Semicolons and dashes- American and English English

[sr71plt]

For being such a professional writer yourself, I would have assumed that you'd have some semblance of reading comprehension. When did I ever say I was a high school English teacher?

Where did I post that I was talking about you (speaking of reading comprehension problems)?

I was sort of amused at your pronouncement that my take on hyphens "was correct," though. Like I needed you to tell me that.

 

[fridayam]

I would like to commend Firebrain's comments. It's interesting that the insights of foreign languages are so useful to one's own. I learnt a lot about the musicality of language from singing in a choir and listening to words sung in different contexts. A particular interest was words set by composers in languages foreign to them: Stravinsky's "Persephone" became the touchstone of my adolescent years, when I was just starting to write poetry. I am listening again to it tonight to remind myself why it shaped my way of writing: it both taught me how to breathe and how to shape a knotty text with rhythm.

The whole point about punctuation is rhythm: what breaths you take at what point in the text. Each breath is different, as anyone who has ever acted will tell you. Firebrain is quite right to avocate saying your text out loud. That will tell you what breaths are neccessary (and which are not), and that will quide you to an understanding of what punctuation you want in your work.

 

[sr71plt]

rhythm is nice, yes. But the major point in punctuation is conveying understanding, so, as nice as it sounds, I don't agree that the "whole" point of punctuation is rhythm.

Let's get real.

 

[fridayam]

I'm sorry? In what way is knowing how your text might be said, might be read, got nothing to do with how the human being breathes and speaks? Perhaps it is you who needs to get real, my friend. Understanding comes from speech, and speech needs breath, and breaths make punctuation.

Btw, diss Fowler at your peril--he is still the best, and funniest, theorist of written language, and he is far from being dictatorial.

 

[JSensei]

Where did I post that I was talking about you (speaking of reading comprehension problems)?

I was sort of amused at your pronouncement that my take on hyphens "was correct," though. Like I needed you to tell me that.

I figured someone with an ego like yours would clearly need it stroked a bit. I wasn't pronouncing anything, merely agreeing with you. You are, after all, a legend in your own mind. Or did you need me to tell you that, too?

If you're done being a prat, I think I'll let this thread get back to it's original purpose. I don't believe this thread was for this. If you like, you're welcome to make a thread about how you're so much better than everyone else, and we can continue this there.

Once again, my apologies, hoo_hoo_boo.

 

[JSensei]

I'm sorry? In what way is knowing how your text might be said, might be read, got nothing to do with how the human being breathes and speaks? Perhaps it is you who needs to get real, my friend. Understanding comes from speech, and speech needs breath, and breaths make punctuation.

Btw, diss Fowler at your peril--he is still the best, and funniest, theorist of written language, and he is far from being dictatorial.

I agree with you on Fowler. I enjoyed reading him.

 

[Firebrain]

Thank you, Friday and J.

For me, the rhythm informs the understanding - otherwise text would be one long, monotonous string of words.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm sorry? In what way is knowing how your text might be said, might be read, got nothing to do with how the human being breathes and speaks? Perhaps it is you who needs to get real, my friend. Understanding comes from speech, and speech needs breath, and breaths make punctuation.

Btw, diss Fowler at your peril--he is still the best, and funniest, theorist of written language, and he is far from being dictatorial.

Is there an English translation for this?

You said "The whole point about punctuation is rhythm." That sounds nice, but it's artsy-fartsy barf. The major point of punctuation is to convey meaning to the reader.

This takes us back to a point I was making up the line. In publishing, the reader is more important than the writer. If the writer doesn't think so or is so self-centered they won't care about anyone but themselves, they'd be better off writing whatever titilates them and then putting it in a drawer. If they publish it (and posting to Lit. constitutes publishing), they either are recognizing the importance of a reader--or they are too self-centered and self-important to understand what they are doing in the first place--and are publishing just so everyone will say how wonderful they are (like in writing in purple prose rather than understandable English).

(And it's fine with me if you like to use Fowler. I'll consult it, along with other authorities, on sticky questions. But invariably Fowler won't help much on real-life--and twenty-first-century--sticky problems in editing commercial books. He was in love with finding the most arcane and pretentious ways of pontificating--and, as I said earlier, when the issue was really sticky, he said nothing or just waved his hand wanly and smiled an "I've got a secret" smile.)

 

[fridayam]

What is "artsy-fartsy" about conveying meaning through the rhythm of a sentence? I think you have language arse about face, as we say in England. It was originally only spoken, as I am sure you understand. When it came to be written, a whole shedload of writers attempted in their own way to convey the spoken word--and the complexity of breath needed to convey the subtleties of sentence structure and meaning. If we forget this--the origins of every language on Earth--then we forget the very meaning of language.

Maybe you should get out on a stage and act, and see how breath is the key to understanding. No writer worth his salt will write a sentence that you cannot breathe.

 

[sr71plt]

What is "artsy-fartsy" about conveying meaning through the rhythm of a sentence? I think you have language arse about face, as we say in England. It was originally only spoken, as I am sure you understand. When it came to be written, a whole shedload of writers attempted in their own way to convey the spoken word--and the complexity of breath needed to convey the subtleties of sentence structure and meaning. If we forget this--the origins of every language on Earth--then we forget the very meaning of language.

Maybe you should get out on a stage and act, and see how breath is the key to understanding. No writer worth his salt will write a sentence that you cannot breathe.

How about you addressing yourself to what I actually posted? Or is my English too basic for you? You posted that "the whole point of punctuation is rhythm." And that's what I addressed--that statement, as nice sounding is it is, is a bunch of barf. The primary purpose of punctution is to convey meaning to the reader as fully and unobtrusively as possible. All of this flowery language stuff you are painting here doesn't address my point.

Do you really believe what you posted--that the whole point of punctuation is rhythm? Or you just engaging in some sort of masturbation exercise here to give yourself pleasure at the stroking of yourself with your oh-so-nice-sounding words? (And to pretend you are a wonderful writer?)

How about stop avoiding the issue or how about we just let it slide? Cause' I'm not going to agree with you until you make some connection with Earth.

 

[Firebrain]

Sr71plt, how can you ignore that rhythm is crucial to understanding? A simple pause can change the whole context of a sentence and the punctuation governs the pauses. I am a bit confused as to how anyone would disagree with that.

I am also a bit confused as to why one should acknowledge the commercial publishing market when considering punctuation; if you write exclusively to sell, then great, but I think Lit is proof that readers latch on to many different styles - including the archaeic. Hell, fantasy wouldn't be such a big market these days if that was the case.

There's no need to insult someone's writing. That's childish behaviour and makes you look insecure; I doubt you want that.

 

[fridayam]

How about you addressing yourself to what I actually posted? Or is my English too basic for you? You posted that "the whole point of punctuation is rhythm." And that's what I addressed--that statement, as nice sounding is it is, is a bunch of barf. The primary purpose of punctution is to convey meaning to the reader as fully and unobtrusively as possible. All of this flowery language stuff you are painting here doesn't address my point.

Do you really believe what you posted--that the whole point of punctuation is rhythm? Or you just engaging in some sort of masturbation exercise here to give yourself pleasure at the stroking of yourself with your oh-so-nice-sounding words? (And to pretend you are a wonderful writer?)

How about stop avoiding the issue or how about we just let it slide? Cause' I'm not going to agree with you until you make some connection with Earth.

I hate to use the expression idiot in a Lit post, but can't you get in your thick skull that, without a rhythm to a sentence (particularly a long complicated one), it's meaning would be hopelessly lost? Have you tried to read out loud a passage of Proust? It makes perfect sense if you follow the breaths he allows you with his precise punctuation, with his sense of the need to take a breath and swallow. Have you tried to speak Shakespeare, with his emphasis on odd words, with his allowing you a breath before the next part of the sentence? This is rooted in the real world of the spoken word and not some "artsy-fartsy" masturbation.

God, writers across the world use all kinds of punctuation to convey meaning--writers who eschew punctuation marks and use dashes, for instance. But they all, or anyway the ones who are any good, try to understand how the human being breathes and write accordingly.

 

[sr71plt]

Sr71plt, how can you ignore that rhythm is crucial to understanding? A simple pause can change the whole context of a sentence and the punctuation governs the pauses. I am a bit confused as to how anyone would disagree with that.

I am also a bit confused as to why one should acknowledge the commercial publishing market when considering punctuation; if you write exclusively to sell, then great, but I think Lit is proof that readers latch on to many different styles - including the archaeic. Hell, fantasy wouldn't be such a big market these days if that was the case.

There's no need to insult someone's writing. That's childish behaviour and makes you look insecure; I doubt you want that.

Where did I ignore the importance of rhythm? I addressed the statement that rhythm was the WHOLE purpose of punctuation. And in my responses, I didn't say that the whole purpose was to aid understanding; I said that was it's primary purpose--which it is.

Why are you folks being so obtuse?

I think we are at an end of this, because you guys are just being silly now.

And if you see no need to insult someone's writing, that's fine with me--for you. But when someone seems purposely writing to be arcane and to avoid the point, I will feel free to insult it. Because they were being insulting to begin with. I live in the real world.

 

[sr71plt]

I hate to use the expression idiot in a Lit post, but can't you get in your thick skull that, without a rhythm to a sentence (particularly a long complicated one), it's meaning would be hopelessly lost?

Let's first get it through your thick skull that you haven't addressed the point I made. Even after I repeated it several times.

You're just playing a "jerk him around" game here, aren't you? You can't be this dumb.

I have no trouble with the idiot word. You're being an idiot here.

Your statement was (for, what? the Fifth time): the whole point of punctuation is rhythm

That's barf. And that's the only point I addressed. (And it's one that you are oh so evidently trying to obscure with a lot of flack rather than addressing it.)

 

[sr71plt]

I figured someone with an ego like yours would clearly need it stroked a bit. I wasn't pronouncing anything, merely agreeing with you. You are, after all, a legend in your own mind. Or did you need me to tell you that, too?

No, "Sensei" (self-proclaimed teacher). That was YOU being pompous.

That makes two of us who think a lot of ourselves as editors then (And I've worked hard to establish the credentials to support mine; I trust you have too). Welcome to the club.

 

[fridayam]

Perhaps you should read what I have said before being so ridiculous- and, what is more, uselessly hijacking a perfectly reasonable thread--or is that too much punctuation for meaning or rhythm?

 

[sr71plt]

Perhaps you should read what I have said before being so ridiculous- and, what is more, uselessly hijacking a perfectly reasonable thread--or is that too much punctuation for meaning or rhythm?

Nope that doesn't address the one statement at issue either. Guess you don't want to face the silliness of what you posted.

 

[Firebrain]

Where did I ignore the importance of rhythm? I addressed the statement that rhythm was the WHOLE purpose of punctuation. And in my responses, I didn't say that the whole purpose was to aid understanding; I said that was it's primary purpose--which it is.

Why are you folks being so obtuse?

I think we are at an end of this, because you guys are just being silly now.

And if you see no need to insult someone's writing, that's fine with me--for you. But when someone seems purposely writing to be arcane and to avoid the point, I will feel free to insult it. Because they were being insulting to begin with. I live in the real world.

It is the purpose, though, when you consider that the rhythm is what informs the understanding. One is the function and one is the purpose - they are intrinsically linked.

I find it a bit weird that one writer would choose to mock another's style too; he wasn't avoiding the point, he was just expressing himself in the manner he wanted to do so. If that's your artsy fartsy then fair enough, but really, what's the problem with it?

This argument has come about because you started being pompous. We can all disagree with each other without mocking; or at least, we should be able to. There's a time and a place for being an ironic arse and this thread didn't exactly call for it.

 

[sr71plt]

I'll just repeat what I posted--because I live in the real world.

rhythm is nice, yes. But the major point in punctuation is conveying understanding, so, as nice as it sounds, I don't agree that the "whole" point of punctuation is rhythm.

Let's get real.

 

[fridayam]

I'll just repeat what I posted--because I live in the real world.

rhythm is nice, yes. But the major point in punctuation is conveying understanding, so, as nice as it sounds, I don't agree that the "whole" point of punctuation is rhythm.

Let's get real.

Well from the rest of the real world, I would reitterate that to "convey understanding" you have to know the rhythms of speech and if you don't know those then get another job.

 

[sr71plt]

Well from the rest of the real world, I would reitterate that to "convey understanding" you have to know the rhythms of speech and if you don't know those then get another job.

Which is quite different from your original sweeping generalization. What you now state is a chicken/egg proposition (which at least is debatable), not a WHOLE ball of wax proposition. This whole brouhaha started because of your sweeping generalization and lack of precision--and subsequent attempt at obfuscation.

 

[fridayam]

Which is quite different from your original sweeping generalization. What you now state is a chicken/egg proposition (which at least is debatable), not a WHOLE ball of wax proposition. This whole brouhaha started because of your sweeping generalization and lack of precision--and subsequent attempt at obfuscation.

Or maybe you are retreating from YOUR sweeping generalization. Who's the chicken, who's the egg?

 

[sr71plt]

Or maybe you are retreating from YOUR sweeping generalization. Who's the chicken, who's the egg?

Which sweeping generalization was that? More obfuscation?

Point to it (and quote).

As far as chicken/egg. My opinion is that reader understanding comes before rhythm--and you don't always have to have rhythm to have understanding. (But I have not, at any time, on this thread said understanding was the WHOLE purpose. "Whole" was your sweeping generalization.)

 

[fridayam]

Maybe it was this one: "The primary purpose of punctution is to convey meaning to the reader as fully and unobtrusively as possible." Cluck cluck?

 

[sr71plt]

Maybe it was this one: "The primary purpose of punctution is to convey meaning to the reader as fully and unobtrusively as possible." Cluck cluck?

Couldn't be that one. "Primary" is a limiting adjective--not a sweeping generalization like "whole" is.

Be my guest in trying again.

cluck, cluck yourself.

(And I've already stated my position that "reader understanding" supersedes "rhythm"--which falls within the scope of "primary"--and doesn't reach the "whole" of your claim for "rhythm.")

Perhaps it is just that you don't put much emphasis on precision in your writing. You might be too taken with and give too much credit to rhythm and nice sounding words.