[
Rules of English usage.

1.**Verbs*HAS*to*agree*with*their*subjects.
2.**Prepositions*are*not*words*to*end*sentences*wi th.
3.**And*don't*start*a*sentence*with*a*conjunction.
4.**It*is*wrong*to*ever*split*an*infinitive.
5.**Avoid*cliches*like*the*plague.**(They're*old*h at)
6.**Also,*always*avoid*annoying*alliteration.
7.**Be*more*or*less*specific.
8.**Parenthetical*remarks*(however*relevant)*are*( usually)*unnecessary.
9.**Also*too,*never,*ever*use*repetitive*redundanc ies.
10. No sentence fragments.
11. Contractions aren't necessary and shouldn't be used.
12. Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.
13. Do not be redundant; do not use more words than necessary;
******it*is*highly*superfluous.
14.**One*should*NEVER*generalize.
15.**Comparisons*are*as*bad*as*cliches.
16.**Eschew*ampersands*&*abbreviations,*etc.
17.**One-word*sentences?**Eliminate.
18.**Analogies*in*writing*are*like*feathers*on*a*s nake.
19.**The*passive*voice*is*to*be*ignored.
20.**Eliminate*commas,*that*are,*not*necessary.
21.**Never*use*a*big*word*when*a*diminutive*one*wo uld*suffice.
22.**Use*words*correctly,*irregardless*of*how*othe rs*use*them.
23.**Understatement*is*always*the*absolute*best*wa y*to*put*forth
*******earth-shaking*ideas.
24.**Eliminate*quotations.**As*Ralph*Waldo*Emerson *said,*"I*hate
*******quotations.*Tell*me*what*you*know."
25.**If*you've*heard*it*once,*you've*heard*it*a*th ousand*times:*Resist
*******hyperbole;*not*one*writer*in*a*million*can* use*it*correctly.
26.**Puns*are*for*children,*not*groan*readers.
27.**Go*around*the*barn*at*high*noon*to*avoid*coll oquialisms.
28.**Even*IF*a*mixed*metaphor*sings,*it*should*be* derailed.
29.**Who*needs*rhetorical*questions?
30.**Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.
31.**Avoid putting apostrophe's in plural's.

And the last one...

32.**Poofread*carefully*to*see*if*you*any*words*ou t.
]

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
[
Rules of English usage.

1. Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects.
2. Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.
3. And don't start a sentence with a conjunction.
4. It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.
5. Avoid cliches like the plague. (They're old hat)
6. Also, always avoid annoying alliteration.
7. Be more or less specific.
8. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.
9. Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies.
10. No sentence fragments.
11. Contractions aren't necessary and shouldn't be used.
12. Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.
13. Do not be redundant; do not use more words than necessary;
it is highly superfluous.
14. One should NEVER generalize.
15. Comparisons are as bad as cliches.
16. Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.
17. One-word sentences? Eliminate.
18. Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.
19. The passive voice is to be ignored.
20. Eliminate commas, that are, not necessary.
21. Never use a big word when a diminutive one would suffice.
22. Use words correctly, irregardless of how others use them.
23. Understatement is always the absolute best way to put forth
earth-shaking ideas.
24. Eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "I hate
quotations. Tell me what you know."
25. If you've heard it once, you've heard it a thousand times: Resist
hyperbole; not one writer in a million can use it correctly.
26. Puns are for children, not groan readers.
27. Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.
28. Even IF a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.
29. Who needs rhetorical questions?
30. Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.
31. Avoid putting apostrophe's in plural's.

And the last one...

32. Poofread carefully to see if you any words out.
]

You should run them rules up the flagpole and see if they stick.

--
Ed Huntress

Our Cliff, the next Strunk & White, the Martha Steward of Prose!

Cupla corrections. Isn't it now "Englich"?

And, #2 is sorta being abandoned, even by some die-hards.
Poss. #4.

Overall, totally excellent! Poofreading cracked me up!!
----------------------------
Mr. P.V.'d
formerly Droll Troll
"Cliff" wrote in message
...
[
Rules of English usage.

1. Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects.
2. Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.
3. And don't start a sentence with a conjunction.
4. It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.
5. Avoid cliches like the plague. (They're old hat)
6. Also, always avoid annoying alliteration.
7. Be more or less specific.
8. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.
9. Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies.
10. No sentence fragments.
11. Contractions aren't necessary and shouldn't be used.
12. Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.
13. Do not be redundant; do not use more words than necessary;
it is highly superfluous.
14. One should NEVER generalize.
15. Comparisons are as bad as cliches.
16. Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.
17. One-word sentences? Eliminate.
18. Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.
19. The passive voice is to be ignored.
20. Eliminate commas, that are, not necessary.
21. Never use a big word when a diminutive one would suffice.
22. Use words correctly, irregardless of how others use them.
23. Understatement is always the absolute best way to put forth
earth-shaking ideas.
24. Eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "I hate
quotations. Tell me what you know."
25. If you've heard it once, you've heard it a thousand times: Resist
hyperbole; not one writer in a million can use it correctly.
26. Puns are for children, not groan readers.
27. Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.
28. Even IF a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.
29. Who needs rhetorical questions?
30. Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.
31. Avoid putting apostrophe's in plural's.

And the last one...

32. Poofread carefully to see if you any words out.
]

Very nice, Cliff.

I'm (sometimes) guilty and blameworthy, but not always, of: 2, 4, 8, 13,
20, 21

My pet-peeves a 14, 22, 28, 30, 31!, 32!

I think are OK: 26 (if you can work a pun into a well-written piece, I
tip my hat to you)




Cliff wrote in
:

[
Rules of English usage.

1.**Verbs*HAS*to*agree*with*their*subjects.
2.**Prepositions*are*not*words*to*end*sentences*wi th.
3.**And*don't*start*a*sentence*with*a*conjunction.
4.**It*is*wrong*to*ever*split*an*infinitive.
5.**Avoid*cliches*like*the*plague.**(They're*old*h at)
6.**Also,*always*avoid*annoying*alliteration.
7.**Be*more*or*less*specific.
8.**Parenthetical*remarks*(however*relevant)*are*( usually)
*unnecessary.
9.**Also*too,*never,*ever*use*repetitive*redundanc ies.
10. No sentence fragments.
11. Contractions aren't necessary and shouldn't be used.
12. Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.
13. Do not be redundant; do not use more words than necessary;
******it*is*highly*superfluous.
14.**One*should*NEVER*generalize.
15.**Comparisons*are*as*bad*as*cliches.
16.**Eschew*ampersands*&*abbreviations,*etc.
17.**One-word*sentences?**Eliminate.
18.**Analogies*in*writing*are*like*feathers*on*a*s nake.
19.**The*passive*voice*is*to*be*ignored.
20.**Eliminate*commas,*that*are,*not*necessary.
21.**Never*use*a*big*word*when*a*diminutive*one*wo uld*suffice.
22.**Use*words*correctly,*irregardless*of*how*othe rs*use*them.
23.**Understatement*is*always*the*absolute*best*wa y*to*put*forth
*******earth-shaking*ideas.
24.**Eliminate*quotations.**As*Ralph*Waldo*Emerson *said,*"I*hate
*******quotations.*Tell*me*what*you*know."
25.**If*you've*heard*it*once,*you've*heard*it*a*th ousand*times:*Resist
*******hyperbole;*not*one*writer*in*a*million*can* use*it*correctly.
26.**Puns*are*for*children,*not*groan*readers.
27.**Go*around*the*barn*at*high*noon*to*avoid*coll oquialisms.
28.**Even*IF*a*mixed*metaphor*sings,*it*should*be* derailed.
29.**Who*needs*rhetorical*questions?
30.**Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.
31.**Avoid putting apostrophe's in plural's.

And the last one...

32.**Poofread*carefully*to*see*if*you*any*words*ou t.
]



--
Robert Davidson
President
Atlas Financial Corporation
877-750-9445

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Cliff" wrote in message
...

[
Rules of English usage.

1. Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects.
2. Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.
3. And don't start a sentence with a conjunction.
4. It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.
5. Avoid cliches like the plague. (They're old hat)
6. Also, always avoid annoying alliteration.
7. Be more or less specific.
8. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.
9. Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies.
10. No sentence fragments.
11. Contractions aren't necessary and shouldn't be used.
12. Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.
13. Do not be redundant; do not use more words than necessary;
it is highly superfluous.
14. One should NEVER generalize.
15. Comparisons are as bad as cliches.
16. Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.
17. One-word sentences? Eliminate.
18. Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.
19. The passive voice is to be ignored.
20. Eliminate commas, that are, not necessary.
21. Never use a big word when a diminutive one would suffice.
22. Use words correctly, irregardless of how others use them.
23. Understatement is always the absolute best way to put forth
earth-shaking ideas.
24. Eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "I hate
quotations. Tell me what you know."
25. If you've heard it once, you've heard it a thousand times: Resist
hyperbole; not one writer in a million can use it correctly.
26. Puns are for children, not groan readers.
27. Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.
28. Even IF a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.
29. Who needs rhetorical questions?
30. Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.
31. Avoid putting apostrophe's in plural's.

And the last one...

32. Poofread carefully to see if you any words out.
]


You should run them rules up the flagpole and see if they stick.

--
Ed Huntress


Speaking as a professional writer, that's the lamest version of this
thing I've ever seen. Half of those 'rules' are nonsense.

But considering the source. . .

--RC

"Rick Cook" wrote in message
.net...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Cliff" wrote in message
...

[
Rules of English usage.

1. Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects.
2. Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.
3. And don't start a sentence with a conjunction.
4. It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.
5. Avoid cliches like the plague. (They're old hat)
6. Also, always avoid annoying alliteration.
7. Be more or less specific.
8. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.
9. Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies.
10. No sentence fragments.
11. Contractions aren't necessary and shouldn't be used.
12. Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.
13. Do not be redundant; do not use more words than necessary;
it is highly superfluous.
14. One should NEVER generalize.
15. Comparisons are as bad as cliches.
16. Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.
17. One-word sentences? Eliminate.
18. Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.
19. The passive voice is to be ignored.
20. Eliminate commas, that are, not necessary.
21. Never use a big word when a diminutive one would suffice.
22. Use words correctly, irregardless of how others use them.
23. Understatement is always the absolute best way to put forth
earth-shaking ideas.
24. Eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "I hate
quotations. Tell me what you know."
25. If you've heard it once, you've heard it a thousand times: Resist
hyperbole; not one writer in a million can use it correctly.
26. Puns are for children, not groan readers.
27. Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.
28. Even IF a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.
29. Who needs rhetorical questions?
30. Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.
31. Avoid putting apostrophe's in plural's.

And the last one...

32. Poofread carefully to see if you any words out.
]


You should run them rules up the flagpole and see if they stick.

--
Ed Huntress


Speaking as a professional writer, that's the lamest version of this
thing I've ever seen. Half of those 'rules' are nonsense.

But considering the source. . .

--RC


Well, speaking as another professional writer, I thought they were kind of
funny.

BTW, as one professional writer to another, don't use single quotation marks
in running text.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 02:20:31 -0500, Cliff wrote:

[
Rules of English usage.
s.

And the last one...

32.**Poofread*carefully*to*see*if*you*any*words*o ut.
]


This last one bothers me.

It's 2 am and I just finished writing. Now I supposed to go out
running around, trying to find some "poof" to edit my work?

I don't think so.

Paul K. Dickman

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

BTW, as one professional writer to another, ....

You tell 'em, Ed.




(*Some* _people_....)
;g

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 12:04:56 -0600, Robert Davidson
wrote:

Very nice, Cliff.

I stole it.
Left a note in it's place though.
--
Cliff

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 20:02:06 GMT, Rick Cook
wrote:

Half of those 'rules' are nonsense.

Which half?
--
Cliff

"john" wrote in message
...
Ed
--
Ed Huntress


Speaking as a professional writer, that's the lamest version of this
thing I've ever seen. Half of those 'rules' are nonsense.

But considering the source. . .

--RC


Well, speaking as another professional writer, I thought they were kind
of
funny.

BTW, as one professional writer to another, don't use single quotation
marks
in running text.

--
Ed Huntress

It was only walking.....

Don't use 'em in walking text, either. g

They're used for quotes inside of quotes. Headlines and captions (which are
not running text, also called body text) are, by convention, assumed to be
in quotes that you can't see -- they're implicit rather than explicit. So
single quotes are used in headlines and captions, too.

There are different formal styles for these things but NOT for the use of
single quotes in body text.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed
--
Ed Huntress


Speaking as a professional writer, that's the lamest version of this
thing I've ever seen. Half of those 'rules' are nonsense.

But considering the source. . .

--RC


Well, speaking as another professional writer, I thought they were kind of
funny.

BTW, as one professional writer to another, don't use single quotation marks
in running text.

--
Ed Huntress

It was only walking.....

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.
The sure sign of a literary wannabee/asshole is, for one example, the
excessive use of commas. These people, I have found, simply cannot get
laid. To which there is actually quite the Jungian logic, iffin anyone is
innerested. Kinda long...
But then, I read these assholes in the Book Review Section of the NYTimes
all the goddamm time. Where the **** did half of these "professional
writers" go to school? And who are their fukn *editors*?? Goodgawd...
Not directed at you, of course. I'm sure you can violate ALL these rules,
whilst polishing your knob, I mean, craft.
----------------------------
Mr. P.V.'d
formerly Droll Troll
"Rick Cook" wrote in message
.net...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Cliff" wrote in message
...

[
Rules of English usage.

1. Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects.
2. Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.
3. And don't start a sentence with a conjunction.
4. It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.
5. Avoid cliches like the plague. (They're old hat)
6. Also, always avoid annoying alliteration.
7. Be more or less specific.
8. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.
9. Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies.
10. No sentence fragments.
11. Contractions aren't necessary and shouldn't be used.
12. Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.
13. Do not be redundant; do not use more words than necessary;
it is highly superfluous.
14. One should NEVER generalize.
15. Comparisons are as bad as cliches.
16. Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.
17. One-word sentences? Eliminate.
18. Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.
19. The passive voice is to be ignored.
20. Eliminate commas, that are, not necessary.
21. Never use a big word when a diminutive one would suffice.
22. Use words correctly, irregardless of how others use them.
23. Understatement is always the absolute best way to put forth
earth-shaking ideas.
24. Eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "I hate
quotations. Tell me what you know."
25. If you've heard it once, you've heard it a thousand times: Resist
hyperbole; not one writer in a million can use it correctly.
26. Puns are for children, not groan readers.
27. Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.
28. Even IF a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.
29. Who needs rhetorical questions?
30. Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.
31. Avoid putting apostrophe's in plural's.

And the last one...

32. Poofread carefully to see if you any words out.
]


You should run them rules up the flagpole and see if they stick.

--
Ed Huntress


Speaking as a professional writer, that's the lamest version of this thing
I've ever seen. Half of those 'rules' are nonsense.

But considering the source. . .

--RC

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Rick Cook" wrote in message
.net...

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message
...


[
Rules of English usage.

1. Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects.
2. Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.
3. And don't start a sentence with a conjunction.
4. It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.
5. Avoid cliches like the plague. (They're old hat)
6. Also, always avoid annoying alliteration.
7. Be more or less specific.
8. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.
9. Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies.
10. No sentence fragments.
11. Contractions aren't necessary and shouldn't be used.
12. Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.
13. Do not be redundant; do not use more words than necessary;
it is highly superfluous.
14. One should NEVER generalize.
15. Comparisons are as bad as cliches.
16. Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.
17. One-word sentences? Eliminate.
18. Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.
19. The passive voice is to be ignored.
20. Eliminate commas, that are, not necessary.
21. Never use a big word when a diminutive one would suffice.
22. Use words correctly, irregardless of how others use them.
23. Understatement is always the absolute best way to put forth
earth-shaking ideas.
24. Eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "I hate
quotations. Tell me what you know."
25. If you've heard it once, you've heard it a thousand times: Resist
hyperbole; not one writer in a million can use it correctly.
26. Puns are for children, not groan readers.
27. Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.
28. Even IF a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.
29. Who needs rhetorical questions?
30. Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.
31. Avoid putting apostrophe's in plural's.

And the last one...

32. Poofread carefully to see if you any words out.
]


You should run them rules up the flagpole and see if they stick.

--
Ed Huntress



Speaking as a professional writer, that's the lamest version of this
thing I've ever seen. Half of those 'rules' are nonsense.

But considering the source. . .

--RC



Well, speaking as another professional writer, I thought they were kind of
funny.

BTW, as one professional writer to another, don't use single quotation marks
in running text.

--
Ed Huntress


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).

As for the single-quotes in running text, in my world it is an accepted
way of indicating irony.

Now, shall we reach for our stylebooks and take it outside?

--RC

Ed Huntress wrote:
"john" wrote in message
...

Ed

--
Ed Huntress



Speaking as a professional writer, that's the lamest version of this
thing I've ever seen. Half of those 'rules' are nonsense.

But considering the source. . .

--RC


Well, speaking as another professional writer, I thought they were kind

of

funny.

BTW, as one professional writer to another, don't use single quotation

marks

in running text.

--
Ed Huntress

It was only walking.....


Don't use 'em in walking text, either. g

They're used for quotes inside of quotes. Headlines and captions (which are
not running text, also called body text) are, by convention, assumed to be
in quotes that you can't see -- they're implicit rather than explicit. So
single quotes are used in headlines and captions, too.

There are different formal styles for these things but NOT for the use of
single quotes in body text.

--
Ed Huntress


And yet single quotes are both commonly used and serve a specific
purpose. The latter seems enough to justify them to me. They are also
more economical than using the phrase 'so-called'. (And there's another
common use for them. To set off material in which the meta-meaning
rather than the literal meaning is what is important.)

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

I thought not.

--RC

"Rick Cook" wrote in message
ink.net...

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).

I just don't take it that seriously. 'Too many years of copyediting behind
me to get excited about it. Like, that's an arrant pedantry up with which I
will not put, or something like that. d8-)


As for the single-quotes in running text, in my world it is an accepted
way of indicating irony.

Now, shall we reach for our stylebooks and take it outside?

That must be a stylebook I haven't seen.

--
Ed Huntress

"Rick Cook" wrote in message
ink.net...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"john" wrote in message
...

Ed

--
Ed Huntress



Speaking as a professional writer, that's the lamest version of this
thing I've ever seen. Half of those 'rules' are nonsense.

But considering the source. . .

--RC


Well, speaking as another professional writer, I thought they were kind

of

funny.

BTW, as one professional writer to another, don't use single quotation

marks

in running text.

--
Ed Huntress

It was only walking.....


Don't use 'em in walking text, either. g

They're used for quotes inside of quotes. Headlines and captions (which
are
not running text, also called body text) are, by convention, assumed to
be
in quotes that you can't see -- they're implicit rather than explicit.
So
single quotes are used in headlines and captions, too.

There are different formal styles for these things but NOT for the use
of
single quotes in body text.

--
Ed Huntress


And yet single quotes are both commonly used and serve a specific
purpose. The latter seems enough to justify them to me.

Certainly they're justified, in their proper place. But if they're misused,
one wonders who or what it is you're quoting.

They are also
more economical than using the phrase 'so-called'.

That's for sure. However, using the proper punctuation ("") doesn't require
any extra effort.

(And there's another
common use for them. To set off material in which the meta-meaning
rather than the literal meaning is what is important.)

That's a new one on me.


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

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


I thought not.

Getting too analytical about jokes kind of takes the wind out of them.

--
Ed Huntress

"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.

--
Ed Huntress

"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

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Rick Cook" wrote in message
ink.net...

Ed Huntress wrote:

(I wrote)
And yet single quotes are both commonly used and serve a specific
purpose. The latter seems enough to justify them to me.

Certainly they're justified, in their proper place. But if they're misused,
one wonders who or what it is you're quoting.

Sorry Ed, irony or implied disagreement one of the specific uses for
single quotes.

They are also
more economical than using the phrase 'so-called'.

That's for sure. However, using the proper punctuation ("") doesn't require
any extra effort.

It's not at all clear that double quotes the proper punctuation. At
least not in the United States. The sources are divided.

As a practical matter, single quotes clarify the writer's intentions.
Double quotes indicate a direct quotation (and presumably that the
writer has accepted the material at fact value) 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.

Since it contributes to clarity, I'll continue to use single quotes,
thank you.


(And there's another
common use for them. To set off material in which the meta-meaning
rather than the literal meaning is what is important.)


That's a new one on me.

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


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


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

In context, it was meant as a cheap shot, not as humor -- which is about
all this guy is capable of. Frankly I doubt you believe it was anything
else, considering the OP's history and posting style. Unless, of course,
you kill-filed him so long ago you've forgotten what he's like.


I thought not.

Getting too analytical about jokes kind of takes the wind out of them.

And the comment on in-line quotes wasn't analytical?

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. Snide ill-becomes you, as does an air of
assumed innocence.

--RC

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Rick Cook" wrote in message
ink.net...

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).


I just don't take it that seriously. 'Too many years of copyediting behind
me to get excited about it. Like, that's an arrant pedantry up with which I
will not put, or something like that. d8-)

You got the quote correct. Churchill, I believe.


As for the single-quotes in running text, in my world it is an accepted
way of indicating irony.

Now, shall we reach for our stylebooks and take it outside?


That must be a stylebook I haven't seen.

It's a fairly common convention, actually. Here are a couple of on-line
references.

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/d.../d0082674.html

http://www.geocities.com/viv_quarry/wkshts/punc.html

http://www.informatics.susx.ac.uk/do...on/node33.html

Although to be fair, the convention is not universally accepted and some
sources prefer double quotes.


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.

--RC



--
Ed Huntress

"Rick Cook" wrote in message
nk.net...

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. Snide ill-becomes you, as does an air of
assumed innocence.

Jesus, all that happened there is that you got pedantic about what was
really a joke. Notice the subject line: Cliff was just passing on something
funny that he thought I'd get a kick out of, and it was worth a chuckle. I
welcome all chuckles and chortles, and side-splitters, too, when I can find
them.

Then you tacked on a cheap ad hominem, so I popped a mild one back at you.
Pedantic remarks about grammar that are themselves ungrammatical are worth a
mild pop, no? Ad hominems are, too.

Now, I don't want to get into a ****ing contest about single- versus double
quotation marks. I live with style manuals all day long and I'm not here for
a busman's holiday. I'm paid right now as a copy editor, although I do as
much writing. Just to settle some dust, I just checked Chicago style, AMA,
and Modern Language Association style, plus Brittain's _Punctuation for
Clarity_, and I see no mention of the use of single quotes as you're
describing. In fact, they use double quotes for all of those circumstances,
except that MLA style has a weird one that I haven't seen befo they use
single quotes for translation of a foreign word when the translation follows
the foreign word "with no intervening punctuation." I think they cooked that
one up over a case of Chardonnay. The other major style manuals make no
mention of it.

I started writing for a big, classy publisher 30 years ago, and the AP style
manual was forced down my throat then. NYT style was our secondary
reference. That's where I learned about the use of single quotes in
headlines and captions. Both manuals agreed on that point.

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

Of course, we all see the (mis)use of single quotation marks in NG messages.
We aren't writing for publication here, and it's fun to loosen up. But it
was worth a pop in exchange for your cheap ad hominem, and it was funny
because you threw in the "professional writer" line. Single quotes used as
you're defending them are not literate. Professional writers might use them
in a NG message, but they wouldn't seriously cook up a bunch of baloney to
defend them if someone called attention to the misuse. There might be a copy
editor out there who knows better. So I'll assume you're just trying to push
a point to see if you can get away with it. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
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.

SNIP

Mr. P.V.'d
formerly Droll Troll
"Rick Cook" wrote in message
.net...



Hear, hear. Patrick Bedard, P.J. O'Rourke, Patrick McManus, some of my
favorites.
--
Steve Walker
(remove wallet to reply)

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Rick Cook" wrote in message
nk.net...

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. Snide ill-becomes you, as does an air of
assumed innocence.


Jesus, all that happened there is that you got pedantic about what was
really a joke. Notice the subject line: Cliff was just passing on something
funny that he thought I'd get a kick out of, and it was worth a chuckle. I
welcome all chuckles and chortles, and side-splitters, too, when I can find
them.

Okay, first I owe you (and Cliff) an apology. Since I long ago
kill-filed Cliff as a useless twit, I don't see his original messages.
(Or at least I shouldn't. I need to check that.) When I saw the message,
I thought he had posted another of his drive-bys aimed at a third party.

About five minutes after I posted my last message, it occurred to me
that I might have gotten that wrong. As indeed I did. So I owe you an
apology for that.

Then you tacked on a cheap ad hominem,

Oh hardly a cheap shot. Nor in my opinion an ad hominem. It was the
result of long experience with the individual's posting style -- and the
fact that he prefers drive-bys to serious discussion. So a drive-by
warrants a drive-by.

However in this case I jumped to a conclusion.

Feel free to defend him if you must. But don't you think it would be
more appropriate to actually defend him instead of taking a cheap shot
at me in return? Making me look bad doesn't make this person look good,
after all.

so I popped a mild one back at you.
Pedantic remarks about grammar that are themselves ungrammatical are worth a
mild pop, no? Ad hominems are, too.

The problem, of course, is that my comment was not ungrammatical, at
least not from my standpoint. It is a common -- and very useful --
usage. I had never heard it questioned until you posted the comment.


Now, I don't want to get into a ****ing contest about single- versus double
quotation marks. I live with style manuals all day long and I'm not here for
a busman's holiday. I'm paid right now as a copy editor, although I do as
much writing. Just to settle some dust, I just checked Chicago style, AMA,
and Modern Language Association style, plus Brittain's _Punctuation for
Clarity_, and I see no mention of the use of single quotes as you're
describing.

And yet as the sources I cited indicate single quotes are commonly used
in that fashion. I could have multiplied examples. I realize the style
manuals you refer to don't use single quotes in that way, but that leads
us into the area of descriptive versus prescriptive usage.

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.

The problem with double quotes in these uses is that they are easily
mistaken for direct quotations. This isn't a theoretical problem. I have
had it happen to me. As you correctly point out, in these uses you are
not necessarily directly quoting anyone. Even if you happen to be
directly quoting, as I was, the important point was not that the wording
was exact but the disagreement.


In fact, they use double quotes for all of those circumstances,
except that MLA style has a weird one that I haven't seen befo they use
single quotes for translation of a foreign word when the translation follows
the foreign word "with no intervening punctuation." I think they cooked that
one up over a case of Chardonnay. The other major style manuals make no
mention of it.

I started writing for a big, classy publisher 30 years ago, and the AP style
manual was forced down my throat then.

I learned it in journalism school sometime earlier than that. Then I had
it reinforced when I worked for the AP. (You have _no_ idea how
crotchety the New York copy desk can be.) But, as I say I have been
using the convention for years and no one ever questioned it before.

NYT style was our secondary
reference. That's where I learned about the use of single quotes in
headlines and captions. Both manuals agreed on that point.

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.

Of course, we all see the (mis)use of single quotation marks in NG messages.
We aren't writing for publication here, and it's fun to loosen up. But it
was worth a pop in exchange for your cheap ad hominem, and it was funny
because you threw in the "professional writer" line. Single quotes used as
you're defending them are not literate.

Since I was a lowly journalism major and am now a lowly free-lance
writer, I leave a discussion of what is 'literate' to my betters. I will
simply note that it make a useful distinction which is extremely common
in all forms of writing. It is also quite well-understood.


Professional writers might use them
in a NG message, but they wouldn't seriously cook up a bunch of baloney to
defend them if someone called attention to the misuse.

Did you bother to read the references I cited? You may not agree with
them, but using single quotes in these circumstances is both a common
and approved use. And, to repeat, one which aids clarity.

There might be a copy editor out there who knows better. So I'll assume you're just trying to push
a point to see if you can get away with it. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


Whether you like it or not, Ed, it is both a common and a useful
convention. Since it is useful I intend to keep using it until someone
who signs my checks tells me otherwise.

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

--RC

No problem.

But those rules remind me of how we used to write in JHS. I personally
think they are excellent *guidelines*. With skill and talent, maybe they
become less relevant. But maybe it's just the lousy *thinking* behind so
much writing that makes what might have been otherwise good writing
ultimately useless.

What I wanna know is, What monkey(s) wrote the Fadal Manual?? Goodgawd....
And, it probably follows Cliff's rules to boot. Go figger.
----------------------------
Mr. P.V.'d
formerly Droll Troll
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"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.

--
Ed Huntress

"Rick Cook" wrote in message
ink.net...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Rick Cook" wrote in message
ink.net...

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).


I just don't take it that seriously. 'Too many years of copyediting
behind
me to get excited about it. Like, that's an arrant pedantry up with
which I
will not put, or something like that. d8-)

You got the quote correct. Churchill, I believe.


As for the single-quotes in running text, in my world it is an accepted
way of indicating irony.

Now, shall we reach for our stylebooks and take it outside?


That must be a stylebook I haven't seen.

It's a fairly common convention, actually. Here are a couple of on-line
references.

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/d.../d0082674.html

British. Note the last line in which they say that American punctuation
works the other way around.


http://www.geocities.com/viv_quarry/wkshts/punc.html

Wrong. Viv is just making it up as she goes along, taking the vulgar
approach: all her friends do it that way, probably.


http://www.informatics.susx.ac.uk/do...on/node33.html

More British usage. When you start asking how to colour anodized aluminium,
we'll understand. g


Although to be fair, the convention is not universally accepted and some
sources prefer double quotes.

"Not universally accepted"? Did you check any style manuals? It's not
accepted by ANY of them, at least the majors.



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.

British usage and American usage do the same thing with quotation marks, and
for the same reason: we both use one mark for a direct quote, and the other
one for a quotation or a title WITHIN that quote. One marks signifies the
direct quote; the other mark identifies that there is a quotation of some
other source *within* the quotation. We and the Brits just use opposite
marks.

Unlike the spelling and definitions of words, punctuation is derived from
typesetters' conventions. They are somewhat arbitrary in themselves -- they
have no intrinsic meaning -- but meaning attaches to them to the degree that
we all use them in the same intentional way. In Morse code, the dots and
dashes only have meaning because we agree, or an authority certifies, that
these are the expected meanings. Likewise, when we use the numeral 2 versus
5. We can't switch them around without destroying our ability to communicate
meaning. You can't make up numerals as you go along; you can't make up Morse
code as you go along; and you can't make up punctuation as you go along, all
for the same reasons.

Now, you can use punctuation in an "improper" way to signify a special
meaning. But the improper use has meaning only because we agree about what
that mark signifies. We can't change the signification without sowing
confusion. We *can* use the mark in a non-standard way, but it carries the
standard signification with it, or all meaning is lost.

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. In the case you're suggesting, you're using a mark that signifies a
quotation within something being quoted. That's the meaning it has, its
signification. If you make up a signification, you are causing confusion.

When I see single quotes where double quotes were intended, I usually
recognize the meaning intended, because the writer, by that time, probably
has given away that he is not a professional or a serious writer. The single
quote, as used this way in the US, is usually a sign of a lack of
confidence: the writer knows that double quotes are for direct quotations,
and this is not a direct quotation, so maybe that's what single quotes are
for? Not. There is a whole logic to the use of double quotes for words with
special meanings that derives from their use in direct quotations. Every
copy editor knows this. You can read about it in a good style manual.
Brittain's _Punctuation for Clarity_, which has been a primary resource in
the US for 40 years, explains it at some length. You won't see this mistake
made in anything published carefully by pros. You WILL see it in all kinds
of amateur writing.

Punctuation doesn't "evolve" like words evolve. As I said, it doesn't come
from grammarians or street usage, it comes from 200 years of typesetting
convention. That convention has produced some *******s, such as closing-up
on both sides of an em-dash, or, the big weirdo in American English, always,
always enclosing periods and commas *inside* of final quotation marks, like
this:

"We aren't coming today," said John. "Mary said, 'I can't go today because I
have too much homework.'"

Note that the period is followed in the second sentence by a single
quotation mark, and then by a double quotation mark. Only in America. . .

We use punctuation in slang, and with nonce words and coined words,
sometimes to signify missing letters in the slang or coined word: an effin'
mess, ya' know? But the punctuation itself carries the standard
signification. If it didn't, we wouldn't understand any of it at all. We use
punctuaion in non-standard English but the punctuation itself carries its
standard signification, even if it's used in an intentionally unique or an
unintentionally incorrect way.

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. The
use of punctuation changes as the language evolves, but the meaning, the
signification, of individual marks of punctuation hasn't changed for over
100 years.

--
Ed Huntress

"Proctologically Violated©®" wrote in message
...
No problem.

But those rules remind me of how we used to write in JHS. I personally
think they are excellent *guidelines*. With skill and talent, maybe they
become less relevant. But maybe it's just the lousy *thinking* behind so
much writing that makes what might have been otherwise good writing
ultimately useless.

There ya' go. Good thinking is all you really need. If you can think clearly
and explain yourself reasonably well, leave it to the proofreaders and copy
editors to formalize it.


What I wanna know is, What monkey(s) wrote the Fadal Manual??
Goodgawd....
And, it probably follows Cliff's rules to boot. Go figger.

I haven't read a Fadal manual in twenty years, but, in those days, I think
they were squirrel monkeys.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

I haven't read a Fadal manual in twenty years, but, in those days, I think
they were squirrel monkeys.

Aack! I was thinking "Fanuc," not "Fadal." I don't think I ever read a Fadal
manual.

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

Ed Huntress wrote:

(Disagreeing with several sources I cited as British)
If you'd prefer American sources for single quotes, DAGS. There are
plenty of them.

snip of the point that the use doesn't appear in any of Ed's style books.

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.

British usage and American usage do the same thing with quotation marks, and
for the same reason: we both use one mark for a direct quote, and the other
one for a quotation or a title WITHIN that quote. One marks signifies the
direct quote; the other mark identifies that there is a quotation of some
other source *within* the quotation. We and the Brits just use opposite
marks.

And your point is? Surely you don't think this would cause confusion. I
doubt seriously it could cause as much confusion as using double quotes
for everything.

Unlike the spelling and definitions of words, punctuation is derived from
typesetters' conventions. They are somewhat arbitrary in themselves -- they
have no intrinsic meaning -- but meaning attaches to them to the degree that
we all use them in the same intentional way. In Morse code, the dots and
dashes only have meaning because we agree, or an authority certifies, that
these are the expected meanings. Likewise, when we use the numeral 2 versus
5. We can't switch them around without destroying our ability to communicate
meaning. You can't make up numerals as you go along; you can't make up Morse
code as you go along; and you can't make up punctuation as you go along, all
for the same reasons.

All quite correct. The problem with it as an argument in this case is
that single quotes are widely used in exactly the way I used them, as
well as a couple of other instances, such as to mark the use-mention
distinction. Further, using them in that way enhances clarity. That's
why typesetters invented punctuation marks, after all.

Now, you can use punctuation in an "improper" way to signify a special
meaning. But the improper use has meaning only because we agree about what
that mark signifies. We can't change the signification without sowing
confusion. We *can* use the mark in a non-standard way, but it carries the
standard signification with it, or all meaning is lost.

Again correct. And you'd have a point -- if I had made up this
convention. I did not.

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.

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.

That's the meaning it has, its
signification.

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. Or worse
yet, to assume that I was repeating something someone else had said --
perhaps you. But of course you never, IIRC, used that precise phrase and
In fact I am doing neither. Instead I am making the use-mention
distinction I referred to earlier. By using the single quotes I increase
clarity and that's what I'm after.

I'll snip the rest of your post because it consists, at best, of
restatements of the same argument and at worst of implied insults. (I
suspect you'll have the opportunity to insult me all you like later in
response to one of my other posts.) Instead I want to concentrate on the
main point.

Punctuation, like rules of usage, was invented to enhance the clarity of
writing. Anything that makes writing more clear is a good thing.
Anything that contributes to confusion or ambiguity should be
eliminated. This, by the way, is usually why I find myself on your side
of the fence. But the ultimate, over-riding goal of any convention or
any rule of English is that it should contribute to clarity of expression.

Now if this single-quote convention was something I had made up, you'd
be absolutely correct -- although not for any of the reasons you cited.
You'd be correct because I would be diminishing clarity and perhaps
introducing ambiguity. But of course I didn't make it up. It's been
widely used for years. That being so, the use of single quotes in these
instances makes writing clearer.

I suppose what's ultimately going on here the difference between a
writer and editor on one hand and a copy editor on the other. The writer
and the editor (one hopes!) strive for clear, forceful expression. If
that means using something that isn't yet in the style books, then so be
it. The copy editor has to be concerned with what's between the covers
of style books.

Now of course if you were the one signing the checks, we'd do it your
way. :-) Meanwhile, I'll opt for clarity, thank you.

--RC

"Rick Cook" wrote in message
ink.net...

Okay, first I owe you (and Cliff) an apology. Since I long ago
kill-filed Cliff as a useless twit, I don't see his original messages.
(Or at least I shouldn't. I need to check that.) When I saw the message,
I thought he had posted another of his drive-bys aimed at a third party.

I don't think your remark rises to the level of requiring an apology to me,
but I accept your graciousness, and I appreciate it.

Feel free to defend him if you must. But don't you think it would be
more appropriate to actually defend him instead of taking a cheap shot
at me in return? Making me look bad doesn't make this person look good,
after all.

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-)


Now, I don't want to get into a ****ing contest about single- versus
double
quotation marks. I live with style manuals all day long and I'm not here
for
a busman's holiday. I'm paid right now as a copy editor, although I do
as
much writing. Just to settle some dust, I just checked Chicago style,
AMA,
and Modern Language Association style, plus Brittain's _Punctuation for
Clarity_, and I see no mention of the use of single quotes as you're
describing.

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

Two of your sources were British, and they do the same thing we do, only
with the opposite marks. They do *not* assume that titles and captions are
in virtual quotation marks, but, otherwise, it's about the same thing. That
is NOT American usage.

Did you check out your third source? Viv Quarry teaches English to
schoolkids in Brazil. She probably doesn't know what's British and what's
American, and it's unlikely she's much of an expert.

I could have multiplied examples.

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.

I realize the style
manuals you refer to don't use single quotes in that way, but that leads
us into the area of descriptive versus prescriptive usage.

Whoa! If you're going off on "descriptive" language, then why did you bring
up style manuals? Descriptive language, in the case of punctuation, has no
sensible meaning except as a statistical summary of how many people can't
write decent English. And that number is extremely large.

The term has meaning in terms of grammar, spelling, or syntax. Not in
punctuation. Punctuation is just universal significations of lengths of
pauses, of quotations, of emotional expression, and so on. Its
*signification* does not evolve.

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.

I think not. It just tells me that you have made an arbitrary distinction
between direct quotations and other related uses, and then you've chosen to
borrow a punctuation mark that already has a *different* meaning to signify
your distinction. As I said, the style manuals and particularly _Punctuation
for Clarity_ explain why that is not the convention, and they also disallow
the use to which you're putting the single quotation mark.


The problem with double quotes in these uses is that they are easily
mistaken for direct quotations.

Not at all. Not in the context you're talking about. You're singling out
individual words and phrases. Read what Brittain says about that. It's
several paragraphs and nobody else here cares, I'm sure, or I'd quote it.


Whether you like it or not, Ed, it is both a common and a useful
convention. Since it is useful I intend to keep using it until someone
who signs my checks tells me otherwise.

Rick, if you can show me some examples of that usage in print, from quality
American publishers, I'll re-examine the whole issue. There is all kinds of
crap on the Web and crappy publishers put out a lot of crap in print, too.
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 Web editing is
sloppy editing. But something in print, or a direct Web pickup of something
that originally was in print, would be interesting.

I viscerally go "ouch" when I see something wrong with the mechanics of
professionally produced print. I think I would have noticed it. But maybe
not.

Do you have any examples? Again, Web publishing is mostly junk publishing. I
wouldn't take any cues from that.


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

It depends on the context. It's a bad habit, IMO, because it will make a
good reader stumble over something that is demonstrably incorrect, according
to the authorities that good readers use and live by, and that's bad. Why
not just use the style-manual standard, and avoid that glitch?

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Rick Cook" wrote in message
ink.net...


Okay, first I owe you (and Cliff) an apology. Since I long ago
kill-filed Cliff as a useless twit, I don't see his original messages.
(Or at least I shouldn't. I need to check that.) When I saw the message,
I thought he had posted another of his drive-bys aimed at a third party.


I don't think your remark rises to the level of requiring an apology to me,
but I accept your graciousness, and I appreciate it.

I feel I do owe you an apology. I incorrectly jumped to a conclusion and
touched off a long discussion that needn't have happened.

I hate being wrong (gee, how could you tell :-) ) but when I am wrong I
believe it's important to point it out and make correction.


Feel free to defend him if you must. But don't you think it would be
more appropriate to actually defend him instead of taking a cheap shot
at me in return? Making me look bad doesn't make this person look good,
after all.


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.


Now, I don't want to get into a ****ing contest about single- versus

double

quotation marks. I live with style manuals all day long and I'm not here

for

a busman's holiday. I'm paid right now as a copy editor, although I do

as

much writing. Just to settle some dust, I just checked Chicago style,

AMA,

and Modern Language Association style, plus Brittain's _Punctuation for
Clarity_, and I see no mention of the use of single quotes as you're
describing.

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


Two of your sources were British, and they do the same thing we do, only
with the opposite marks. They do *not* assume that titles and captions are
in virtual quotation marks, but, otherwise, it's about the same thing. That
is NOT American usage.

I'm sorry you don't like the examples, but the fact is that it is an
American usage. As you can easily verify if you'd care to check.


Did you check out your third source? Viv Quarry teaches English to
schoolkids in Brazil. She probably doesn't know what's British and what's
American, and it's unlikely she's much of an expert.


I could have multiplied examples.


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.
(Why not, you ask? Because the usage is both common and, most of all,
useful. As a writer I'll take a common, useful, convention over what the
style books say any day. As a copy editor, you've got a different
agenda, of course.)


I realize the style
manuals you refer to don't use single quotes in that way, but that leads
us into the area of descriptive versus prescriptive usage.


Whoa! If you're going off on "descriptive" language, then why did you bring
up style manuals?

IIRC _you_ were the one who brought up style manuals. But that's beside
the point.

Descriptive language, in the case of punctuation, has no
sensible meaning except as a statistical summary of how many people can't
write decent English. And that number is extremely large.

Nice turn of phrase, but incorrect. As you pointed out in your earlier
post, the purpose of punctuation is to improve clarity. (And if you've
ever stumbled through a medieval manuscript you'd thank God for that.)
Here we have a case which is both descriptive, in the sense of
describing a use not in the stylebooks, and useful, as it disambiguates
a particular set of cases.


The term has meaning in terms of grammar, spelling, or syntax. Not in
punctuation. Punctuation is just universal significations of lengths of
pauses, of quotations, of emotional expression, and so on. Its
*signification* does not evolve.

Are you seriously claiming that punctuation hasn't evolved along with
the language? I don't think you'd care to seriously defend that proposition.

In fact, of course, punctuation's signification does evolve. Consider
the case of the Associated Press stylebook and the serial comma. The
1963 version I learned from said not to use it. The 1970 version said
the same thing. But by the early 90s, the AP had changed the style to
require serial commas. (As it happened there were good reasons for both
positions. However the world changed and so did the style.)


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.


I think not. It just tells me that you have made an arbitrary distinction
between direct quotations and other related uses, and then you've chosen to
borrow a punctuation mark that already has a *different* meaning to signify
your distinction.

And as I say, it is not _my_ distinction. Do you seriously mean to tell
me you've never encountered this before?


As I said, the style manuals and particularly _Punctuation
for Clarity_ explain why that is not the convention, and they also disallow
the use to which you're putting the single quotation mark.

And yet the use makes the text clearer. I'm sorry, but that is, and
always will be my ultimate standard. I write to be understood, not to
support an arbitrary convention. (I will freely grant you, however, that
most of those conventions exist because they aid understanding. As I
say, I'm normally on the prescriptive side of these arguments.)


The problem with double quotes in these uses is that they are easily
mistaken for direct quotations.

Not at all.

Incorrect, as it happens. The double quotes do cause confusion and
ambiguity. I've seen it happen.

Not in the context you're talking about. You're singling out
individual words and phrases. Read what Brittain says about that. It's
several paragraphs and nobody else here cares, I'm sure, or I'd quote it.

I'm sure Brittain has a great deal to say about using single quotes in
place of double quotes around words and phrases. He's not the only one.
There is an illiterate notion that words or short phrases should be
enclosed in single quotes. But that is _not_ the usage here. Single
quotes are used to mark off words and phrases not because they are short
but because they are used ironically, disagreed with, or to make the
use-mention distinction.

If he disapproves of that usage. . . Well, I disagree and so do a lot of
other people.


Whether you like it or not, Ed, it is both a common and a useful
convention. Since it is useful I intend to keep using it until someone
who signs my checks tells me otherwise.


Rick, if you can show me some examples of that usage in print, from quality
American publishers, I'll re-examine the whole issue.

Ed, if you want to go looking I'm sure you can find plenty of examples
on your own. I'm not going to break off and go poring through my library
to satisfy you about this point. You can deny it all you want, but the
fact remains that single quotes are a commonly used convention.

There is all kinds of
crap on the Web and crappy publishers put out a lot of crap in print, too.
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 Web editing is
sloppy editing. But something in print, or a direct Web pickup of something
that originally was in print, would be interesting.

I viscerally go "ouch" when I see something wrong with the mechanics of
professionally produced print. I think I would have noticed it. But maybe
not.

And as I say, I've been doing it that way for at least 20 years, seven
novels, one non-fiction book, and a couple of thousand articles, and
you're the first person who ever called me on it.

Do you have any examples? Again, Web publishing is mostly junk publishing. I
wouldn't take any cues from that.

I'm sure I could come up with a lot of them, but I'm not going to go
dragging down books just to find examples. It is a rather specific usage
which is most useful in argumentative writing and works dealing with
words and semantic contexts. (It is also common in philosophical and
linguistic works.)


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


It depends on the context.

I don't see how. It's a perfectly straightforward use and not at all
likely to be confused with the other common use of single quotes inside
double quotation marks.

It's a bad habit, IMO, because it will make a
good reader stumble over something that is demonstrably incorrect, according
to the authorities that good readers use and live by, and that's bad. Why
not just use the style-manual standard, and avoid that glitch?

Because the style-manual standard in this case promotes ambiguity. The
single-quote standard doesn't. That's the entire point.

Your argument boils down to 'we do it this way because we do it this
way'. Well, some of us do it that way. Other don't and there's an
excellent reason for the alternate convention.

So on this one we'll just have to agree to disagree. Or you can
anathematize me to illiterate hell.

If you're signing the checks, of course we'll do it your way.

--RC

--
Ed Huntress

Guido wrote:

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?




They are bragging about their IQ.


John

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