Re: Where to start?

From: Richard Heathfield (invalid_at_address.co.uk.invalid)
Date: 02/18/04 

Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 12:08:29 +0000

Joe Peschel wrote:

<snip>

>> Interestingly, I disagree that the "traditional style" to which Mr
>> Gwyn refers /is/ traditional. I /think/ it was introduced by American
>> printing houses for a technical reason to do with the fragility of
>> type, although of course I could be mistaken about that.
>
> I think you are mistaken.

I tried to find some supporting evidence for this (since I really am not
just making it up), but I couldn't seem to find the right Google
incantation. I may look again this evening.

<snip>

>>> Is the writing poor? For most, it's probably not. For Gwyn? Yes,
>>> and it requires editing to be standard Gwynian prose.
>>
>> That doesn't look so bad to me. And let's not forget (quoth he,
>> beginning a sentence with a conjunction!) that none of us get paid for
>> this.
>
> There's nothing wrong with beginning a sentence with a conjunction now and
> then.

It should, however, be done sparingly. I recall a book by, I think, Joseph
Conrad, in which the very first sentence started with "And", to great
dramatic effect. Conrad wasn't a native English speaker, but that sentence
was /so/ effective that I don't think it was accidental. I also think it
would have been far less effective if over-used.

>> Oh, you /do/? Where do I sign up, then? :-)
>
> Sign up?

For being paid for composing Usenet articles.

> I meant Gwyn should have edited his message a tad before he sent
> it.

Well, my point is that we shouldn't necessarily have to be word-perfect when
composing Usenet articles. I know I make mistakes of grammar, punctuation,
and even (on occasion) spelling when writing Usenet articles, and that
doesn't even include typos. I wish I didn't, but that's life. I can live
with my level of inaccuracy, and so can most readers. I suspect Mr Gwyn has
much the same opinion.

>> My point is simply that Mr Gwyn gives freely of his time to
>> participate in this newsgroup (as do you), and I think we can come up
>> with better uses of that time than trying to browbeat him into using
>> illogical punctuation.
>
> I'm not browbeating him. I'm trying to persuade him to use standard
> American English.

Forgive the colourful expression, please. I didn't mean it to be taken
literally. :-) I think your chances of persuading Mr Gwyn of doing
anything he doesn't want to do are remarkably low. I suppose my chances of
persuading /you/ are pretty low, too. But that's Usenet for you!

<snip>

>> I think sci.crypt generally has a high opinion of your contributions
>> to this newsgroup, and is therefore somewhat surprised by this rather
>> uncharacteristically illiberal stance you're taking. Of course, this
>> can be explained very easily by the fact that it's your subject, so to
>> speak. (I suppose I am similarly illiberal when it comes to C
>> programming.)
>
> Yes.

And the crowd roared its approval. Could reality be gaining a foothold on
the conversation? It was a slim hope, but a hope nonetheless.

>>> Funny thing is my
>>> criticism of Doug's writing is correct. And Doug knows it. I think
>>> you know it, too, Richard.
>>
>> I know that you are correct in identifying the difference between
>> Doug's style and the American style. I am not so sure that you are
>> correct in perceiving it to be a problem.
>
> It is a problem if Americans think Gwyn's punctuation style is the correct
> style for Americans to imitate.

Americans who use sci.crypt as a writing style guide are likely to have far
greater problems than (what you consider to be) misplaced punctuation.

<snip>

>> <snip>
>
> Hey, why did you snip this:
>
> I really thought he would write, "Oops."
>
> He didn't.
>
> A strange-looking dog barked, the gates opened, and the
> discussion, with a few weird flames, has burned on.
>
> I liked that part.

So did I, but the article was very long, and I felt obliged to snip where I
could (as I have also done with this reply).

<snip>

>>>> It's not /wrong/ to punctuate "like this". It's just a different
>>>> style to the style to which you are accustomed. That doesn't make it
>>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> Yeah, it's wrong. Try sending an ms punctuated /like/ that to an
>>> editor.
>>> :-)
>>
>> I did. They "corrected" it, much to my annoyance.
>
> Get it right next time!

According to my lights, it /was/ right. Their "corrections" were, in my
opinion, incorrect.

>>> I do get a bit peeved, though, at folks who feel the need italicize
>>> or emphasize so many words so often.
>>
>> That's me! I can't help it. I write as I speak, and my speech includes
>> a great many emphases. I can actually /pronounce/ italics! (And
>> parentheses.)
>>
>> BTW you missed "to" (after "need"), and misspelt "italicisNo, let's
>> not go there - we're in enough of a mire as it is, methinks.
>
> Yes, I missed "to."

If I mentally substitute "to." in the original sentence, I get:

      I do get a bit peeved, though, at folks who
      feel the need to. italicize or emphasize so
      many words so often.

That's why I think the American way is - well, perhaps "silly" is too strong
a word, but it doesn't seem to me to make much sense.

> Oops, but italicize is spelled correctly.

For Americans, yes. (Actually, both spellings are listed in my English
dictionary, with the -ize ending /not/ marked as "NAm"; some Englishmen
obviously disagree with me about that ending.)

Since you are so interested in the correct use of quotation marks, should
you not have written:

      Oops, but "italicize" is spelled correctly?

It's the old use/mention thing, you see. :-) 

-- 
Richard Heathfield : binary@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

Relevant Pages