Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Punctuation Guide

thepunctuationguide.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 62 posts

Re: The Punctuation Guide

#21

Post by rocqua »

Stratoscope wrote: post #16

Much of the advice here is good, but some is a bit weird. > I will give the document to my brother, Tom. (The writer has only one brother. The brother's name is nonessential and therefore set off with a comma.) > I will give the document to my brother Tom. (The writer has more than one brother. In this case, the specific brother—Tom—is essential information and should not be set off with a comma.) I know this used to…

Regarding the final example, I disagree.

"Your work has been frankly awful" has frankly as an adverb. That is, it was awful in a frank way.

"Your work has been, frankly, awful" makes it clear that frankly is a parenthetical remark that isn't part of the sentence.

With commas 'frankly' modifies how the writer intends the sentence to be received. Without, it modifies how awful the writer things your work has been. I suppose in some situations, the absurdity of 'being awful in a frank way' is sufficient to resolve the ambiguity.

Re: The Punctuation Guide

#22

Post by Stratoscope »

rocqua wrote: post #21
Stratoscope wrote: post #16

Much of the advice here is good, but some is a bit weird. > I will give the document to my brother, Tom. (The writer has only one brother. The brother's name is nonessential and therefore set off with a comma.) > I will give the document to my brother Tom. (The writer has more than one brother. In this case, the specific brother—Tom—is essential information and should not be set off with a comma.) I know this used to…

Regarding the final example, I disagree. "Your work has been frankly awful" has frankly as an adverb. That is, it was awful in a frank way. "Your work has been, frankly, awful" makes it clear that frankly is a parenthetical remark that isn't part of the sentence. With commas 'frankly' modifies how the writer intends the sentence to be received. Without, it modifies how awful the writer things your work has been. I su…

That's an excellent point. Perhaps this is another case where it would be better to rewrite the sentence:

"Frankly, your work has been awful."

Re: The Punctuation Guide

#23

Post by mysterypie »

Talking about punctuation abuse, people that litter their emails or texts with ellipses is something I can't figure out:

"Hey! I haven't heard from you in a while... I'm still in Boston... Can't complain cause it's been good... I saw the circus before it closed..."

What do they think they're saying with all those crazy unneeded ellipses?

Re: The Punctuation Guide

#24

Post by oddlyaromatic »

mysterypie wrote: post #23

Talking about punctuation abuse, people that litter their emails or texts with ellipses is something I can't figure out: "Hey! I haven't heard from you in a while... I'm still in Boston... Can't complain cause it's been good... I saw the circus before it closed..." What do they think they're saying with all those crazy unneeded ellipses?

Lots of people do this to connect loosely related sentences because to them the "..." reads like a little pause. I guess it feels more comfortable, less formal, and let's them get the words out without worrying about structure too much.

Re: The Punctuation Guide

#25

Post by yorwba »

IshKebab wrote: post #2

Actually pretty good but it still falls into the trap of thinking that there are rules, and that some people follow them and some people break them. For example: > When used in this way, the bracketed information should be an addition, not a substitution. For example, if the original quotation is “She never called back,” do not change it to “[Lucy] never called back.” Instead write: “She [Lucy] never called back.” (N…

I can't tell whom you're calling an idiot here: people who pronounce historic with an initial vowel or those who don't?

Re: The Punctuation Guide

#27

Post by blackkettle »

IshKebab wrote: post #2

Actually pretty good but it still falls into the trap of thinking that there are rules, and that some people follow them and some people break them. For example: > When used in this way, the bracketed information should be an addition, not a substitution. For example, if the original quotation is “She never called back,” do not change it to “[Lucy] never called back.” Instead write: “She [Lucy] never called back.” (N…

The 'an' rule for 'historic' is related to historical pronunciation trends. Particularly in Britain, but even in the US if you go back a bit further, it used to be common in certain dialects to not pronounce the 'h'. The choice of 'a' vs 'an' reflected that trend:

http://www.betterwritingskills.com/tip-w005.html

Re: The Punctuation Guide

#28

Post by osteele »

IshKebab wrote: post #2

Actually pretty good but it still falls into the trap of thinking that there are rules, and that some people follow them and some people break them. For example: > When used in this way, the bracketed information should be an addition, not a substitution. For example, if the original quotation is “She never called back,” do not change it to “[Lucy] never called back.” Instead write: “She [Lucy] never called back.” (N…

> Actually pretty good but it still falls into the trap of thinking that there are rules, and that some people follow them and some people break them.

I recommend _The Linguistics of Punctuation_, by Geoffrey Nunberg. It's a linguistically-informed descriptive (rather than prescriptive) analysis of English punctuation.

Re: The Punctuation Guide

#29

Post by osteele »

IshKebab wrote: post #2

Actually pretty good but it still falls into the trap of thinking that there are rules, and that some people follow them and some people break them. For example: > When used in this way, the bracketed information should be an addition, not a substitution. For example, if the original quotation is “She never called back,” do not change it to “[Lucy] never called back.” Instead write: “She [Lucy] never called back.” (N…

> But even some people (idiots) break that rule for the weirdly specific case of 'historic'.

Perhaps P is confused about the distinctions between "dialect", "idiolect", and "idiot". Or perhaps "idiot" means "dialect", in P's idiolect.

Re: The Punctuation Guide

#30

Post by jdmichal »

dghf wrote: post #9
IshKebab wrote: post #2

Actually pretty good but it still falls into the trap of thinking that there are rules, and that some people follow them and some people break them. For example: > When used in this way, the bracketed information should be an addition, not a substitution. For example, if the original quotation is “She never called back,” do not change it to “[Lucy] never called back.” Instead write: “She [Lucy] never called back.” (N…

There may not be rules, but as in language as a whole, there are commonly shared and accepted conventions that can aid comprehensibility -- but only to the extent that they are commonly shared and accepted. I've known some people who insist that punctuation is irrelevant, and they can understand written text perfectly well without it. And their reading speed does seem to be unaffected by the presence or absence of pu…

Honestly I'm on board with joining all coordinate and subordinate clauses with punctuation all the time and calling it a day. In any other context, such apparently random deviations to the rules would not be celebrated. (Apparently random, because any actual reason is historic, likely unknown, and potentially not even relevant to modern writers.)
Post reply on HN