Grammar thread - to save Susie's Book!

[Kaonohi]

I doubt this will last long, but we were hijacking Susie's Book thread with grammar rules, so:

Re: the semicolon.
Greg, you were right, I was wrong, there are times when a semicolon is used before a conjunction between dependent clauses. It's when there is already a comma in the sentence.

From the following-referenced website page:


"3. When the clauses themselves contain commas.

Incorrect: He wears shoes with kilties, a leather fringe, but I prefer penny loafers myself.
(Since clause already has comma, semicolon separating the clauses is needed to make sentence clear.)
Correct: He wears shoes with kilties, a leather fringe; but I prefer penny loafers myself."

http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000094.htm shows the ways a semicolon is to be used.

In general, the englishplus site is a great reference/reminder of the rules of English.

[GregLee]

Re: Grammar thread - to save Susie's Book!

Greg, you were right, I was wrong, there are times when a semicolon is used before a conjunction between dependent clauses. It's when there is already a comma in the sentence.

Ahem. I never said anything remotely like that, and I don't believe it at all.

[SusieMisajon]

Re: Grammar thread - to save Susie's Book!

You guys crack me up!

[Kaonohi]

Re: Grammar thread - to save Susie's Book!

Helen reminded me I should have mentioned this thread is an attempt to de-hijack Susisue's "Shameless Marketing" thread at:
http://www.hawaiithreads.com/showthread.php?t=19262

[Kaonohi]

Re: Grammar thread - to save Susie's Book!

Ahem. I never said anything remotely like that, and I don't believe it at all.

My bad... memory isn't what it used to be.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Grammar thread - to save Susie's Book!

Originally Posted by scrivener >
I would argue that sentences beginning with conjunctions are 99% of the time not grammatically complete sentences, while they are certainly stylistically acceptable.

Originally posted by Greg Lee>
I will look forward to that argument.

I also look forward to that argument or discussion. As I learned, coordinate conjunctions (hereinafter CC) join linguistic elements such as clauses or phrases, even words; but I have seen no English linguistic rule where a CC joins two separate sentences. If a CC is at the beginning of a sentence, what is it joining? In every case I have seen the sentence has the same meaning whether the CC is used or dropped, consequently it is unnecessary, even superfluous. It may have some use in speech, where the speaker has an inordinate pause or break in the flow of the utterance, and wishes to continue along the same lines.

If, however, you are referring to popular usage rather than standard English (see scrivner's above statement) then we are arguing apples and oranges.

I'm going to play it safe, and go with scriv's 99%. There may be a valid instance, and I'd love to see it.

This brings us back to the distinction between 'proper English,' standard English and standardized English. Fun stuff!

[GregLee]

Re: Grammar thread - to save Susie's Book!

As I learned, coordinate conjunctions (hereinafter CC) join linguistic elements such as clauses or phrases, even words; but I have seen no English linguistic rule where a CC joins two separate sentences. If a CC is at the beginning of a sentence, what is it joining?

But this is not an argument about English itself, but concerns only how English is described. The argument is merely terminological. If we decide that "and", "or", "but" can indeed come at the beginning of independent constructions, and you think then that they shouldn't be described as joining elements, then we can simply call them something else -- English will remain as it was. Instead of "coordinate conjunctions", let us now call them "resumptive sentential adverbs", or whatever. The descriptive issue is whether they can actually occur initially in independent clauses (and the answer is obvious). If you don't want to call them conjunctions anymore, then fine; don't. Terminology is not worth arguing about.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Grammar thread - to save Susie's Book!

I did read it (well, some of it). The trouble is that it doesn't give reasons -- it's just a serious of unsupported statements about what the author thinks is correct. Why should I believe it? If I made a web site saying what I think is correct, would you believe me?

Certainly not, because your use of incorrect grammar shows your ignorance.

It gave plenty of explanations! Did you not understand them?

The part you should have read was:
"In standard written English, the personal pronouns in the predicate nominative are the same as they would be in the subject. Most Americans do not speak this way, but it is grammatically correct.

In standard written English, the personal pronouns in the predicate nominative are the same as they would be in the subject. Most Americans do not speak this way, but it is grammatically correct.
(...)
Even though we may often say, "It's me" the grammatically correct way is "It's I." "
This relates to your "Not me" argument. You can use incorrect grammar if you want, but if you insist that incorrect grammar is correct, it makes you look stupid.

FWIW, you seem to be more concerned with stroking your ego by winning arguments than learning something and admitting you can make a mistake.

That attitude will not get you far here.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Grammar thread

I thought you were looking forward to the argument. Are you untrustworthy?

Terminology is not worth arguing about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scrivener >
I would argue that sentences beginning with conjunctions are 99% of the time not grammatically complete sentences, while they are certainly stylistically acceptable.

Quote:

Originally posted by Greg Lee>
I will look forward to that argument.

[GregLee]

Re: Grammar thread

I thought you were looking forward to the argument. Are you untrustworthy?

No, I am anticipating that scrivener will be making a convincing argument with some real substance, not merely applying terminology.

[GregLee]

Re: Grammar thread - to save Susie's Book!

It gave plenty of explanations! Did you not understand them?

The part you should have read was:
"In standard written English, the personal pronouns in the predicate nominative are the same as they would be in the subject. Most Americans do not speak this way, but it is grammatically correct.

That's not an explanation. It just says that something is so, but it doesn't say why. Explanations say why.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Grammar thread - to save Susie's Book!

That's not an explanation. It just says that something is so, but it doesn't say why. Explanations say why.

That's not an argument, it's a cop-out. If you look more closely, and read more s-l-o-w-l-y, you will see it is an explanation for why "Not me" is incorrect; the written English rule is that the predicate must match the subject - that is the explanation.
If you think rules are invalid, drive through a few red lights and learn the hard way.
English grammar has evolved and been documented regarding what is grammatically correct and why. The 'explanation,' or the 'why' you are looking for is that English authorities made the rules for grammar, and we either follow them or not. They are valid until we change them. To insist that citing documented rules is not a 'why' is naive. It's that way because the authorities made the rules that way.
You might as well argue that dictionary definitions are invalid.
I think scriviner got bored with you weaseling out. I know I am.

[GregLee]

Re: Grammar thread - to save Susie's Book!

That's not an argument, it's a cop-out. If you look more closely, and read more s-l-o-w-l-y, you will see it is an explanation for why "Not me" is incorrect; the written English rule is that the predicate must match the subject - that is the explanation.

Perhaps appeal to a rule could count as an explanation, if we somehow knew that the rule was correct. But where does this rule come from? Why assume that it is correct?

Take a look at the Wikipedia article on Subject Complement. That will get you started. The article quotes this

From the beginning in the 19th century, there were two camps. The earlier, apparently, is represented by Priestley 1761 [The Rudiments of English Grammar], who favors accepting it is me on grounds of custom... Lowth 1762 [A Short Introduction to English Grammar] heads the partisans of it is I, who clearly had Priestley outnumbered: Baker 1770, Campbell 1776, and Lindley Murray 1795 were on the side of the nominative. And these were the commentators whose preachments were accepted as gospel by the schoolmasters.[2]

from a dictionary (so it must be right, huh?).

The 'explanation,' or the 'why' you are looking for is that English authorities made the rules for grammar, and we either follow them or not. They are valid until we change them.

No, that's not what happened at all. English did not assume its present form through the enactments of some imaginary legislature. English evolved as it would, from precursor dialects by partially understood historical processes. From time to time, "authorities" have done their best to describe the language as it is spoken and to standardize its use, when they found inconvenient variation among its dialects.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Grammar thread - to save Susie's Book!

Perhaps appeal to a rule could count as an explanation, if we somehow knew that the rule was correct. But where does this rule come from? Why assume that it is correct?

Take a look at the Wikipedia article on Subject Complement. That will get you started. The article quotes this

from a dictionary (so it must be right, huh?).

Your above highlighted indicator does not connect me to any website.

No, that's not what happened at all. English did not assume its present form through the enactments of some imaginary legislature. English evolved as it would, from precursor dialects by partially understood historical processes. From time to time, "authorities" have done their best to describe the language as it is spoken and to standardize its use, when they found inconvenient variation among its dialects.

Good, then we are in agreement. Those "authorities" are the best we have. Unlike Spain, where there is a "Language congress" that determines exact usage, we are allowed to evolve, and those evolutions are entered into 'law.'
Unfortunately, your deviations are not yet law, although they are accepted in vulgar usage. "Not me" is considered proper for grade-school participant's below 6th grade and for street-educated, unemployed, as well as those lacking a college education. Oh, also, if one is an English language revolutionary, I suppose.

It is appropriate for the language to change, but I have not yet received the notice that it has.

As I see it, you are asserting (not arguing) that our formerly accepted authorities are to be ignored, and that your assertions are to be accepted as the new standard because common street usage trumps written standards. Bad move. We already see that you support unconventional speech as standard.

Fine. Talk Klingon if you want, but don't attempt to impress us that your deviations are "Standard English."

[SusieMisajon]

Re: Grammar thread - to save Susie's Book!

No fighting, you guys! I need to learn!