As the original thread 'parking in gaywood drive' seems to have drifted from its original subject, mainly due to my intervention, I thought I would start a new thread to discuss English usage.
In the original thread Blackdog wrote, It's bad form to start a sentence with 'and'
Not so. The Minster Guide to English Usage states, 'Despite widespread belief to the contrary, there is no reason why a sentence should not begin with and. Provided it is used with moderation, it can be stylishly very effective'.
The other fallacy is that it is wrong to end a sentence with a preposition, such as before, over, through, with and for. The same guide states, 'Prepositions generally come before their object but often follow and may even be placed at the end of a sentence (despite the protests of some authorities).
In the original thread Blackdog wrote, It's bad form to start a sentence with 'and' Not so. The Minster Guide to English Usage states, 'Despite widespread belief to the contrary, there is no reason why a sentence should not begin with and. Provided it is used with moderation, it can be stylishly very effective'.
I don't think you can justify saying, 'not so'. I believe it is debatable, so if one wanted to write an unambiguous passage and display a good command of English, one would avoid using 'and' to start a passage. Of course it can be used for dramatic effect, but that still doesn't mean it is 'good' form. We were taught that it is poor form and I believe that it remains so. Just because authors might use it to start a sentence, doesn't mean it is a good thing to do for all occasions.
It could be said that to wilfully use an 'and' at the beginning of a sentence is a rather vain thing to do; showing off if you like: 'look everyone, I'm starting a sentence with an 'and'; aren't I naughty?'. At the same time, if one is trying to draw attention to the passage, then it must be a useful technique.
The other fallacy is that it is wrong to end a sentence with a preposition, such as before, over, through, with and for. The same guide states, 'Prepositions generally come before their object but often follow and may even be placed at the end of a sentence (despite the protests of some authorities).
I think it often comes down to the meter of a passage; is the sentence balanced (it is this aspect of written English I am especially poor)?
Well-written English is often easy to spot as it is easy to read and comprehend, but like many thing things in life, it is an 'art form' that we all have varying degrees of competence. Some people are better than others at writing, so to pick on the method of delivery, rather than the content is often misplaced on a forum, in my view. This is the reason for the comments you got for your 'advice' you gave on the Gaywood Drive thread.
I would not want people to avoid posting just because they cannot read or write to a certain standard. For me personally, I would like to be corrected on English usage, as I find it hard and I enjoy learning, but there are ways to effectively advise, and there are ways not to.
, but there are ways to effectively advise, and there are was not to.
I am not being critical here as the meaning is obvious but I think you have commited a sin by placing a comma before the word 'and'. The use of punctuation is always a bit of a problem especially commas. I was always taught that the comma goes into a sentence where you would catch your breath. My achilles' heel is the use of the apostrophe. I have been told and looked up the useage just so many times and still get it wrong.
I am not being critical here as the meaning is obvious but I think you have commited a sin by placing a comma before the word 'and'. The use of punctuation is always a bit of a problem especially commas. I was always taught that the comma goes into a sentence where you would catch your breath.
Yes; a good book is 'Eats, Shoots and Leaves'. In there it does say not to use a comma before 'and', but I think it is OK because I believe I have used two independent clauses (that is to say: each part of the sentence could stand on its own). It can also be used in serial lists. That is to say, where there are three or more items in a list.
Achilles is a real noun, so should be with a capital (I believe). Other than that, it looks OK to me.
My biggest weakness, other than spelling (God bless browser spell checkers), is full-stop, colon, and semicolon usage!
Just so, I do agree about the capital letter, my mistake. As far as colons and semicolons, I rarely use them so I'm not too concerned about when they should or shouldn't be used.
I think most of us tend to make our sentences too long. By breaking up long sentences, we make ourselves more easily understood and, as a bonus, avoid a lot of our difficulties with punctuation. So you could make this small adjustment:
Quoted Text
For me personally, I would like to be corrected on English usage, as I find it hard. I enjoy learning, but there are ways to effectively advise and there are ways not to.
No doubt someone would disapprove of the split infinitive, so let's try:
Quoted Text
For me personally, I would like to be corrected on English usage, as I find it hard. I enjoy learning, but there are ways to give advice effectively and there are ways not to.
or
Quoted Text
For me personally, I would like to be corrected on English usage, as I find it hard. I enjoy learning, but there are ways to give effective advice and there are ways not to.
I believe that the possessive ending 's is a contraction of his, so in days of yore it would have been "Achilles his heel". For this reason I would add the extra s, i.e. Achilles's heel. But I may well be wrong in that. The street signs for St Giles in Oxford (where one might expect them to get these things right) say
No doubt someone would disapprove of the split infinitive
I was about to post the same thing! I'm not really sure what the big deal is with SI. It is believed that one can confuse people with SIs, but in some cases, like the famous Star Trek one, I don't see the issue!
"For me personally, I would like to be corrected on English usage, as I find it hard and I enjoy learning, but there are ways to effectively advise, and there are ways not to."
to...
'Oh I don't know; every time I write something it doesn't look right!!!'
I believe that the possessive ending 's is a contraction of his, so in days of yore it would have been "Achilles his heel". For this reason I would add the extra s, i.e. Achilles's heel. But I may well be wrong in that. The street signs for St Giles in Oxford (where one might expect them to get these things right) say
It seems it is a stylistic thing. Classic names like Achilles do not have an extra 's'. References to people currently alive would have the extra 's', but a rule of thumb would be whether it is actually pronounced and whether it is an old, or classic name.
We pronounce it: 'Achilleez heel', not 'Achilleeziz heel'.
Just pointing out that different rules apply on the Internet.
I agree, and that was what my oblique reference was at the beginning. I tend to write how I might speak, rather than how I might write a thesis where my presentation might work against me.
I agree, and that was what my oblique reference was at the beginning. I tend to write how I might speak, rather than how I might write a thesis where my presentation might work against me.
Logged
Male
