhase them.. But, My
own syntax makes for a complete statement. Sans "complete", you
need to do something like "he said blah(...)".
|
gull
|
|
response 32 of 151:
|
Nov 13 19:39 UTC 2000 |
Re #26: Ah, nifty, thanks. That's kind of a handy feature. Is it possible
to configure it to launch a different browser?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 33 of 151:
|
Nov 13 21:40 UTC 2000 |
Moving away from the punctuation issues, I believe another way in which
computer use is affecting the written English language is apparent from
the diminished distinction most on-line writers draw between a word and
its homophones (e.g. "their" vs. "there". )
I suspect the blame for this lies in large part on users who are overreliant
on automatic spell-checkers -- I think lazy writers become careless when
using spell-check features to proofread their prose for them. They then
find themselves tripped up when the spell-checker fails to point out a
spelling which is perfectly valid for an entirely different word.
What's maddening to me is that increasingly, many of the words incorrectly
substituted in this fashion aren't even homophones. I can't explain why it
should be any worse than using "their" instead of "there", but for some
reason I have a really strong pet peeve about the misuse of "loose" in place
of "lose"..
|
birdy
|
|
response 34 of 151:
|
Nov 13 22:48 UTC 2000 |
Ditto. =)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 35 of 151:
|
Nov 14 00:43 UTC 2000 |
I never use spell checkers, but I find I do make more their/there mistakes
than I used to. This conversational typing tends to cause it, I think.
We don't think of the spelling when we speak, which is what this is
approaching.
|
gull
|
|
response 36 of 151:
|
Nov 14 17:07 UTC 2000 |
There's the apostrophe issue, too.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 37 of 151:
|
Nov 14 21:48 UTC 2000 |
There's? 8^}
|
mcnally
|
|
response 38 of 151:
|
Nov 14 23:38 UTC 2000 |
What's wrong with "there's"? It's a valid contraction of "there is".
|
gull
|
|
response 39 of 151:
|
Nov 15 19:36 UTC 2000 |
(waits for Rane to explain what was wrong with that post.)
|
brighn
|
|
response 40 of 151:
|
Nov 16 00:21 UTC 2000 |
#26> I was responding to birdy, who was saying just the opposite, which
polygon and a few others have also said. Personally, outside of computer
contexts, I like the period-inside-the-quotes rule. I don't think it's fair
to call the MLA "insane" for reiterating what had been a standard for quite
some time -- if you don't like the rule, don't use it, but don't mock others
for following it.
This isn't the same as the spacing rule, which the MLA and the APA HAVE
accepted as different now (or rather, have made public what was once arcane
typesetter knowledge): After a period, put TWO spaces if you're using a
fixed-width font, and ONE space if you're using a proportional font. Since
hardly anybody uses a typewriter over a computer these days, it's easier just
to remember the rule as a single space between all words and after all
punctuation, and screw that detail about fixed vs. proportional, but that
spacing rule has been around for quite a while.
As for the homophone issue, one pair that's become distinguished is love (for
serious relationships) and luv (for friends) [I luv you guys!].
I'm guessing that Rane was pointing out the apostrophe in the comment about
apostrophes. If not, there's his out, he can pretend like that's what he
meant. ;}
|
rcurl
|
|
response 41 of 151:
|
Nov 16 06:13 UTC 2000 |
#37 was a question apropos of #36. Notice the 8^}. It seems it sounds OK
to say "There's the...." to mean "there is", but it doesn't scan so well
in the espostulatory question "There's?" to mean "There is?". (Sigh.....)
|
jep
|
|
response 42 of 151:
|
Nov 16 21:55 UTC 2000 |
My father, since I was a kid, has made fun of constructs such as:
"Me and Jimmy are going to the park."
Dad says "Is Jimmy mean, and if so, why do you want to go to the park
with him?" His point is that you should say "Jimmy and I" instead.
However, grammar is less prescriptive than it used to be. My wife, who
teaches writing at the U-M business school, says my father is just
wrong.
So now, when he makes fun of my kids, I tell him his grammar is out of
date. As long as they make themselves understood, they've achieved good
communication. Any grammar that isn't for that purpose is extraneous.
That has nothing to do with computers. But here's something that does.
When I started using M-Net, I found I was using a lot of parenthetical
comments (like this one). The standard smiley face looks like this:
(-: But that doesn't work look right in parenthesis, so I reversed my
smiley face.
(This is a standard smiley face (-: )
(This is my smiley face :-) The trailing parenthesis can be omitted
|
ea
|
|
response 43 of 151:
|
Nov 16 22:12 UTC 2000 |
I've always made my smiley faces with the mouth to the right --> :)
|
albaugh
|
|
response 44 of 151:
|
Nov 16 22:19 UTC 2000 |
Re: #42 - That's just *plain wrong*. "Me are going to the park" and "Me am
going to the park" are both absolutely wrong. The pronoun I is required.
So there is no way that "Me and Jimmy" can be correct. Dumbing down the
English language for the benefit of lazy students and teachers is just dumb.
|
birdy
|
|
response 45 of 151:
|
Nov 16 22:20 UTC 2000 |
'as long as they make themselves understood' - okay, but I still think some
phrases make a person sound stupid. Grammar is easy if you *want* to sound
correct.
I vs. Me - drop the extra person. "Me going to the park" does not follow
noun/verb agreement. "I going" does. So, "Jimmy and I are going to the park"
or "She gave the ball to me and Jason" (you would drop Jason and make it "gave
to me"). It's a nice trick that works quickly if you don't want to sweat over
direct object stuff.
|
birdy
|
|
response 46 of 151:
|
Nov 16 22:21 UTC 2000 |
#44 slipped in, and I agree. =)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 47 of 151:
|
Nov 16 23:09 UTC 2000 |
re #42, 44-46: I agree that your father's grammar corrections,
at least as outlined in #42, are much preferable to your wife's
grammar permissiveness. Unless your kids are growing up on the
Bizarro planet, a sentence like "Me are going to the park," is
going to wind up communicating more to listeners than just the
intention to visit the park, and like it or not, this 'extra'
communication is not going to help your children.
|
ric
|
|
response 48 of 151:
|
Nov 16 23:19 UTC 2000 |
I tend to agree with John's father. "Me and <someone> doing something" is
not right.
The only time I ever say that is when I'm talking about my wife and I.... "Me
and A" sounds better than "A and I" :)
|
scott
|
|
response 49 of 151:
|
Nov 17 00:33 UTC 2000 |
Good comment on the smiley faces and parenthetic comments! I do the same
things often (and yes, I do right-facing smileys that also complete a
parenthesis pair :)
|