Friday, June 1, 2012
Over the years I have noticed a phenomenon related to English grammar: Mistakes and errors become ingrained in the language, and the mistakes become sacred rules that no one dares to dispute. Indeed, since the rule protects an error, it is more memorable than rules that don't protect errors. In other words, the rule becomes ingrained in everyone's mind specifically because it is wrong. Many of these errors have crept into the language in the time that I've been alive.
Commas in a Series
When I was young, there was a basic rule regarding commas that was eminently logical. However, in the last 30 years, someone decided to change the rule, and now you have authorities like the New York Times making this ungrammatical mistake in every paper that they publish. The rule was:
Phrases in a series take a final comma before the conjunction (and, or, but), but words in a series do not, as follows:
Phrases: _____ _____ _____, _____ _____ _____, and _____ _____ _____.
Words: _____, _____ and _____. (no comma before the "and")
Somewhere along the line, the rule evolved so that the final comma is always left out, even if it is required for clarity. Thus, you will find hard-to-read sentences like this in the New York Times:
Now, if the sentence read,
The bottom line is that you can put a comma anywhere you feel it is needed to clarify your sentence; yet at the New York Times, all the writers are apparently forbidden to put them before the conjunction in a series of phrases, even if that results in what read like run-on sentences. How stupid.
Eating Cake
This is not a rule per se, but it is an example of how the backwards idea is the one that becomes ingrained.
The expression goes, "You can't have your cake and eat it too." The problem is, you CAN have your cake and then eat it. What you can't do is, "You can't eat your cake and have it too." Undoubtedly, that was how the expression was originally conceived, but everyone has memorized the error. For about ten years now I've been saying it correctly, and I hope that it will catch on.
Periods, Commas and Quotations Marks
In the United States (but not in England), when you are ending a sentence with a quote, you are supposed to put the period inside of the quotes. Thus, you would write:
Because this rule of punctuation is illogical, exceptions are necessitated. For example, colons (:) and semicolons (;) go outside the quotes (because the opposite wood look ridiculous), while commas (,) and periods (.) go inside the quotes (apparently because they are very small). Logically, all punctuation which is not part of the quoted text should go outside the quotes; and indeed, that is the way it is done in England.
As with all illogical rules of grammar or punctuation, it is drummed into our heads that it is wrong, wrong, wrong to ignore this rule. Indeed, while searching the internet I found plenty of articles (including one by a judge) admonishing the reader to put their commas and periods inside the quotation marks. But if we used the British method, and placed quotation marks in logical places, no one would have to remember a rule.
So where did this rule come from? I postulate that it arose from the world of typesetting. In the days of lead type, to save space, periods and commas would be placed directly under (or slightly to the left) of quotation marks, as follows:
When typewriters became available, a decision had to be made how to line up the periods, commas and quotation marks. Although it is possible to overlap them on a typewriter, it slowed the typist down, so a decision was made to put the quotes on the outside; and it has remained that way ever since. No matter how this rule got started, it is not a good rule. We need to revert to the British method, which is clearer and more logical.
Words and Punctuation That Do Double Duty
What I'm about to describe isn't necessarily a rule, but some writers seem to think it is. Indeed, it may be an "emerging" rule, but it is quite ridiculous.
The name of New York City's most famous newspaper is "The New York Times", so some writers, when referencing it, write: "Mr. Jones is a reporter for the The New York Times." Do you see that the word "the" has been written twice? Now, if that isn't absurd, I don't know what is. In a case like this, the capitalized word does double duty, and it should be written like this: "Mr. Jones is a reporter for The New York Times." And if the "The" is not capitalized, you needn't worry that someone from The New York Times will complain.
If it sounds awkward when spoken, then it should not be written. Thus, you would never say "Mr. Jones is a reporter for the The New York Times", so you should never write such a thing.
I have also seen punctuation repeated when it shouldn't be. For example: "I will be attending the party given by Jones, et al.." In such an instance, the first period belongs to the abbreviation, and the second period marks the end of the sentence. But that's wrong. It should be written: "I will be attending the party given by Jones, et al." The reader will know if the next word begins a new sentence from the meaning, and also if the word is capitalized.
Commas in a Series
When I was young, there was a basic rule regarding commas that was eminently logical. However, in the last 30 years, someone decided to change the rule, and now you have authorities like the New York Times making this ungrammatical mistake in every paper that they publish. The rule was:
Phrases in a series take a final comma before the conjunction (and, or, but), but words in a series do not, as follows:
Phrases: _____ _____ _____, _____ _____ _____, and _____ _____ _____.
Words: _____, _____ and _____. (no comma before the "and")
Somewhere along the line, the rule evolved so that the final comma is always left out, even if it is required for clarity. Thus, you will find hard-to-read sentences like this in the New York Times:
Dr. Jacobson attributed the decline to a rise in general health consciousness, the availability of bottled water, low-carbohydrate diets like the Atkins and the South Beach, the removal of soft drinks from schools and the growing publicity of information linking soft drinks to obesity and diabetes.To make that sentence more readable, there needs to be a comma after "schools". Indeed, when the reader doesn't see a comma, he or she might expect something different to come after the "and", such as this:
... like the Atkins and the South Beach, the removal of soft drinks from schools and day-care centers, and the growing publicity of information linking soft drinks to obesity and diabetes.The point is, the comma alerts the reader that the phrase has ended, and the reader then knows what to expect next.
Now, if the sentence read,
Dr. Jacobson attributed the decline to a rise in health, water, diets, schools and publicity.then a comma after schools would be superfluous. (That sentence makes no sense, but you get my meaning.)
The bottom line is that you can put a comma anywhere you feel it is needed to clarify your sentence; yet at the New York Times, all the writers are apparently forbidden to put them before the conjunction in a series of phrases, even if that results in what read like run-on sentences. How stupid.
Eating Cake
This is not a rule per se, but it is an example of how the backwards idea is the one that becomes ingrained.
The expression goes, "You can't have your cake and eat it too." The problem is, you CAN have your cake and then eat it. What you can't do is, "You can't eat your cake and have it too." Undoubtedly, that was how the expression was originally conceived, but everyone has memorized the error. For about ten years now I've been saying it correctly, and I hope that it will catch on.
Periods, Commas and Quotations Marks
In the United States (but not in England), when you are ending a sentence with a quote, you are supposed to put the period inside of the quotes. Thus, you would write:
Maya Angelou said, "There is nothing so pitiful as a young cynic because he has gone from knowing nothing to believing nothing."That's all well and good because Maya Angelou's statement was a complete sentence that ended in a period. However, the rule results in sentences like these:
My favorite song is "As Time Goes By."and
Evelyn described her father as a "stubborn old man."and (from a legal document)
... the Executor must comply with paragraph "i" in subsection "A."The problem with the first example is that a period is not part of the name of the song, so logically the period should go outside the quotes. In the second example, Evelyn wasn't necessarily using the phrase "stubborn old man" at the end of a sentence when she actually spoke it. The third example simply looks odd, and can lead to confusion: Is it subsection "A", or is it subsection "A."?
Because this rule of punctuation is illogical, exceptions are necessitated. For example, colons (:) and semicolons (;) go outside the quotes (because the opposite wood look ridiculous), while commas (,) and periods (.) go inside the quotes (apparently because they are very small). Logically, all punctuation which is not part of the quoted text should go outside the quotes; and indeed, that is the way it is done in England.
As with all illogical rules of grammar or punctuation, it is drummed into our heads that it is wrong, wrong, wrong to ignore this rule. Indeed, while searching the internet I found plenty of articles (including one by a judge) admonishing the reader to put their commas and periods inside the quotation marks. But if we used the British method, and placed quotation marks in logical places, no one would have to remember a rule.
So where did this rule come from? I postulate that it arose from the world of typesetting. In the days of lead type, to save space, periods and commas would be placed directly under (or slightly to the left) of quotation marks, as follows:
When typewriters became available, a decision had to be made how to line up the periods, commas and quotation marks. Although it is possible to overlap them on a typewriter, it slowed the typist down, so a decision was made to put the quotes on the outside; and it has remained that way ever since. No matter how this rule got started, it is not a good rule. We need to revert to the British method, which is clearer and more logical.
Words and Punctuation That Do Double Duty
What I'm about to describe isn't necessarily a rule, but some writers seem to think it is. Indeed, it may be an "emerging" rule, but it is quite ridiculous.
The name of New York City's most famous newspaper is "The New York Times", so some writers, when referencing it, write: "Mr. Jones is a reporter for the The New York Times." Do you see that the word "the" has been written twice? Now, if that isn't absurd, I don't know what is. In a case like this, the capitalized word does double duty, and it should be written like this: "Mr. Jones is a reporter for The New York Times." And if the "The" is not capitalized, you needn't worry that someone from The New York Times will complain.
If it sounds awkward when spoken, then it should not be written. Thus, you would never say "Mr. Jones is a reporter for the The New York Times", so you should never write such a thing.
I have also seen punctuation repeated when it shouldn't be. For example: "I will be attending the party given by Jones, et al.." In such an instance, the first period belongs to the abbreviation, and the second period marks the end of the sentence. But that's wrong. It should be written: "I will be attending the party given by Jones, et al." The reader will know if the next word begins a new sentence from the meaning, and also if the word is capitalized.
0 comments:
Post a Comment