Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Gertrude Stein's How To Write: Saving the Sentence


From Saving the Sentence;

1) Find 5 well-formed sentences
  1. We will be welcome
  2. A sentence is a part of a speech
  3. That is a speech.
  4. Anybody will listen.
  5. A blue sky can reflect in a lake.

2) Find 5 sentences which can be saved with punctuation
  1. What is romantic?
  2. Francine, which is a name of a young woman who has changed very much in five years, hoped to be married.
  3. Will it be soon?
  4. Oh, well, who can be better?
  5. What is the difference between sentiment and romance?
3) Find 5 sentences which can be saved with a word or phrase.
  1. Painting, now, after its great moment as a major artform, must come back in style to be a minor art.
  2. A house should be put upon a hill.
  3. A speech should have a point.
  4. She was certain to be left when he went away with them.
  5. Speeches are created in answer to the world's questions.
4) Argue that 3 sentences cannot be saved.
  1. The scene changes it is a stone high up against with a hill and there is and above where they will have time.
  2. Across which it is placed upon different hills.
  3. It makes it do that they do cry when in an assistance.
 The first sentence cannot be saved as one sentence because there is no clarity about which subject and verb go together (or if anyone of them do) and there is no way to determine what it was supposed to mean.
The second sentence contains the pronoun 'it' but has no clarity as to what this pronoun refers. There is no way to determine what the sentence is attempting to say in order to correct it.
The second sentence contains the do construction with two separate 'it' pronouns -- each clearly referring to different things but neither with any claeity as to what things. Also, there is no way to be "in an assistance" because assistance is an action and not something in which to get INSIDE...




Odd Construction


Are you ready to quit?

Are you ready to quit?

Are you ready to Quit?

The structure of this sentence bothered me. I couldn't place why. I had to tear it apart.

I'm okay with "are you?" but I don't like the word 'ready' and the word 'quit'? together.

So, I decided I had to figure out what I didn't like.

I looked up 'ready.'
1. completely prepared or in fit condition for immediate action or use: troops ready for battle; Dinner is ready.
2.
duly equipped, completed, adjusted, or arranged, as for an occasion or purpose: The mechanic called to say that the car is ready.
3.
willing: ready to forgive.
4.
prompt or quick in perceiving, comprehending, speaking, writing, etc.
5.
proceeding from or showing such quickness: a ready reply.


Then I looked up 'quit.'
1.
to stop, cease, or discontinue: She quit what she was doing to help me paint the house.
2.
to depart from; leave (a place or person): They quit the city for the seashore every summer.
3.
to give up or resign; let go; relinquish: He quit his claim to the throne. She quit her job.
4.
to release one's hold of (something grasped).
5.
to acquit or conduct (oneself).


So I guess I placed what I do not like.

To me, 'ready' carries the connotation of the first meaning.

Immediate action. It implies DOING SOMETHING.

But what are you doing? You are STOPPING, CEASING, OR DISCONTINUING.

So immediately begin the action of stopping the action...



I don't like the sentence because it implies an oxymoron.

But if you add the action that is implied by the sentence....


"Are you ready to quit smoking?"


It doesn't bother me at all. And I don't know why.


Thursday, November 15, 2012

Then they're going to their wedding over there, too, where two cakes are better than one

Then. Than.
There. Their. They're.
To. Two. Too.

I don't understand the problem with these. I do see what's so funny about it when people DO have a problem with these, like above.

I'm back to a similar argument that I was making about puns. Why is there such word repetition and confusion in Standard American English?

I cannot help but make fun of someone that posts something like the picture above. (this is also another post from reddit, but I could've easily just pulled several screen shots off my own Facebook news feed and embarrassed one of my friends.

If it's a really close friend, I get out my grammar bat...
Even if it's not a close friend, sometimes I will comment on their post with the correct version of the word just so I'm making a point. I guess I am guilty of grammar vague-booking.

10 items or fewer....

Less than/fewer than...

It wasn't until I was actually into my student teaching experience that I was informed that there is a prescriptive difference for these two terms. This is rare for me. I typically pick up on a prescriptive application without thinking about it-- somehow grammar typically just "clicks" in my head.

But then one day my cooperating teacher is talking about less than and fewer than and I realize that the prescriptive difference is that fewer than is the term that belongs with count nouns and less than belongs with non-count nouns. 
 
OH. But wait a minute, right? ALL those cash register signs in the express lanes always say "count noun" or less...
So I started watching. I haven't found a sign yet that is correct. 
When I brought this up with several people, I've repeatedly heard the rumor that there are some Target stores where the signs are correct. I haven't found one yet. The one on University has "10 items or fewer" and so does the one in Conway. Maybe this was someone's prescriptive grammar dream about Target? I looked up some information about this. The most popular grammar blog on the internet, Grammar, Quick and Dirty Tips by Grammar Girl, states that,

"First, I think of the classic example of the grocery store express lane. Most of the signs for these lanes read, “10 items or less,” and that's just wrong. The signs should read, “10 items or fewer,” because items are individual, countable things. Between hearing people complain about the signs and seeing the signs every week or so, it sticks in my head that it should be fewer items. And when I stand in line and count the 15 items that belong to the person in front of me in the 10-items-or-fewer lane, I'm strongly reinforcing the idea that items are countable."

So I guess that this debate has actually went on for some time and somehow I just missed it. Now, of course, this has begun to bother me and I want to get out my grammar bat and beat the signs off the cash register poles.




 

Homicidal Panda Flees After Dinner; Comma Confusion or Poor Writing?

 I wrote a paper on the Oxford Comma. While I find the Oxford Comma humorous, the paper may be a little boring. I include it anyway:



Last year on vacation, Bradley met a prostitute, Sarah Palin, and Justin Bieber. While some may say Sarah Palin prostitutes herself for the sake of publicity, this sentence is actually meant to indicate that Bradley met three different people on his vacation. However, because of the use of a serial comma, it appears that the word prostitute is actually an appositive identifying Ms. Palin. The serial comma is the one that occurs in the listing of a series before the conjunction. Many call this the Oxford Comma, or occasionally the Harvard Comma, because those style guides identify its usage (Lynch 57). However, despite the prestigious terminology, the Oxford Comma is nuisance punctuation, causing heated debate for grammarians. Even the style guides that seem to endorse it use terminology that is ambiguous and subject to interpretation. In the current writing environment where space is at a premium and professors insist that punctuation stay at a minimum, it is time for the Oxford Comma to expire. It is a myth the Oxford Comma is necessary in a listing of a series because it creates unnecessary confusion, it is redundant and it is contradictory to common application.
One should not include an Oxford Comma in the listing of a series because it can create unnecessary confusion. As the opening sentence demonstrates, the Oxford Comma is hard to decipher from an appositive, which Harry Shaw explains “is a noun or a pronoun, or a phrase acting as one of these two parts of speech, which provides explanation and is usually nonrestrictive in function” (72-3). The sentence creates confusion by using an Oxford Comma because the reader is unable to determine whether the prostitute is actually a third person or if Ms. Palin is the prostitute. Comma placement is important to convey meaning in a sentence. Lynne Truss’s popular illustrated book, Eats, Shoots & Leaves, illustrates the change of meaning of many simple sentences by only changing the comma placement. These books demonstrate the hilarity of misplaced commas by showing the differences in intended meaning through humorous cartoons. Truss displays “Eat here, and get gas!” in front of an illustration of a convenience store on one page, and then displays “Eat here and get gas!” in front of obviously bloated family eating at a greasy-spoon restaurant (14-15). As this indicates, comma placement can lead to hilarious or potentially embarrassing misunderstandings. The Oxford Comma lends itself to confusion more frequently than other forms of punctuation. In most cases, the ambiguity of the sentence is easy to correct. Sometimes, people claim that an Oxford Comma makes more sense. For example, Harry Mount cites, “I’d like to thank my parents, Elvis and Marilyn Monroe” (13). The clarity of this sentence slightly improves by the addition of the Oxford Comma. Instead, true clarity of the sentence requires a change in syntax. Writing, “I’d like to thank Elvis, Marilyn Monroe and my parents” is the most effective way to ensure clarity. The Oxford Comma is not necessary.
One should not use an Oxford Comma when listing a series because it creates redundancy. Many people remember learning in grade school a comma can be used as a substitute for and. The New Well-Tempered Sentence states, “A comma is used to indicate omitted words readily understood from the context” (Gordon 52). Commas used in a list of a series stand as a substitution for the conjunction. In the example sentence, the comma between prostitute and Ms. Palin represents the missing word; therefore, the missing and easily re-inserts, stating, “Bradley met a prostitute and Sarah Palin and Justin Bieber.” However, re-insertion of the missing words with the Oxford Comma in the sentence forces it to read, ‘. . . Sarah Palin and and Justin Bieber.’ Use of the Oxford Comma creates unintended redundancy.
Using an Oxford Comma in a series goes against standard practice, despite the style books’ permission. After it was mistakenly reported in July that the Oxford Comma was being removed from Oxford University Press’s style guide, Harry Mount wrote a scathing article that asserts:
The horrible piece of punctuation has survived a pendant war. WITH all due respect to the ancient university, just because you put the word ‘Oxford’ in front of something, it doesn’t make it immune from criticism. An Oxford Blue is pretty impressive. Oxford shoes look nice and smart; but the Oxford Comma? What a horrible thing. Thank God that the university’s branding people decided to remove it from their style book. (26)
The article goes on to explain the Oxford University Press is retaining the Oxford comma, and it berates the choice. While some formal style books for scholarly papers and literature indicate the Oxford comma should be used, newsrooms and journalists discontinued its use years ago. The Independent points out, “We don’t have a Cambridge No Comma” (Bywater). The decision to use or omit the Oxford Comma changes with every style book. R. J. McCutcheon researched the use of the Oxford Comma and reports, “I have checked magazines having a total circulation of much more than thirty millions. More than half the readers must do without the aid of the comma before the conjunction in series, and they probably experience little difficulty in grasping the writers’ thought” (252-3). He goes on to state that Dr. Stuart Robinson claims “that the practice of using the comma is more common in well-written and well-edited books in America than it is in England” (qtd. in McCutcheon 253). In fact, The Global English Style Guide suggests using semicolons to circumvent confusion in separating a series (Kohl 193). The use of the Oxford Comma is in decline all over the world.
Because the Oxford Comma causes confusion, is redundant and is now only in sporadic use, it is time for it to die. The MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers states, “The primary purpose of punctuation is to ensure the clarity and readability of writing” (66). However, the Oxford Comma does not serve this purpose. Clarity of writing when listing a series is only ensured by good writing and proofreading. Placement of the Oxford Comma does not enhance understanding. Punctuation changes are extremely common in the progression of the English language. David Crystal writes, “Early English manuscripts present an array of punctuation marks which look very different from those used today. Some have now fallen out of use, whereas others have developed over the centuries into their modern counterparts” (282).  However, the death of the Oxford Comma is proving painstakingly slow. R.J. MuCutcheon’s article about its declining use is over seventy years old. Supporters of the Oxford Comma rally together and protest each time anyone suggests its elimination. Vanity Fair reports a popular song by Vampire Weekend refers to the phenomena. The article quotes the lead singer, Ezra Koenig, as saying, “There was a group at Columbia called Students for the Preservation of the Oxford Comma. I didn’t think about it too much but, a few months later while sitting at a piano at my parents’ house, I started writing the song and the first thing that came out was, ‘Who gives a fuck about an Oxford Comma?’” (Hogan). Of course, the overwhelming answer to this question is apparently people. Mount’s article suggesting its elimination sparked thousands of letters to the editor of The Daily Telegraph. Over four dozen were published, stating everything from examples of its necessity to personal attacks of Mount’s intelligence. The mistaken report that it was being eliminated sparked a Twitter campaign that rocketed around the world. Even a book that advocates the elimination of antiquated English rules dances around the subject. The title is Miss Thistlebottom’s Hobgoblins; The Careful Writer’s Guide to the Taboos, Bugbears and Outmoded Rules of English Usage, which clearly avoids the usage of the outdated Oxford Comma. However, the book avoids the controversial subject by never addressing the use of a serial comma within its text. Any suggestion of its elimination is met with strict opposition. Warren Clements explains that his report on the Oxford Comma invoked an “avalanche of responses” that is “full of puns.” He writes, “‘I can’t stand these leftist Oxford communists!’ wrote one contributor ‘Skinny Dipper.’ Bob McGowan winced at last week’s reference to ‘the comma before the storm’” (R8). The massive amount of controversy surrounding such a little mark is quite humorous. However, the controversy needs to end with the death of the Oxford Comma. Comma usage is extremely difficult to master. Poor usage causes confusion and problems in writing. Shaw writes, “Its varied and distinct uses result in its being by far the most troublesome of the marks; in fact, comma usage varies so greatly that only a few rules can be considering unchanging” (64). Eliminating the Oxford Comma from usage should be the next change made to reduce the trouble with punctuation.

Works Cited
Bernstein, Theodore M. Miss Thistlebottom’s Hobgoblins; The Careful Writer’s Guide to the Taboos, Bugbears and Outmoded Rules of English Usage. New York, Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 2000. Print.
Bywater, Michael. “The University, the Angry Writers, and the Alleged Death of the Oxford Comma; A New Style Guide Ruling has Stunned Punctuation Purists. Michael Bywater is Thrilled.” The Independent 1 Jul 2011. LexisNexis. Web. 1 Nov 2011.
Crystal, David. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of The English Language. New York, Cambridge University Press, 2003. Print.
Clements, Warren. “Underestimate the Oxford Comma at Your Peril.” The Globe and Mail. 16 Jul 2011. R8. MLA International Bibliography. Web 29 Oct. 2011.
Gordon, Karen Elizabeth. The New Well-Tempered Sentence. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1993. Print.
Hogan, Michael. “Michael Hogan: Vampire Weekend’s ‘Oxford Comma,’ Explained.” Vanity Fair. 28 Jan 2008. MLA International Bibliography  Web. 1 Nov 2011.
Kohl, John R. The Global English Style Guide: Writing Clear, Translatable Documentation for a Global Market. Cary: SAS Institute Inc., 2008. Print.
Lynch, Jack. The English Language: A Users Guide. Newburyport, Focus Publishing/R. Pullins Co., 2008. Print.
McCutcheon, R. J. “The Serial Comma Before ‘and’ and ‘or’.” American Speech, 15.3 Oct 1940: 250-254. JSTOR. Web. 29 Oct 2011.
MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers. New York: The Modern Language Association of America, 2009. Print.
Mount, Harry. “Put a Full Stop to the Oxford Comma; Only the Prissy and Fussy Would Mourn its Passing.” The Daily Telegraph 2 Jul 2011: 26. LexisNexis. Web 5 Nov. 2011.
Shaw, Harry. Punctuate it Right! New York: Harper & Row Pub., 1963. Print.
Truss, Lynne. Eats, Shoots & Leaves: Why, Commas Really Do Make a Difference! New York, G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 2006. Print



Well, the Oxford Comma is probably here to stay since it has a fan club and a t-shirt.
 Although my paper makes it clear that I don't necessarily agree, it pleases me to know that other people out there care this much about something like a little comma. I am not alone in the world.


 

Embarrassed by my own humor?

I find it interesting when the English language becomes one of my favorite sources of humor. This picture, with a variety of different puns, is often posted to reddit.com (Warning: This website is addictive!) 



Some of the interesting tidbits include:

  • The short fortuneteller who escaped from prison was a small medium at large.
  • He often broke into song because he couldn't find the key.
  • Local Area Network in Australia: The LAN down under.
  • The man who fell into an upholstery machine is fully recovered.
  • When a clock is hungry it goes back four seconds.
  • A chicken crossing the road is poultry in motion.
  • In democracy it's your vote that counts. In feudalism it's your count that votes.
  • Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
  • What's the definition of a will? (It's a dead giveaway)
  • A bicycle can't stand on its own because it is two-tired.
Yes, they make people GROAN when they get the joke, but yet, they are still gloriously funny.

GLORIOUSLY FUNNY only because our language is very screwed up.  Why does English have so many words with multiple meanings? I attempted to research whether other languages are riddled with words with multiple meanings, but I did not find anything substantial to report. (I did find some interesting words which mean one thing in one language but something completely different-- and sometimes inappropriate-- in other languages. Quite amusing, but not what I was looking for.) I am under the assumption that this is an American English problem.

It is an American English problem which I embrace. After all, a backwards poet always writes inverse.



My grammar notebook is electronicalized!

Note: this post has been edited to prevent revealing the identity of the professor whom it might embarrass. Please note the *censored* edits were installed to remove the disclosure of which department is guilty of these events.



It's interesting that I don't find myself to be a grammar snob when it comes to my mother (who can get away with saying "bellyingist"), yet with my professors I expect a better understanding and usage of Standard English.
I do not have any issues with anyone in my department. All of the English professors are well-versed and actually correct ME quite often.

However, I have a professor in the *censored* department who told me on the first day of class, "I have no use for all you English people!"
And she has spent the entire semester proving that she has no use for the English language, either.

Her vocabulary skills seem to be lacking (she often uses a word out of context) and I often think, "I don't think that word means what you think it means."
 Several people giggled aloud when she misused the word "phallic" in a sentence about class disruptions. Certainly, there was a disruption created, but it wasn't phallic. I'm sure many of us would not belong as future *censored* if our disruptions were repeatedly "phallic."
 From Dictionary.com... in 5 seconds or less....
phal·lic
[fal-ik] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or resembling a phallus.
2.
of or pertaining to phallicism.
3. genital ( def. 2b

dis·rup·tion

[dis-ruhp-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
forcible separation or division into parts.
2.
a disrupted  condition: The state was in disruption.
  She also made me laugh when she said that students now are very "electronicalized." (This was while presenting a PowerPoint in which this word is actually typed into her NOTES.)
Really? Technologically savvy, maybe? Did she mean that students have embraced the digital age?

I wonder if she's ever seen a Thesaurus or if she knows how to right-click? Surely she does not think this is a word. Does the RED SQUIGGLE under the word mean anything to her?


Another professor in the same *censored* department graded one of my papers exceptionally well. Then, in her closing comments, she had written, "Well written paper. I do not know what the word "obtrusive" means but clearly you do."

ob·tru·sive

[uhb-troo-siv] Show IPA
adjective
1.
having or showing a disposition to obtrude,  as by imposing oneself or one's opinions on others.
2.
(of a thing) obtruding  itself: an obtrusive error.
3.
protruding; projecting.


All I could think was, "Wow! Don't you have a doctorate degree?" It is disheartening to realize that professors are too lazy to look up a word they do not understand in a student paper.

However, this is not a place to complain about the *censored* department and I certainly am not intending to embarrass anyone. This blog is to state that I find myself extremely grammatically biased against this department because of what I have encountered in it. I can accept my mother's interesting mash of morphemes and hill-country dialect as charming. My grandmother told me that since I am taking this class, I should teach her to speak "good English." (Yes. I said it. I replied, "Yes, Grandmother, I will be happy to teach you to speak English well." She laughed.)

What I mean to say in this blog entry is that I find myself to be a grammar snob when it comes to poor usage from educated people.
I question ANYTHING and EVERYTHING they claim or assert after realizing that they do not have strong grammar skills. If they didn't pick up basic grammar rules or a decent vocabulary, how could they possibly have anything worthwhile to say?

So I will close this blog with something that Matthew Quick said last week in a special event. He said that karate instructors do not teach their students to go out and practice new kicks on every unsuspecting citizen they encounter. So he questions, why is it that when we learn the prescriptive rules of grammar we go out and bang everyone we meet on the head with our new-found "Grammar Bat?"