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.
My home page is MSN. I was just reading an article, released by the Associated Press about a woman in Greenville that was hit by a car. The title was, "South Carolina women hit by SUV, killed while doing law work." I was curious so I opened the link and once again it said she was killed while doing law work; because the SUV swerved into her yard and hit her while she was raking leaves. Hello? Doesn't anyone proof read articles anymore? OK I'm not the brightest bulb in the lamp, but I am no reporter or journalist. I am just amazed when I find these errors.
Those AP feeds are automatic; top stories (or a package of rotating stories) gets uploaded to various subscriber pages without anybody actually doing anything. Therefore, if a mistake is in the original it gets shared thousands of times around the world until somebody notices it, flags the source (AP) and either updates it or takes the story down completely. That is no excuse for the original mistake, but explains how it makes it to multiple news sites error intact.
Based on half the posts I read here and elsewhere, fewer people than ever know how to write in English, nor do they proofread what they've typed in. When questioned about their failure, they say things like "It's just an internet forum. I don't need to be accurate." or "You knew what I meant."
Ever watch the "Headlines" segment on Jay Leno's show? It's all about errors in newspapers, print ads, magazines, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vmaxnc
Show me.
For the record, I never claimed to be perfect. But the instances when someone has to reread my posts, or sort through gross spelling, usage, or punctuation errors and omissions to make sense of what I wrote, are just about nonexistent.
Based on half the posts I read here and elsewhere, fewer people than ever know how to write in English, nor do they proofread what they've typed in. When questioned about their failure, they say things like, "It's just an internet forum. I don't need to be accurate," or, "You knew what I meant."
Based on half the posts I read here and elsewhere, fewer people than ever know how to write in English, nor do they proofread what they've typed in. When questioned about their failure, they say things like, "It's just an internet forum. I don't need to be accurate," or, "You knew what I meant."
You didn't change my use of nor, so I assume that's a typo on your behalf. As for the commas in what I wrote, I was taught that a comma only needs to be used when there are more than two elements. "Or" as I used it acts as a separator between the two quotes I listed.
You didn't change my use of nor, so I assume that's a typo on your behalf. As for the commas in what I wrote, I was taught that a comma only needs to be used when there are more than two elements. "Or" as I used it acts as a separator between the two quotes I listed.
Okay, first, I rarely comment on grammar or spelling issues here because I know very well that I fail to use our language properly at times, thus I don't want to parade my glass house too boldly. However, 99% of the time (at least), when I see someone correcting someone else's grammar, I can find problems in their writing as well--it's quite often the pot-calling-the-kettle sort of a thing. Grammar and punctuation rules are so complex at times that it is nearly impossible to be a "grammar angel."
So... having said that, the commas I inserted are not directly attributable to the "or." Actually, they are all a direct result of the quotations. Here are the relevant excerpts from my favorite grammar reference:
* Typographical convention in the United States requires that periods and commas always be inserted before the closing quotation marks--regardless of whether a direct quotation consists of an entire sentence, a phrase, or a single word.
* When the clause of attribution precedes the quotation, the clause is followed by a comma.
* When the clause of attribution follows the quotation, the clause is preceded by a comma.
* When the clause of attribution is inserted between two halves of the quotation, one comma will precede the clause and another comma will follow it.
You might say that the "or" is a conjunction, and it is, but is also serving as something of an inserted (or proxy) clause of attribution, due to the quotations. The rule to which you were referring is correct, but is applied to a list situation (of items).
As for the "nor," I just put it in red along with the preceding comma because you either need to lose the comma and reconstruct as a "neither ... nor," or lose the "nor" and use a different construct with the comma--or lose both and just rewrite it a bit.
Again, I'm NOT telling anyone how to write or trying to be a grammar Nazi; I'm simply pointing out that when you do that sort of thing (grammar Nazi-ism), you are opening yourself up to the nit-picky problems that can always be found in anyone's writing. I could go through any Stephen King novel and find oodles of grammar errors (yes, we could call them "stylistic choices" as well)... yet he's my favorite author--and, of course, he's doing significantly better business with his fiction than I am.
Also keep in mind that different style guides actually state different "rules" at times that are contradictory. I suppose that, too, could be a "style" issue. But it can be frustrating.
I didn't take my time when I checked. There seems to be a problem with commas. I agree though, this is a message board and for the most part, I haven't see that many gross errors. I certainly don't expect my secretary to sit by me when I am typing on my own.
Once upon a time, newspapers had final copy editors. Everything which got printed went through them. A friend of my family worked for one of the Baltimore papers, and when he retired he was replaced by software. It caught some gramatical errors and spelling. We all know the computerized editors are useful but should never be used as the final proof.
But it was cheaper than paying someone a decent salary who had years of experience. Newspapers have been a mess since. Books today do not usually have the detailed edit either. My mil took this book and in five pages, underlined all the misspelled words. There were almost fifty of them. Nobody even bothered.
With messages, I don't always fix them. Sometimes I don't have time, and sometimes I don't get to it in time when I find them after posting. A lot of boards don't give you the option as well. For some reason I can find errors in the posted version but the typed in one in the little box I just miss them. Don't know why.
If its not just a comment, but something I want to express the right thought, I'm much more picky and will immediately review it and fix it. A casual comment I may not.
Something I did when I realized how many words I misspelled was run the spell check, but each misspelled word was written down with the right spelling. I kept this by the computer so when I went to use the word I typed it in correctly. It was amazing how quickly my spelling improved. I've also been known to run a find and replace on words like its/it's and they're/their/their before I call something done.
One of the rules for if you wanted someone to read your story on usenet was you got half of the first page to grab them. If you really wanted someone to read it, you made sure it had something of immediate interest, and it was formatted in a readable way. Meaning paragraphs divided by a line, not page long blocks which are very hard to read, shutting of smart quotes which showed as the code and most of all a good spell and at at least obvious grammar chech. It was amazing how many quit reading at the third or even second spelling error on the first page.
That was twenty years ago, but I think we still see them and it distracts from what is trying to be said.
Okay, first, I rarely comment on grammar or spelling issues here because I know very well that I fail to use our language properly at times, thus I don't want to parade my glass house too boldly. However, 99% of the time (at least), when I see someone correcting someone else's grammar, I can find problems in their writing as well--it's quite often the pot-calling-the-kettle sort of a thing. Grammar and punctuation rules are so complex at times that it is nearly impossible to be a "grammar angel."
So... having said that, the commas I inserted are not directly attributable to the "or." Actually, they are all a direct result of the quotations. Here are the relevant excerpts from my favorite grammar reference:
* Typographical convention in the United States requires that periods and commas always be inserted before the closing quotation marks--regardless of whether a direct quotation consists of an entire sentence, a phrase, or a single word.
* When the clause of attribution precedes the quotation, the clause is followed by a comma.
* When the clause of attribution follows the quotation, the clause is preceded by a comma.
* When the clause of attribution is inserted between two halves of the quotation, one comma will precede the clause and another comma will follow it.
You might say that the "or" is a conjunction, and it is, but is also serving as something of an inserted (or proxy) clause of attribution, due to the quotations. The rule to which you were referring is correct, but is applied to a list situation (of items).
As for the "nor," I just put it in red along with the preceding comma because you either need to lose the comma and reconstruct as a "neither ... nor," or lose the "nor" and use a different construct with the comma--or lose both and just rewrite it a bit.
Again, I'm NOT telling anyone how to write or trying to be a grammar Nazi; I'm simply pointing out that when you do that sort of thing (grammar Nazi-ism), you are opening yourself up to the nit-picky problems that can always be found in anyone's writing. I could go through any Stephen King novel and find oodles of grammar errors (yes, we could call them "stylistic choices" as well)... yet he's my favorite author--and, of course, he's doing significantly better business with his fiction than I am.
Also keep in mind that different style guides actually state different "rules" at times that are contradictory. I suppose that, too, could be a "style" issue. But it can be frustrating.
There's an article in today's Observer about the double homicide of a couple. Try to make sense of it.
Did someone kill them twice?
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.
Role
