Shameless marketing

[GregLee]

Re: Shameless marketing

dis disorientation on de engrish langrij gib matapule headach kine pain an' dats why pijion mo' bettah way say unnerstan talk story nuf said

(Someone please diagram that sentence)

Here's an outline (I ran out of room). In the last clause, which I left out of the diagram, I didn't understand "say unnerstan" -- perhaps that's a verb?

                                                               S
                                                     __________|__________
                                                     |                   |
                                                     S                  Adv
                                       ______________|______________     |
                                       |                           |  nuf said
                                       S                           S
                            ___________|____________          _____|______
                            |                      |          |          |
                            NP                     VP        an'         S
                       _____|_____        _________|_________        ____|____
                       |         |        |        |        |        |       |
                      Det        N        V        NP       NP      Adv      S
                       |    _____|_____   |        |      __|___     |       |
                      dis   |         |  gib    matapule  |    |  dats why  ...
                      disorientation  PP                 Adj  pain
                                      |                   |
                            on de engrish langrij    headach kine

[GregLee]

Re: Shameless marketing

I can't give a page reference in McCawley right now, ...

Found it. See chart (16) on page 193 and surrounding discussion, in chapter 7 "Syntactic Categories". The book is the second edition of The Syntactic Phenomena of English by James D. McCawley, 1998, The University of Chicago Press.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Shameless marketing

the second independent clause is "But as we know, actually, a comma is used."

Thanks for the input, Greg, but I would argue that the inclusion of a conjunction makes the second phrase a dependent clause.

"But as we know, actually, a comma is used," cannot stand as an independent clause, as it requires the leading clause to make sense.

However, if we said:
"A simple instance of two independent clauses connected with "and" should use a semi-colon, according to the rule; as we know, actually, a comma is used."
It would demonstrate the difference between dependent and independent clauses and the need for a semicolon when no conjunction is used.

IMHO

[Kaonohi]

Re: Shameless marketing

That might be arguable. But on the face of it, one can have independent clauses beginning with a coordinate conjunction, as this sentence illustrates.

You may be right, Greg, but I was always taught that one does not begin a sentence with a conjunction. (The Bible may be an exception, as in: "And it came to pass..." - but grammar was different two to four-thousand years ago.)

[Kaonohi]

Re: Shameless marketing

This is also argued in James McCawley's book The Syntactic Phenomena of English, following Ross. For a time, a generalized version of the idea called "fuzzy grammar" had some popularity in linguistics.

I think we may be arguing about 'the rules of grammar' vs. 'the use of punctuation in contemporary writing.'

Popular writing does not need to follow the rules of grammar so long as the communication is clear... or at least understood.

I also think this subject deserves a thread of its own!

[GregLee]

Re: Shameless marketing

So, if I understand, you distinguish independent and dependent clauses according to whether preceding context is required to make sense of the clause. And, in the examples considered, we can contrast

But as we know, actually, a comma is used.

which does not make sense without preceding context, and so counts as dependent,
with (after the semicolon)

as we know, actually, a comma is used.

which (you say) does make sense without preceding context, and so counts as independent.

I don't really see the contrast between these examples.

[SusieMisajon]

Re: Shameless marketing

This thread is mutating and taking on several lives of its own!

(does the 'its' get an apostophe or not?)

[Kaonohi]

Re: Shameless marketing

So, if I understand, you distinguish independent and dependent clauses according to whether preceding context is required to make sense of the clause.
(...)
I don't really see the contrast between these examples.

Actually, you are right. I did a poor job of trying to prove a point and goofed. A semicolon is not the right punctuation where I put it, and the last phrase is not an independent clause. In any case, as it reads, it's a confusing, run-on sentence. If this were a grammar thread I would even drastically rewrite your original for just that reason.

It's* not whether a phrase makes sense with or without preceding context that distinguishes dependent or independent clauses, it is whether they can stand on their own as a separate sentence. 'Making sense' when used alone is only a tool to use to help distinguish the two.

*(Aside for Susie: its is possessive, it's is a contraction for it is.)

[SusieMisajon]

Re: Shameless marketing

*(Aside for Susie: its is possessive, it's is a contraction for it is.)


Oh, No! Now I'm really confused! I know about the contraction bit, but I'm always unsure about the possession...when does something not own something?...or would it be like those neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Jones?

The Jonses, Jones's, the Jones', and so on, forever confusing.

[GregLee]

Re: Shameless marketing

The Jonses, Jones's, the Jones', and so on, forever confusing.

The first of these, you meant "Joneses", is straightforward, since it works like any plural ending in a sibilant sound -- "s, z, ch, j, sh, zh". Since in English we can't pronounce two sibilants next to each other in the same syllable, after the plural "z" is added at the end, to make it pronounceable, a schwa (neutral vowel) is inserted (which is spelled "e"). That gives "Joneses", like "mazes" or "dazes". Note that I give the rule in terms of pronunciation, not conventional spelling.

The suffix for forming possessives in English is also "z", and in pronunciation, it works almost the same as the plural suffix "z". In your examples, "Joneses", the plural, and "Jones's" are pronounced the same. There is an alternative form for avoiding the sequence of two "z"s in possessives: instead of inserting a schwa between them, you can just leave out one of the "z"s -- that's the "Jones'" form that you mentioned last. (Perhaps that only works with forms ending in "s" in the spelling, but I think it's okay elsewhere -- think of the possessive of the proper name "Katz".)

For the insertion of schwa, my account is ahistorical, since the endings started with the schwa there as part of the ending, then the schwa was lost everywhere except between sibilants.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Shameless marketing

Oh, No! Now I'm really confused! I know about the contraction bit, but I'm always unsure about the possession...when does something not own something?
(...)
The Jonses, Jones's, the Jones', and so on, forever confusing.

Not certain what you are asking in the first part. Possession is usually indicated with an apostrophe-s. Its is one exception, to avoid confusing it with the contraction; I can't think of other similar examples offhand. (Hmmm. Good example of semicolon usage! Independent but related clauses.)

Joneses = Plural, more than one Jones.
(I know all the Jonses in town.)
Jones's = Possessive, property of one Jones or one Jones family.
(This is the Jones's lawnmower.)
Jones' = Plural possessive, belonging to many or all Joneses.
(The Jones' heritage is the commonality of their name.)

Is this what you wanted? Or was Greg spot on with pronunciation? Or both? (Or maybe it was rhetorical?)

[SusieMisajon]

Re: Shameless marketing

Joneses = Plural, more than one Jones.
(I know all the Jonses in town.)
Jones's = Possessive, property of one Jones or one Jones family.
(This is the Jones's lawnmower.)
Jones' = Plural possessive, belonging to many or all Joneses.
(The Jones' heritage is the commonality of their name.)

It was this. And I'm happy to know that 'its" is an exception, although I hate exceptions.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Shameless marketing

It was this. And I'm happy to know that 'its" is an exception, although I hate exceptions.

Well, you are quite an exception yourself.

And, further grammar discussions will be held at:
http://www.hawaiithreads.com/showthread.php?t=19457
so we can go back to "Shameless Marketing."

[Kaonohi]

Re: Shameless marketing

Back to "Shameless Marketing."

I found your story at:
http://thissmallfrenchtown.blogspot....guineahen.html
and I can read it online, so expect a review soon.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Shameless marketing

I liked your story, Susie, but there were a lot of misspellings! Do you have a spellchecker on your computer?