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).

Quoted from Brewmaster

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.

Quoted from Brewmaster

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.

Quoted from Greenham Common

, 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.

Is that correct ?  achilles' heel

Quoted from brian

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.

Quoted from brian

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.

My weakness is apostrophe usage with words that end in 's'.  Other than that, I'm OK.

Quoted from brian

Is that correct ?  achilles' heel

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!

Quoted from Greenham Common

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.

Quoted from Greenham Common

'Eats, Shoots and Leaves'.  

I thought that referred to a male of the Australian species.

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.

Quoted from brian

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 understand that, but it is likely because, like me, you don't understand their proper use.  I think good punctuation is key in written language.

Quoted from brian

I thought that referred to a male of the Australian species.

Very good, but you are confusing nouns and verbs!  

Quoted from brian

Is that correct ?  achilles' heel

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

Quoted Text

St Giles'

Netiquette dictates that one does not criticise another's grammar on chat forums.

This thread is about English usage, not "netiquette".

Quoted from Downlander

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!

Quoted from Downlander

so let's try:

If I were to rewrite it; I would go from:

"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!!!'

Quoted from Downlander

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'.

Quoted from Downlander

This thread is about English usage, not "netiquette".

Just pointing out that different rules apply on the Internet.

Quoted from user23.3

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.

Quoted from Greenham Common

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.

Nce 1 M8!

Quoted from user23.3

Just pointing out that different rules apply on the Internet.

Do they?  Surely anyone writing in English is conforming to, or breaking, the 'rules' of English grammar - regardless of where their words appear.

Netiquette may well include the idea that one should refrain from criticising bad grammar, but it doesn't make the bad grammar any better.

Quoted from Greenham Common

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'.

I think you're right, as far as modern usage goes.  I was thinking along the lines of the 1603 Ben Jonson play "Sejanus His Fall".  It's just something that has stuck in my head.

Hey, have any of you guys read James Joyce's Ulyses? or perhaps I should have asked tried to read it, do not attempt if you are concerned about grammer, construction of sentences et., etc.,

Quoted from blackdog

Do they?  Surely anyone writing in English is conforming to, or breaking, the 'rules' of English grammar - regardless of where their words appear.   Netiquette may well include the idea that one should refrain from criticising bad grammar, but it doesn't make the bad grammar any better.

That is true, but even when the highest scholars can disagree, who are we to criticise good English?  The most important thing for a public forum is for everyone to have the opportunity to express an opinion or to divulge information.  If we were to accept censure for poorly delivered posts, then we will become exclusive and deny a voice for those that might have something valuable to say.

I think the message behind the text is more important than how the text is formed.

Quoted from Greenham Common

I think the message behind the text is more important than how the text is formed.

Grammar and punctuation are a means by which a message is delivered more accurately.  Badly written text is more difficult to read (so some won't bother), more difficult to understand (so some will get the wrong message) and reflects poorly on the originator (so some will dismiss it out of hand).  

If you can't write well it doesn't mean you shouldn't try.  

Kingsley Amis, was once challenged to produce a sentence whose meaning depended on a possessive apostrophe, and he came up with:

Those things over there are my husband's. (Those things over there belong to my husband.)
Those things over there are my husbands'. (Those things over there belong to several husbands of mine.)
Those things over there are my husbands. (I'm married to those men over there.)


Threep.

To address one or two of the points raised in this thread:

For prepositions, the rule is very simple: never use a preposition to end a sentence with.
It's important to never split infinitives.
Don't use commas, where they are, not necessary.
A sentence should always end with a full stop

Just rereading this before I post to make sure I haven't any words out.

Alan

Quoted from blackdog

Grammar and punctuation are a means by which a message is delivered more accurately.  Badly written text is more difficult to read (so some won't bother), more difficult to understand (so some will get the wrong message) and reflects poorly on the originator (so some will dismiss it out of hand).  

If you can't write well it doesn't mean you shouldn't try.

...but what gives someone the right to be rude about it, and you seem to assume that people who post poorly written text would other wise be immediately capable.  As a forum is interactive, clarity can easily be sought if necessary.  That is not necessarily possible with a book, or other publications.

In my previous posts I have tried to explain that I don't think good English is unimportant, only that it is not as important as people making a contribution in the first place.  Like people who struggle with maths, art, or any other skill, we all have varying degrees of ability.  Some people will never get it.

On the flip side, one thing that annoys me, but is becoming common English, is the double negative: "I ain't done nuffin wrong", but at least I understand what is being meant.

Quoted from Greenham Common

...but what gives someone the right to be rude about it,

This subject came up because someone made a sarcastic comment about a post that was all lower case with no punctuation.  Was that rude?  Far ruder things are said more directly without the same response that meets any comments about spelling or grammar.

Quoted from Greenham Common

and you seem to assume that people who post poorly written text would other wise be immediately capable.  

No.  I don't assume anything.  If anything I would get an impression that someone who posts poorly written text is less capable - one reason why I believe that people should use a reasonable standard of English.  If their English is poor then most people can do something about it, I don't subscribe to your apparent assumption that people use bad English because they are incapable of doing otherwise.

Quoted from blackdog

This subject came up because someone made a sarcastic comment about a post that was all lower case with no punctuation.  Was that rude?

Yes, of course it is.  Unsolicited sarcasm is rude.

Quoted from blackdog

Far ruder things are said more directly without the same response that meets any comments about spelling or grammar.

That is true, but also irrelevant in my view.

Quoted from blackdog

No.  I don't assume anything.  If anything I would get an impression that someone who posts poorly written text is less capable - one reason why I believe that people should use a reasonable standard of English.  If their English is poor then most people can do something about it, I don't subscribe to your apparent assumption that people use bad English because they are incapable of doing otherwise.

Well we might have to agree to disagree then.  I have met many examples where I think your view is wrong.

Most foreign johnys Johnies Johnys' people who have a reasonable knowledge of the spoken English language expect that they will be corrected by the English speaker if they make a mistake with pronunciation or grammar. We, are the exact opposite, we do not like to be corrected for anything, it is not in our nature to be wrong.

Quoted from Greenham Common

Yes, of course it is.  Unsolicited sarcasm is rude.

Is any sarcasm solicited?  Should sarcasm be banned?  

Is writing wiithout punctuation or capitalisation not simply a lazy (and hence, in my opinion, rude) form of communication.  

Quoted from Greenham Common

That is true, but also irrelevant in my view.

Just an observation - why does criticism of poor English raise so many hackles?

Quoted from Greenham Common

Well we might have to agree to disagree then.  I have met many examples where I think your view is wrong.

Agreement at last!

Quoted from blackdog

Is any sarcasm solicited?

Of course, when people are having a joke with each other, or are familiar.  Also, I would rate solicited as when someone might complain about someone's spelling, grammar or punctuation, but then go-on to make errors themselves in the post.

Quoted from blackdog

Should sarcasm be banned?

Why should pointing out that sarcasm is rude mean that I endorse its abolition?

Quoted from blackdog

Is writing wiithout punctuation or capitalisation not simply a lazy (and hence, in my opinion, rude) form of communication.

You fail to acknowledge anything else I have said on this point; I have explained several times why I think as I do.

Quoted from blackdog

Just an observation - why does criticism of poor English raise so many hackles?

Because it is RUDE (against general forum etiquette) and makes the objector look like a snob and arrogant.  It is always people who more than likely have a good command of English in the first place that object.  For all people know, especially with new posters, they might have learning difficulties, or not have English as their first subject.  Where as others might simply have posted in haste and have not had the opportunity to correct themselves.  Fair enough seek clarity where posts are so poor it is difficult to understand, but picking on the standard of English, rather than the substance in a posts is boorish.

Well said Greenham Common.  

Quoted from Greenham Common

Of course, when people are having a joke with each other, or are familiar.  Also, I would rate solicited as when someone might complain about someone's spelling, grammar or punctuation, but then go-on to make errors themselves in the post.

I guess I have to disagree on this one - I don't think sarcasm is ever solicited unless specfically requested.  The example you chose may be an instance where a sarcastic response is deserved, but not, in my opinion, solicited.

Quoted from Greenham Common

Why should pointing out that sarcasm is rude mean that I endorse its abolition?

I didn't say you did - just asked you whether you thought it should be abolished, which would be a logical conclusion to one who disliked unsolicited sarcasm and (like me) didn't think there was such a thing as solicited sarcasm.

Quoted from Greenham Common

You fail to acknowledge anything else I have said on this point; I have explained several times why I think as I do.

Indeed, and I have explained why I think that decent English is worth striving for. As I see it our main point of difference is that you seem to think that most bad English is produced by those incapable of doing better.  Whereas I believe that most people can do better and that it is worth making the effort.

Quoted from Greenham Common

Because it is RUDE (against general forum etiquette) and makes the objector look like a snob and arrogant.  It is always people who more than likely have a good command of English in the first place that object.  For all people know, especially with new posters, they might have learning difficulties, or not have English as their first subject.  Where as others might simply have posted in haste and have not had the opportunity to correct themselves.  Fair enough seek clarity where posts are so poor it is difficult to understand, but picking on the standard of English, rather than the substance in a posts is boorish.

I can agree with most of this - but I think there is a judgement call to be made. For instance the posting about Gaywood Drive that prompted this discussion. That was written in pretty good English and was not the work of someone who was incapable of using capitilisation or punctuation, but of someone who, for whatever reason, couldn't be bothered to do so. As it was I replied to it without commenting on the grammar - recognising that to do so would be counterproductive (ie conforming to netiquette).

My grammar is far from perfect. My sentences are often far too long and I always write too much. If I am writing for publication I always get it checked and try to learn from the changes so that I can do a little better the next time. I just wish that people would make an effort and not treat grammar as something that simply doesn't matter.

A final point - an illiterate post can give a poor impression, is there not a place for constructive criticism that would help the poster make a better impression in the future?  I recognise that this is incredibly difficult to do without giving offence - perhaps we need a smiley that says 'I know my English is iffy, please feel free to help'.

Blackdog you are coming across on this post as a little boorish and snobby.  I am sure you are not and do not mean to give this impression.  Your spelling and grammar are impeccable, but your post is giving a totally incorrect impression of you and your views.  Is this not a perfect example of content and meaning being more important than grammar and spelling?

If it is boorish and snobby to hope that people would use better grammar more often, to believe that most people are capable of doing so (or learning to do so), and that meaning can be communicated more effectively using good grammar - then I must be boorish and snobby.  

I have never said that grammar is more important than meaning - that would be absurd.

Quoted from blackdog

If it is boorish and snobby to hope that people would use better grammar more often, to believe that most people are capable of doing so (or learning to do so), and that meaning can be communicated more effectively using good grammar - then I must be boorish and snobby.  

In that case, put me down as being boorish and snobby too.

I would think that the number of people with genuine learning difficulties is somewhat out-weighed by those blackdog is talking about who are capable of using grammar correctly for the most part, but for whatever reason, don't.

Also, it's my belief that the "netiquette" of not criticising someones grammar has been taken further than was originally intended. It certainly used to be the case that it was bad form to point out occasional typos that are so common when replying, often quickly, to other peoples posts or messages in chat rooms (remember those?). But now it seems that it is fine to simply not bother making ones contribution readable, because anyone that comments on it in the negative will simply draw more criticism themselves.

Or, to put it another way, for those who aren't fussed about grammar...

Quoted from blackdog

If it is boorish and snobby to hope that people would use better grammar more often, to believe that most people are capable of doing so (or learning to do so), and that meaning can be communicated more effectively using good grammar - then I must be boorish and snobby.  

I have never said that grammar is more important than meaning - that would be absurd.

in that case put me down as being boorish and snobby too i would think that the number of people with genuine learning difficulties is somewhat out-weighed by those blackdog is talking about who are capable of using grammar correctly for the most part but for whatever reason don't also its my belief that the netiquette of not criticising someones grammar has been taken further than was originally intended it certainly used to be the case that it was bad form to point out occasional typos that are so common when replying often quickly to other peoples posts or messages in chat rooms remember those but now it seems that it is fine to simply not bother making ones contribution readable because anyone that comments on it in the negative will simply draw more criticism themselves

Quoted from massifheed

Or, to put it another way, for those who aren't fussed about grammar...  in that case put me down as being boorish and snobby too i would think that the number of people with genuine learning difficulties is somewhat out-weighed by those blackdog is talking about who are capable of using grammar correctly for the most part but for whatever reason don't also its my belief that the netiquette of not criticising someones grammar has been taken further than was originally intended it certainly used to be the case that it was bad form to point out occasional typos that are so common when replying often quickly to other peoples posts or messages in chat rooms remember those but now it seems that it is fine to simply not bother making ones contribution readable because anyone that comments on it in the negative will simply draw more criticism themselves

I say the majority of posts where the English is exceptionally poor, it would be by people who probably couldn't do much better.  Of course there is always room for improvement for anything, but I think most of us 'regulars' can tell the difference between laziness, typo, proof reading error or other.  At the end of the day, this is a voluntary medium with which to communicate and as such we needn't get so hung-up on the standard of English.

Quoted from Greenham Common

I say the majority of posts where the English is exceptionally poor, it would be by people who probably couldn't do much better.  Of course there is always room for improvement for anything, but I think most of us 'regulars' can tell the difference between laziness, typo, proof reading error or other.  At the end of the day, this is a voluntary medium with which to communicate and as such we needn't get so hung-up on the standard of English.

Exactly. It's the message that counts not the manner in which it's delivered, unless it's offensive, but that's not what's being discussed here.

Quoted from user23.3

Exactly. It's the message that counts not the manner in which it's delivered, unless it's offensive, but that's not what's being discussed here.

Was it not Marshall McLuhon who said....."The medium is the message"

Grammar lesson: "Capitalization is the difference between helping your Uncle Jack off a horse and helping your uncle jack off a horse."

[thanks to Darya Pino @summertomato]