Text 26488, 65 rader
Skriven 2006-03-19 17:02:23 av Roy Witt (1:1/22)
  Kommentar till text 26466 av Robert Couture (1:229/2000)
Ärende: Punctuation (was: Elist)
================================
18 Mar 06 21:47, Robert Couture wrote to Roy Witt:

 RC> Hello Roy.

 RC> 18 Mar 06 16:36, you wrote to me:

 RW|>> Well, it seems that we have two different authorities on the use of
 RW|>> the elipsis. British English or Oxford, whichever you prefer. In
 RW|>> the US, that authority is the The Chicago Manual of Style, which is
 RW|>> also a credible English source for the punctuation, although it's
 RW|>> American English.

 RC> Always remember though that the "The Chicago Manual of Style" is a
 RC> subset of a much older language reference: Oxford :)  Just as
 RC> American English is a subset of a much older language: British
 RC> English, which is s subset of Olde English ... which is ... :)

not the same as it used to be. It too has evolved, even though they can't
speak it properly. :o)

 RC>>> i.e.; He ran away. ... Just like a chicken would.  This is
 RC>>> incorrect. So is...this. (No spaces.)

 RW|>> Per the Oxford source. However, that's not all inclusive, but
 RW|>> merely a sample.

 RC> Yeah, but it is older than your sample :)

Old doesn't make it better...when things are out of kilter as is Olde
English and it's usage in it's colonys, properly adjusting it to modern
day usage is what Americans do best.

 RC>>> Not that puctuation is all that important in the world anymore,
 RC>>> mind you. (However, I think it is just as important as grammar.)

 RW|>> Actually, it's hardly noticable, unless you're a English grammar
 RW|>> and punctuation perfectionist. Or you're looking for a passing
 RW|>> grade in an English class.

 RC> I disagree.  A poorly punctuated paragraph is harder to read than a
 RC> properly punctuated one.

If you disagree, then  you're not an English grammar and punctuation
expert.

 RC>   I would go as far as saying that the menaing of the auther can be
 RC> misinterpretted if he uses the wrong punctuation.

You can say that. But knowing the jist of the subject matter might help
one interpret what the author is saying. For instance, I know that you
meant to type the word 'meaning' above, but your fingers got out of sync
with your brain... :o) Doesn't matter, because I can interject what you
meant and there was no loss in the meaning of what you had to say.

 RC>>> Just having some fun ... no insult intended or anything negative
 RC>>> like that.
 RW|>> Same here.
 RC> :)

Again.


Roy
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: Hacienda de Rio de Guadalupe * South * Texas, USA * (1:1/22)