Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I like honorifics. I think it shows courtesy and respect.
Usually the students call me Officer Clark ... when I'm on patrol it annoys me when they call me just Clark - as if I'm their pal or chum or something. I'm older than many of their fathers.
Me too, Officer Clark.
I guess I'm old school but I enjoy seeing the language used properly and the rules respected. It also makes it a lot easier to understand what someone is saying when the spelling, punctuation, and usage are correct. We all make mistakes and most of us become more casual on these forums so a few errors can be forgiven
None of us are writing a term paper or dissertation when we are posting on CD.
But when people don't even care how to form the plural of a word and they write "house's" or "dog's" when they are forming a plural, it makes it harder to understand them. If I see "dog's" I'm looking for the noun -- the dog's poop? the dog's bark? What are they talking about!
I, too, like to address someone properly in a letter. It feels too casual to address a letter without an honorific (I never knew that was what you called it) just using the person's name. It would seem as though you should address the person as something. Dr., Senator, Mr.--I don't know about Mrs, Miss, Ms as that got all confused with the women's movement. No, I don't like seeing all the rules being thrown away.
Awesome two days at the beach. Constant breeze, mid 80's plus and rough big wave surf. Lots getting knocked down and loving it. Others not loving it as much. Just perfect fun and comfortable. Nice break after a string of hot humid and storms.
In my personal life, I am big on using someone's title when addressing him/her (or introducing him/her). In my personal correspondence, also. However, in newspaper, magazine or in business articles -- it is considered "quaint" to refer to folks as Mr. Brown. Too bad. I don't like the generic "Brown walked towards the suspect" construction, but . . . that is how things have evolved in most publications.
Once in a while, someone will tell me to drop the "Dr." or "Judge" -- but to me, it is just polite and respectful to use it.
I don't like it when the President, for example, refers to other foreign leaders by that person's first name. It makes the hairs stand up on the back of my neck and I am not kidding - it just hits me as being that disrespectful. Perhaps if there were more decorum with how folks interact with one another, there would be more genuinely meaningful discourse . . . instead of the continual ugly sniping we hear between (and aimed at) leaders.
Some time ago on, I believe, the Gardening forum there was a thread dealing with a Florida man who had developed a natural garden where a lawn had once been. The OP cited an unfavorable newspaper article and the threatened actions of the municipality to attack the man. Several others joined the attack. As someone who supports both property rights as well as natural landscaping and gardening I joined the fray on the side of the gardener. I did something more, however. I referred to him as Mr. ______. There were was an immediate change in the comments. People began to adopt my reference; the gentleman was no longer treated with the same degree of contumely he had suffered before. Using the honorific suddenly changed his image.
***
I recall a radio commercial that ran in the middle of the night; it ran for years. It began, ''People judge us by the way we speak." It was a commercial for a vocabulary-building course. It always made me think, "Of course.'' Grammar and syntax are far more important. The speech of an illiterate can only do damage to the argument of the speaker. Writing is no different. In public fora on the internet we know that we react differently to uneducated writing in a post, particularly when other posts do not share that fault.
***
I noticed that the Chicago Manual of Style has a forum. I could not, however, view it until I had joined. I believe that I should need a different user name from the one I use here. I like "Aristophanes of Byzantium" after the father of diacritical marks. But I do wish to be one of the group. Is anyone a member? I could use "UCalumnus", but that seems a bit pretentious. Besides, I might be one of fifty.
***
Is my use of the asterisk to separate different topics acceptable? Please let me know.
I noticed that the Chicago Manual of Style has a forum. I could not, however, view it until I had joined. I believe that I should need a different user name from the one I use here. I like "Aristophanes of Byzantium" after the father of diacritical marks. But I do wish to be one of the group. Is anyone a member? I could use "UCalumnus", but that seems a bit pretentious. Besides, I might be one of fifty.
***
Is my use of the asterisk to separate different topics acceptable? Please let me know.
haha, don't tell me about an online forum for Chicago. I already spend enough time on C-D. I'd become addicted. I love to argue points of grammar, and I'm most often right but sometimes wrong (pains me to admit). One of my pet peeves is using the word "proven" in cases in which it should be "proved" ("proven" being the adjective of course). After bragging, now I feel self-conscious about my rather sloppily written posts. I'd better check over everything more carefully before I hit "submit." LOL
In my personal life, I am big on using someone's title when addressing him/her (or introducing him/her). In my personal correspondence, also. However, in newspaper, magazine or in business articles -- it is considered "quaint" to refer to folks as Mr. Brown. Too bad. I don't like the generic "Brown walked towards the suspect" construction, but . . . that is how things have evolved in most publications.
Once in a while, someone will tell me to drop the "Dr." or "Judge" -- but to me, it is just polite and respectful to use it.
I don't like it when the President, for example, refers to other foreign leaders by that person's first name. It makes the hairs stand up on the back of my neck and I am not kidding - it just hits me as being that disrespectful. Perhaps if there were more decorum with how folks interact with one another, there would be more genuinely meaningful discourse . . . instead of the continual ugly sniping we hear between (and aimed at) leaders.
Until recent years the New York Times used the formal Mr. Brown. The first mention of the name being John Brown, followed by the use of Mr. thereafter. Now in all media it's just plain old Brown on subsequent referral.
I agree with you on formal titles such as Dr. and Judge. After all, you can't write a letter to Judge Judy and just say "hi Jude!"
I'm trying to figure out when the title President got dropped from media use. I remember distinctly it was always "President Kennedy" throughout an article, never just Kennedy. Same with Reagan. Was it with Bush I that the formal title got dropped? Now it's just Obama in headlines, text, cutlines, etc. Whatever the politics bent, that seems disrespectful to me.
"I am devastated that the car hit my dog." vs. "I am upset that the car hit my dog." If I am devastated I am worlds beyond merely being upset. Yet to some, there is no difference.
Both are correct grammar. The difference just lies in word choice. As long as we don't use "very."
Additionally, I find Tom, Dick, and Harry greatly preferable to Tom, Dick and Harry. The latter implies a closer relationship beteen Dick and Harry than either has with Tom. Would you prefer lemons, oranges and macaroni to lemons, oranges, and macaroni? We might wish to bring lemons and oranges semantically closer, but there are other ways to acccomplish that. Rules should be as universal as practical and as unmessy as possible. We would certainly laugh if a menu or grocery list that a wife writes for her husband used this punctuation. In the age of electronic text it's unlikely that she would bother with columns. The poor devil might search for an hour trying to find oranges and macaroni.
From Chicago:
Sentence with the "series comma":
She took a photograph of her parents, the president, and the vice president.
This example from the Chicago Manual of Style shows how the second comma is necessary for clarity. Without it, she is taking a picture of two people, her mother and father, who are the president and vice president. (not)
Sentence with the "series comma":
She took a photograph of her parents, the president, and the vice president.
This example from the Chicago Manual of Style shows how the second comma is necessary for clarity. Without it, she is taking a picture of two people, her mother and father, who are the president and vice president. (not)
With it, she is taking a picture of four people.
Yes. I don't know the official terms for most of these examples but to a plain ordinary non-writer person like me, you need last comma.
We were also taught in school something about parenthesis. Punctuation before or after the parenthesis makes a difference. Whatever it was, no one seems to bother with that rule anymore either. It's been so long since I've known anyone to care, that I only have a vague idea now.
We were also taught in school something about parenthesis. Punctuation before or after the parenthesis makes a difference. Whatever it was, no one seems to bother with that rule anymore either. It's been so long since I've known anyone to care, that I only have a vague idea now.
To digress a wee bit, does anyone else miss the lost art of diagramming sentences?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd become addicted. I love to argue points of grammar, and I'm most often right but sometimes wrong (pains me to admit). One of my pet peeves is using the word "proven" in cases in which it should be "proved" ("proven" being the adjective of course). After bragging, now I feel self-conscious about my rather sloppily written posts. I'd better check over everything more carefully before I hit "submit." LOL
