As in, doesn’t matter at all to you.
Period AFTER the end of a quote.
My buddy Joe told me “I will live and die on this hill”.
Absolutely. Anyone who has done any programming should recognize that changing what’s in the quote is corrupting the data.
If I’m quoting a question though, then it makes sense to include the question mark in the quote.
I laughed when Joe asked "That's the hill you chose?".deleted by creator
So is this correct?
My buddy Joe told me. “I will live and die on this hill”.
My buddy Joe told me: “I will live and die on this hill.”.
imo.
deleted by creator
If the murky depths of my memories of school is correct, the location of the period is dictated by whether or not it is part of the quote. So, if the quote should have a period at the end, it goes inside the quotation marks. If the quote does not include the period (e.g. you are quoting part of a sentence), but you are at the end of a sentence in your own prose, you put the period on the outside of the quotation marks.
Isn’t that how it’s done in English (Traditional)?
For me in American English it’s also the commas that go inside the closing quotation marks, even when they’re not part the original quote. I die a little every time I see this, so illogical.
If it’s not part of the quote, just leave it outside.
I’m shocked no one else pointed this out. This isn’t a rule of grammar — this is a style rule, which isn’t actually part of the English language. Different style guides recommend different things. This happens to be specifically delineated by American/Canadian style guides vs British/Australian style guides; however anyone could publish a style guide. If USA Today decided to make and publish a style guide that they used in their articles that said there should be periods both within and after a quote, that would be valid by that styleguide.
So wait, you don’t care, or you think it should be done a certain way? OP asked what doesn’t matter to you at all.
Using commas, wherever you want.
They should be logical thought breaks, not adhere to any rules of grammar.
I have to, take issue with this, one. The rules of commas are, pretty, easy actually: Use a, comma where you’d, pause when speaking. If, you read it out, loud and sound like Captain, Kirk then you put, a comma in the, wrong spot.
Found Christopher Walkin.
I’ve always just used them where natural breaks would be if the sentence was spoken. I know how it’s supposed to be used and I’ll do it correctly when writing papers, but it hurts inside to see it that way. I don’t understand how it improves comprehension.
This one I’m so guilty of, it just seems fine when used in moderation, even if I know it’s wrong.
I can’t read things comfortably with too many commas. My internal monologue stops at each if them.
I mean commas can be used specifically for pauses in speech
Right. Too many commas makes for too many pauses in speech.
There’s places where a comma can cause psychic damage.
Deliberately not capitalising proper nouns as a show of disrespect (countries, people, titles, etc). Not “grammatically correct” but I think it falls under freedom of expression.
Passive voice is completely fine to use.
Not only is it fine, but it’s the most common (and i would say most correct) way to write scientific papers.
The tone of scientific papers is usually supposed to focus on the science, not the scientist, so you have “reagent A was mixed with reagent B”, not “I mixed reagent A and reagent B”.
An added bonus is that it prevents having to assign credit to each and every step of a procedure, which would be distracting. E.G., “Alice added 200 ml water to the flask while Bob weighed out 5 g of sodium hydroxide and added it to the flask”.
Who says it’s not?
(/s)
I’m of the opinion that so long as it is understandable it does not matter. English was once written as it sounded and there was no spelling consistancy. Those who were literate had little issue with it.
Some related reading: https://ctcamp.franklinresearch.uga.edu/resources/reading-middle-english https://cb45.hsites.harvard.edu/middle-english-basic-pronunciation-and-grammar
Edit: Okay my rant is more related to spelling than grammar but still interesting.
It’s not a grammar mistake per se, but I feel like sharing it and it is close enough so here we go.
As a non-native English speaker: How can you have mop
band vacuum the floor but not broom the room?! I know it doesn’t exist, but I don’t care. If we have to phrase it as a grammar mistake: I use verbalisations where they are uncommon.It’s “mop”
Not if you bring your thugs
Fair
Or like to flash
While “broom the floor” isn’t common, “sweep the floor” is. Of course, why we use the tool name as a verb in the case of “mop” or “vacuum”, but not in the case of “broom”, is another case of English being English. But, you shouldn’t expect consistency out of English. It’s not really a language, it’s several languages dressed up in a trench-coat pretending to be one.
abbreviations. it doesn’t save any meaningful time. it only prompts questions for clarification because people don’t define the abbreviation prior to using it throughout their post. plus since everything is being abbreviated out of laziness, the same abbreviations get used for multiple things which just adds additional confusions.
Hahaha yep. Now Death Stranding 2 is out, Dark Souls 2 discussion has become difficult, joining DS1.
The absolute worst version of this is shit like a16z or a11y. Ironically a11y is very inaccessible.
Sometimes a sentence ending with a proposition just sounds better.
That is not sharing grammar rules. Is just something we were all incorrectly taught.
Agreed. Sometimes, a sentence that ends with a preposition sounds weird. Oftentimes, a sentence that has been completely rearranged to not end in a preposition sounds weird.
I dont care about capitalizations, apostrophes, or if you shorthand words like tho as long as i can understand what youre saying from the context
Do u rembr txt spk? It ws vry anyng 2 read n 2 rite.
w8 r u srs
I’m really sick of people treating AAVE and other dialects like grammar mistakes, is what. Grammar Nazis indeed, protecting the purity of the English language.
Anything that is used colloquially but technically isn’t correct because some loser didn’t like it 200 years ago. To boldly keep on splitting infinitives is a rejection of language prescriptivism!
‘irregardless’ and improper ‘begs the question’ are both fine.
Anyone prescriptivist about “begging the question” cannot be taken seriously about anything.
The canonical meaning is a sloppy mistranslation, and what everyone sensible intends and infers is a plain reading of those words in that order.
I hit up that Wikipedia article every few years and I still don’t quite understand it. I also put nearly no effort into trying to understand it because I don’t think I’ve ever heard anything but the technically incorrect way.
“Why do all American teenagers get cars as gifts for their sixteenth birthday?” is an example: It asks why something is true even though that thing is not, in fact, true.
I’m not sure how to feel about understanding this now. Good, because I understand, or bad, because I’ll perpetually be annoyed from holding back the urge to correct.
Thanks, I guess?
There’s no need to correct people using the phrase to mean “prompting the question”, that’s practically definition two at this point.
If you see people commuting the rhetorical fallacy, however, go ahead and call them out.
I once separated my shoulder trying to explain ‘begs the question’.
… while hanging from a cliff?
Can you explain what improper “begs the question” looks like…?
“Begging the question” is a logical fallacy wherein “the speaker assumes some premise that has not been demonstrated to be true.”. However, “begs the question” is used more as where something creates a question.
So by the original “because the earth is flat the planet is not rotating.” You assume the earth is flat to justify your point of no rotation. Whereas the common usage “the flat earth theory and other science conspiracies beg the question of why people don’t drop dead by forgetting to breathe.” Flat earth theory created questions about human intelligence.
Ah right. I wonder if that’s the result of linguistic convergent evolution or however you’d term it, or if the common usage of “begs the question” arose from a misuse of the logical fallacy. I’ve not heard of the logical fallacy myself and only know it from the common colloquial usage, but English isn’t my first language so not sure how common the knowledge of the logical fallacy is among native speakers.
It’s colloquial for a reason, convergence, misuse, or whatever I would say most English speakers would not know the logical fallacy. Maybe as something for people who do debate clubs/class but unlikely for others.
I guess it would be when something doesn’t actually lead one logically to a question? Idk
Being excessively prescriptive or nitpicky about the prohibition on ending sentences on a preposition is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put.
What incorrect grammar are you completely in defence of?
Ending a sentence on a preposition :3c
Well what should I end them on?
Nice :D
Y’all is completely fine to use. It was a mistake for English to lose its distinction between second person singular and plural. Either we accept the word “y’all” or we go back to saying thou and thee, either way we can’t just keep on awkwardly dancing around not having a distinction between second person plural and singular.
