Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators
Thanks to Anonymous,bruncher,niord,gvonge,Shelford, for Donating to support the site
A question of grammar...
-
- 2 Lemon pips
- Posts: 140
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 7:02 pm
- Has thanked: 87 times
- Been thanked: 8 times
A question of grammar...
More than 55 year ago I remember my English teacher, (a certain Mrs Crump) telling our English language class that you must never, never, ever, on pain of death, place a comma after an "and."
Today I regularly see commas before as well as after an and.
What is the correct grammatical rule relating to this?
Thanks in advance,
Changeable
Today I regularly see commas before as well as after an and.
What is the correct grammatical rule relating to this?
Thanks in advance,
Changeable
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 9107
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:16 pm
- Has thanked: 4140 times
- Been thanked: 10035 times
Re: A question of grammar...
I've done so before and, although only in some circumstances, thought it quite acceptable to do so...
Cheers,
Itsallagues
Cheers,
Itsallagues
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 2042
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:25 am
- Has thanked: 229 times
- Been thanked: 487 times
Re: A question of grammar...
Changeable wrote:More than 55 year ago I remember my English teacher, (a certain Mrs Crump) telling our English language class that you must never, never, ever, on pain of death, place a comma after an "and."
Today I regularly see commas before as well as after an and.
What is the correct grammatical rule relating to this?
Thanks in advance,
Changeable
I think Mrs Crump was wrong.
Comma after 'and'
For example: Mrs Crump's rule is incorrect and, in my opinion, exaggerated.
(I.e. where the comma is used to separate a subordinate clause).
The Comma before 'and' is an Oxford comma.
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 6134
- Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
- Has thanked: 448 times
- Been thanked: 2362 times
Re: A question of grammar...
Changeable wrote:More than 55 year ago I remember my English teacher, (a certain Mrs Crump) telling our English language class that you must never, never, ever, on pain of death, place a comma after an "and."
Today I regularly see commas before as well as after an and.
What is the correct grammatical rule relating to this?
Thanks in advance,
Changeable
Very rarely.
It can be used when "and" is a noun, and in a list. Such as. "The words or, and, but, and so are conjunctions". But that's cheating really.
Alternatively it wouldn't be considered wrong to place a comma after "and" when preceding a short phrase of a word or two that introduces an emphasis. For example. You caught the virus at work and, somewhat unluckily, will die. Many might prefer the sentence to be written differently, thus. Somewhat unluckily, you caught the virus at work and will die. But the act of "unlucky" is in the dying, not the catching, so the former is correct. That is you can catch the virus by being unlucky, but because not everyone that catches the virus will die, you are unlucky to do so (because you took all precautions and received the best medicines etc.)
-
- The full Lemon
- Posts: 19287
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
- Has thanked: 650 times
- Been thanked: 6859 times
Re: A question of grammar...
dealtn wrote:Changeable wrote:More than 55 year ago I remember my English teacher, (a certain Mrs Crump) telling our English language class that you must never, never, ever, on pain of death, place a comma after an "and."
Today I regularly see commas before as well as after an and. What is the correct grammatical rule relating to this?
Very rarely.
It can be used when "and" is a noun, and in a list. Such as. "The words or, and, but, and so are conjunctions". But that's cheating really.
Alternatively it wouldn't be considered wrong to place a comma after "and" when preceding a short phrase of a word or two that introduces an emphasis. For example. You caught the virus at work and, somewhat unluckily, will die. Many might prefer the sentence to be written differently, thus. Somewhat unluckily, you caught the virus at work and will die. But the act of "unlucky" is in the dying, not the catching, so the former is correct. That is you can catch the virus by being unlucky, but because not everyone that catches the virus will die, you are unlucky to do so (because you took all precautions and received the best medicines etc.)
I think the part of the original question that you are missing there is "Today I regularly . . ".
In other words he is saying that the rules have changed with contemporary usage. The stricter "old" rule is as he and you assert. But the more modern use is broader. In my view people now use grammar to mirror how one would speak a sentence, rather than technically how you would write it. And thus a comma is often used to indicate a brief pause in the word flow that doesn't warrant a full stop, colon or semi-colon.
In other words the idea that the rules of grammar are timeless does not reflect the evolution of communication. And of course you can notice the same thing with the meaning of individual words as they can change their meaning over time.
I liberally use commas in longer sentences to aid comprehension by providing natural breaks, as if to breathe when speaking. Perhaps pedantry itself has become less fashionable, as people focus on the true purpose of communication rather than what many now see as somewhat pointless nitpicking? Then again I often start sentences with "And" or "But", which I also recall being taught never to do at school. But somehow it just sounds right, which makes it right.
By the way, that last paragraph is using commas in the way I describe.
-
- 2 Lemon pips
- Posts: 140
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 7:02 pm
- Has thanked: 87 times
- Been thanked: 8 times
Re: A question of grammar...
Lootman, Itsallaguess, chas49 and dealtn.
So the new rule is, there are no rules!
Or to put it another way, rule today and gone tomorrow!
Thank you all for the clarification.
Have a pleasant evening and quarantine, if possible...
Changeable
So the new rule is, there are no rules!
Or to put it another way, rule today and gone tomorrow!
Thank you all for the clarification.
Have a pleasant evening and quarantine, if possible...
Changeable
-
- The full Lemon
- Posts: 19287
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
- Has thanked: 650 times
- Been thanked: 6859 times
Re: A question of grammar...
Changeable wrote:Lootman, Itsallaguess, chas49 and dealtn.
So the new rule is, there are no rules!
Or to put it another way, rule today and gone tomorrow!
Thank you all for the clarification.
A better way of putting it might be that rules change over time. They are not fixed and rigid.
And that the importance of rules for such things has declined as so much more communication now is informal (taken to extremes with text speak, for instance).
Pedantry itself is out of vogue. What was once seen as an indicator of education and erudition is now perceived as a rather negative kind of anal retentiveness. The modern style is to focus on the content and the intent, rather than the petty details of semantics and syntactics. Pedantry itself has become less fashionable as people focus on the true purpose of communication rather than technicalities. And correcting others for minor infractions can be seen as rudeness or aloofness.
This corner may become a very lonely place.
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 6134
- Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
- Has thanked: 448 times
- Been thanked: 2362 times
Re: A question of grammar...
Changeable wrote:More than 55 year ago ...
Disappointingly, given the post is on this board, the missing "s" hasn't yet been commented on and, whilst mistakes are allowed, perhaps it is now right to point it out.
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 8416
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
- Has thanked: 932 times
- Been thanked: 4236 times
Re: A question of grammar...
I once had occasion to rewrite a clause in a contract. The Russian interpreter complained that, as originally written, it was ambiguous and could not be translated correctly.
It reminds me of that Guinness advert:
"Caesar entered on his head, his helmet on his feet, his sandals in his hand, his good sword in his eye, a fierce look."
Lawyers often avoid punctuation, to avoid ambiguity. Sometimes it creates it.
TJH
It reminds me of that Guinness advert:
"Caesar entered on his head, his helmet on his feet, his sandals in his hand, his good sword in his eye, a fierce look."
Lawyers often avoid punctuation, to avoid ambiguity. Sometimes it creates it.
TJH
-
- 2 Lemon pips
- Posts: 140
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 7:02 pm
- Has thanked: 87 times
- Been thanked: 8 times
Re: A question of grammar...
Indeed you are correct.
I tend to speed read the text I write on the small screen of my smartphone and have difficulty to see my own typos.
Though other peoples typos are something else !
Changeable
I tend to speed read the text I write on the small screen of my smartphone and have difficulty to see my own typos.
Though other peoples typos are something else !
Changeable
-
- Lemon Slice
- Posts: 614
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:31 pm
- Has thanked: 124 times
- Been thanked: 178 times
Re: A question of grammar...
Changeable wrote:Though other peoples typos are something else !
Changeable
Ahem, people's perhaps?
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 4135
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:24 am
- Has thanked: 3288 times
- Been thanked: 2871 times
Re: A question of grammar...
panamagold wrote:Changeable wrote:Though other peoples typos are something else !
Changeable
Ahem, people's perhaps?
I think that reads better with a comma after people's
--kiloran
-
- 2 Lemon pips
- Posts: 140
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 7:02 pm
- Has thanked: 87 times
- Been thanked: 8 times
Re: A question of grammar...
Yes.
I thought about that apostrophe, but decided that peoples was plural and as such didn't need it.
You see, I know nothing and stand corrected once again.
English grammar was never my strong point...
Changeable
I thought about that apostrophe, but decided that peoples was plural and as such didn't need it.
You see, I know nothing and stand corrected once again.
English grammar was never my strong point...
Changeable
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 2042
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:25 am
- Has thanked: 229 times
- Been thanked: 487 times
Re: A question of grammar...
Changeable wrote:Yes.
I thought about that apostrophe, but decided that peoples was plural and as such didn't need it.
You see, I know nothing and stand corrected once again.
English grammar was never my strong point...
Changeable
The noun people is plural (according to the Cambridge Dictionary - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... ish/people). That doesn't mean it can't have an apostrophe S after it to denote possession.
Confusingly there's also the plural form peoples
See this for a discussion: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-diffe ... es?share=1
-
- Lemon Slice
- Posts: 460
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 4:55 pm
- Has thanked: 163 times
- Been thanked: 162 times
Re: A question of grammar...
Lootman wrote: And of course you can notice the same thing with the meaning of individual words as they can change their meaning over time.
Sir!
Sir!
Please Sir, he's started a sentence with an 'And'!
Then again I often start sentences with "And" or "But", which I also recall being taught never to do at school.
Sir!
Sir!
It's getting worse! He knows it's wrong but he still does it!
-
- The full Lemon
- Posts: 10953
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
- Has thanked: 1499 times
- Been thanked: 3048 times
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 1051
- Joined: November 5th, 2016, 12:26 pm
- Has thanked: 226 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Re: A question of grammar...
UncleEbenezer wrote:And another thing: never use a preposition to end a sentence with.
Ah yes - the old "That is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put" or one of its many variants supposedly by Winston Churchill.
-
- The full Lemon
- Posts: 16629
- Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
- Has thanked: 4343 times
- Been thanked: 7536 times
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 8275
- Joined: November 8th, 2016, 2:30 pm
- Has thanked: 2934 times
- Been thanked: 4046 times
Re: A question of grammar...
Chas49 is absolutely correct, the added comma in a list of items is an Oxford comma, which is there to avoid potential ambiguities.As in the Daily Telegraph's historic howler: “Highlights of [Peter Ustinov's] global tour include encounters with Nelson Mandela, an 800-year-old demigod and a dildo collector.”
Or the child's complaint to its mother at bedtime:
"What did you bring that book that I do not want to be read to out of up for?"
BJ
quelquod wrote:Ah yes - the old "That is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put" or one of its many variants supposedly by Winston Churchill.UncleEbenezer wrote:And another thing: never use a preposition to end a sentence with.
Or the child's complaint to its mother at bedtime:
"What did you bring that book that I do not want to be read to out of up for?"
BJ
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 3689
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:00 am
- Has thanked: 575 times
- Been thanked: 1641 times
Re: A question of grammar...
tjh290633 wrote:"Caesar entered on his head, his helmet on his feet, his sandals in his hand, his good sword in his eye, a fierce look."
Lawyers often avoid punctuation, to avoid ambiguity. Sometimes it creates it.
Try writing in short sentences. Like The Sun. Go on. Give it a try. It's really quite hard. Never room for commas. You can do a short bit. Like this one. But it gets difficult. I don't know how their writers do it. Do they go on a special course? Is it done by a computer?
Gryff
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests