On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 04:31:09 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

So, I'm really curious about where you came up with this "meta meaning"
stuff. That's a term from linguistics. Maybe it's in the Style Manual for
Linguists. 'Don't know. I've never heard of it if they publish one. g

It's more commonly referred to as the "use-mention distinction". (See:
http://www.unconventional-wisdom.com/WAW/ROBERT.html) It apparently
originated in philosophy, but it occurs in linguistics and many other
fields. It is also common in ordinary writing.

Should we ask about Wittgenstein & the "meaning of meaning"?
--
Cliff

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 21:41:06 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

I'm seriously prepared for a good laugh. I think it was meant to be funny.

Ed,
Have I found a good chum?
I used to think that "??" was a fine job but it now appears that
a simple "'" can work wonders.
OTOH Gunner cannot use them.

Also a bit odd: that's his only gripe GG.
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 04:31:09 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:


And I repeat the key question: Does it in any way detract from clarity?

What?
Could one as easily say %And I repeat the key question: Does it in
any way detract from clarity?%?
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 01:06:07 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

And yet single quotes are both commonly used and serve a specific
purpose.

But you are misusing the apostrophe it seems G.


http://www.google.com/search?num=100...%22+apostrophe

HTH
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 01:10:14 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

If I could use a blue pencil on the screen when I read the online version of
_The New York Times_, you couldn't read through it. g

Ed,
You should see the Muskegon Comical.
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 07:45:45 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

Jeez, I'm not in the business of defending Cliff. I *am* in the business of
reacting to gratuitous remarks. g I'm not trying to make you look bad, I
just stuck you with a little "gottcha." We do it to each other all the time
here. If you look back at the original remark I made, you probably will have
to admit that it, too, was worth a chuckle. I mean, you stuck your neck 'way
out there with the "professional writer" line. d8-)

You'll notice it's not one I use very often. However given my mistake
about the intent of the post I felt I should add some weight to my
criticism. It was that or quote some of the stupider 'rules' from that list.

Let me guess. You are a professional writer?
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 07:45:45 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

Oh, there's no doubt about that. That's what the Web is so good at:
publishing mistakes, intentional or otherwise, and then multiplying them ad
nauseum.

In this case it's not a mistake. It's a fairly widely used convention.
The fact that it doesn't appear in the style books is certainly
probative, but under the circumstances not determinative.

A quick Google Net search turns up about 8,780,000 hits for "idiot".
A quick Google groups search gets about 2,530,000 hits for "idiot".

Which is correct?
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 01:01:47 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

Some of them _are_ funny. But I've seen the list dozens of times and
none of examples I've seen have as many nonsense rules on it.
Considering the abysmal level of knowledge of grammar and style in this
country I'm afraid someone is likely to take this stuff seriously. The
OP obviously did (although his intent was humorous).

Wingers, I expect GG.
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 00:02:46 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

What you're trying to do is to change the signification of a punctuation
mark. Good luck. Vulgar usage may make it stick, but it's not likely.

But think of all the costly ink it would save the publishers of
things like the National Tattler !!

Ummmm ... Rick, who did you say that you wrote for?
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 05:55:04 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

You can't use question marks when you mean exclamation points. Likewise, in
a smaller way, you can't use one type of quotation mark when you mean
another.

Quite true. However you can use a widely accepted convention for the use
of a quotation mark.

And you can get an F on a term paper .....
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 05:55:04 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

In the case you're suggesting, you're using a mark that signifies a
quotation within something being quoted.

Wrong. I'm using a mark in a convention which does _not_ signify
something is being quoted. That's the point.

So in Ed's example:
[
"We aren't coming today," said John. "Mary said, 'I can't go today
because I have too much homework.'"
]
it's quite clear that John is not quoting Mary, right?
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 05:55:04 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

In the case you're suggesting, you're using a mark that signifies a
quotation within something being quoted.

Wrong. I'm using a mark in a convention which does _not_ signify
something is being quoted. That's the point.

CLUE: When someone or something IS being actually quoted
the source is also provided in most cases.
That's part of what quoting is about.
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 05:55:04 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

Except, of course, there is an alternate convention which is quite
clearly distinct from the 'single quote inside double quotes' convention.

If you make up a signification, you are causing confusion.

If you'd bother to look you'll see I did not make it up. The fact that
it is not in the major stylebooks does not mean it is not in wide use.
In fact I support the single-quote convention because it _decreases_
confusion.

Look at the sentence above with the single quotes. If I had used double
quotes the reader would be entitled to ask who I was quoting.

How? If you did not say when you did it (IF that's what you did ..
and you DID NOT) you would be a very poor writer, would you not?

Or worse yet, to assume that I was repeating something someone else had said --

Which seems to be *exactly* what you are doing with your odd sources
& arguments based on "he did it first" and "I csan find bad examples."

BTW, Who did I just quote? LOL ... I'd wager that you were not
all that confused.
--
Cliff

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Proctologically Violated©®" wrote in message
...

As an unprofessional writer, but quite the connoisseur of
professionally-written bull****, those rules are *excellent guidelines*,
altho everything can be bent for stylistic purposes.


Are we having fun yet?

The "rules," in addition to being funny, are mostly bad rules. Rick is right
about that. But that isn't the point, I don't think. I think the point was
to have some fun with rules. That they are mostly goofy rules in the first
place is part of the joke. I think. Anyway, that's how I read them.


Most of them come from Fowler's Modern English at least they
look to be from his examples of how following certain rules
will mark you out as an unthinking idiot.

Rick Cook wrote:


Now, let me ask you a substantive question. What is the objection to the
use of single quotes for these purposes? To me it clarifies meaning and
that is the main (only?) purpose for rules of usage.


Isn't it a bit like that thing dumb people do with the two
fingers on each hand that they waggle as if it means
something when they talk?

"Guido" wrote in message
...
Rick Cook wrote:


Now, let me ask you a substantive question. What is the objection to the
use of single quotes for these purposes? To me it clarifies meaning and
that is the main (only?) purpose for rules of usage.


Isn't it a bit like that thing dumb people do with the two
fingers on each hand that they waggle as if it means
something when they talk?

If you're quoting someone who is quoting something else, you need three
fingers on each hand. Then, if you're British, you separate the outside two
fingers more than then inside two. If you're American, you have to separate
the inside two fingers more.

Air-punctuation requires some physical dexterity.

--
Ed Huntress

"Guido" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Proctologically Violated©®" wrote in message
...

As an unprofessional writer, but quite the connoisseur of
professionally-written bull****, those rules are *excellent guidelines*,
altho everything can be bent for stylistic purposes.


Are we having fun yet?

The "rules," in addition to being funny, are mostly bad rules. Rick is
right
about that. But that isn't the point, I don't think. I think the point
was
to have some fun with rules. That they are mostly goofy rules in the
first
place is part of the joke. I think. Anyway, that's how I read them.


Most of them come from Fowler's Modern English at least they
look to be from his examples of how following certain rules
will mark you out as an unthinking idiot.

That sounds possible. They look like those lists of rules that are meant to
be broken.

--
Ed Huntress

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 21:41:06 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

I'm seriously prepared for a good laugh. I think it was meant to be
funny.

Ed,
Have I found a good chum?
I used to think that "??" was a fine job but it now appears that
a simple "'" can work wonders.
OTOH Gunner cannot use them.

Also a bit odd: that's his only gripe GG.

I think it only works with writers and editors. How many people would get
excited about a misplaced punctuation mark? An unspaced ellipsis can make me
grumpy all day. It's an affliction, unless the pay is very good.

--
Ed Huntress

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 04:31:09 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

And yet as the sources I cited indicate single quotes are commonly used
in that fashion. I could have multiplied examples.

Examples of errors do not make a right, no matter how many.

BTW, Are not sometimes single quotes *nested* inside double quotes?

Jane said "I heard Tom say 'off with his head'". But I could well be
wrong on that one G.

No, you're not wrong. That is standard American usage.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Guido" wrote in message
...

Most of them come from Fowler's Modern English at least they
look to be from his examples of how following certain rules
will mark you out as an unthinking idiot.


That sounds possible. They look like those lists of rules that are meant to
be broken.


Preposition at end: It was once a cherished superstition
that prepositions must be kept true to their name and placed
before the word they govern in spite of the incurable
English instinct for putting them late ('They are the
fittest timber to make great politics of' said Bacon; and
'What are you hitting me for?' says the schoolboy).

Fowler goes on to describe how the chief support of the
superstition, Dryden, used to translate all his writing into
Latin and back again to get rid of his English natural instinct.

Most of the original list fall into what Fowler describes as
either superstitions, or fetishes.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

Air-punctuation requires some physical dexterity.


Err....

Correction--pretty sure you had actually meant to say
'air-punctuation'......

--

SVL

"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

Air-punctuation requires some physical dexterity.


Err....

Correction--pretty sure you had actually meant to say
'air-punctuation'......

Sam said, "Correction--pretty sure you had actually meant to say
'air-punctuation.'"

That's right. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Robin S." wrote in message
...

"Proctologically Violated©®" wrote in message
...

And, #2 is sorta being abandoned, even by some die-hards.

I've always thought that rule two is a good one, although not always east
to
follow.

Regards,

Robin

As Guido says, the prohibition against ending a sentence with a preposition
is an arbitrary one that crept into English by the back door. It shouldn't
be a grammar rule at all. It should be a matter of learning to write
pleasing sentences.

Use the one that sounds better in context. In some contexts ("That is a rule
up with which I will not put.") it sounds pedantic and wordy. Better is
"That is a rule I won't put up with."

Other times, it sounds better to avoid hanging the prep on the end:
"Thousands of people came to the march, of which you and I were only two,"
versus "Thousands of people came to the march, which you and I were only two
of."

That's a rule to use by ear. Then it becomes a matter of how good your ear
is for English. g

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
says...
Air-punctuation requires some physical dexterity.


Whereas air guitar requires only enthusiasm.

Ned Simmons

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 13:53:11 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Guido" wrote in message
...
Rick Cook wrote:


Now, let me ask you a substantive question. What is the objection to the
use of single quotes for these purposes? To me it clarifies meaning and
that is the main (only?) purpose for rules of usage.


Isn't it a bit like that thing dumb people do with the two
fingers on each hand that they waggle as if it means
something when they talk?

If you're quoting someone who is quoting something else, you need three
fingers on each hand. Then, if you're British, you separate the outside two
fingers more than then inside two. If you're American, you have to separate
the inside two fingers more.

Air-punctuation requires some physical dexterity.

I suspect that someone only used one finger G.
--
Cliff

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"PrecisionMachinisT" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

Air-punctuation requires some physical dexterity.


Err....

Correction--pretty sure you had actually meant to say
'air-punctuation'......

Sam said, "Correction--pretty sure you had actually meant to say
'air-punctuation.'"

That's right. d8-)


Ed said, "Sam said", "Correction--pretty sure you had actually meant to say
'air-punctuation.'"

--

SVL

"Ned Simmons" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
Air-punctuation requires some physical dexterity.


Whereas air guitar requires only enthusiasm.

Ned Simmons

Chuckle!

Harold

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 01:06:07 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

Now, and more to the point. Are you seriously prepared to defend every
rule on that list?

Which specific one do you object to?
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 03:02:43 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

Double quotes indicate a direct quotation (and presumably that the
writer has accepted the material at fact value)

Even if no "purported source" is given?
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 03:02:43 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

Single quotes may or may
not enclose a directly quoted word or phrase and but they indicate
irony, disagreement or that the meta-meaning of the word or phrase is
what is being discussed.

I always thought that they "indicated" a busted 'typewriter'.
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 03:02:43 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

That's a new one on me.

It shouldn't be. It's extremely common.

Don't they come in pairs?
We all lost one it seems.
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 03:02:43 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

Look, if you want to disagree with me, fine. If you want to defend the
twit that posted the original message, also fine. But do us both a favor
and address the real issue.


:''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''

HTH
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 04:31:09 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

Okay, first I owe you (and Cliff) an apology.

No problem.

Since I long ago kill-filed Cliff as a useless twit,

I think I've found another winger or fundie G.
Note how they made assumptions & claims ......
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 04:31:09 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

And yet as the sources I cited indicate single quotes are commonly used
in that fashion. I could have multiplied examples.

Examples of errors do not make a right, no matter how many.

BTW, Are not sometimes single quotes *nested* inside double quotes?

Jane said "I heard Tom say 'off with his head'". But I could well be
wrong on that one G.
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 04:31:09 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

My personal criterion is simple. If the usage contributes to clarity,
then use it. If not, it is at best suspect. The use of single quotes in
this fashion pretty obviously improves clarity.

Rick,
That's a bit unclear.
Can you rephrase it?
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 04:31:09 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

So, I'm really curious about where you came up with this "meta meaning"
stuff. That's a term from linguistics. Maybe it's in the Style Manual for
Linguists. 'Don't know. I've never heard of it if they publish one. g

It's more commonly referred to as the "use-mention distinction". (See:
http://www.unconventional-wisdom.com/WAW/ROBERT.html) It apparently
originated in philosophy, but it occurs in linguistics and many other
fields. It is also common in ordinary writing.

Should we ask about Wittgenstein & the "meaning of meaning"?
--
Cliff

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 21:41:06 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

I'm seriously prepared for a good laugh. I think it was meant to be funny.

Ed,
Have I found a good chum?
I used to think that "??" was a fine job but it now appears that
a simple "'" can work wonders.
OTOH Gunner cannot use them.

Also a bit odd: that's his only gripe GG.
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 04:31:09 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:


And I repeat the key question: Does it in any way detract from clarity?

What?
Could one as easily say %And I repeat the key question: Does it in
any way detract from clarity?%?
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 01:06:07 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

And yet single quotes are both commonly used and serve a specific
purpose.

But you are misusing the apostrophe it seems G.


http://www.google.com/search?num=100...%22+apostrophe

HTH
--
Cliff

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 07:45:45 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

Jeez, I'm not in the business of defending Cliff. I *am* in the business of
reacting to gratuitous remarks. g I'm not trying to make you look bad, I
just stuck you with a little "gottcha." We do it to each other all the time
here. If you look back at the original remark I made, you probably will have
to admit that it, too, was worth a chuckle. I mean, you stuck your neck 'way
out there with the "professional writer" line. d8-)

You'll notice it's not one I use very often. However given my mistake
about the intent of the post I felt I should add some weight to my
criticism. It was that or quote some of the stupider 'rules' from that list.

Let me guess. You are a professional writer?
--
Cliff