Question on Grammar and Art

[Big Bill]

Is that so?

[Hall]

Is that so?

 

Ouch, THAT hurt. Yes, IT IS so.

[OldCowboy]

Where, indeed, should one insert their comma? "Do I dare to eat a peach?"

[saturn]

 

Furthermore I was also taught that if commas are used they must be used as a pair which box-in the appropriate section of text; a comma should never be used on its own.

 

Pip.

 

Man, I break that rule all the time.

[OldCowboy]

Most people regard commas as small, black ants at the picnic of written communication. Who am I to argue with the observations of my writing students over a 40 year interval☺

[jdgm]

"If a painter mixes yellow paint with red paint on their palette the hue of the resulting mixture would be orange."

Pip.

 

Excuse me. "Mixes" and "will" please; "mixed" and "would".

 

- that art is dominate over grammatical convention.....

 

You did mean to write 'dominant', didn't you?

 

Furthermore I was also taught that if commas are used they must be used as a pair which box-in the appropriate section of text; a comma should never be used on its own.

Pip.

 

No. Not so, I have to point out.

 

 

Regards to all.

[Hall]

Lot to point out in that first quote from above, but since Big Bill effectively jabbed me, I'm sticking to guitars!

[pippy]

Excuse me. "Mixes" and "will" please; "mixed" and "would".

Sir; I cede the point.

 

No. Not so, I have to point out.

With all due respect, jdgm, here I will (and, I'm 100% certain, all my successive tutors of English would) disagree with you.

 

According to the version of written English taught to me by my professors any sentence construction considered as a whole (i.e. excluding any text which might feature within a pair of commas) must stand as a proper sentence on its own; the punctuated text merely adding (as, for example, might be the case) extra information about the main body of the text. Remove the punctuated text and the sentence must continue to be grammatically correct. "Not so, I have to point out.", therefore (according to the 'rules' in place when I was learning to write), is grammatically incorrect.

 

"Your School Might Vary" as they might have done/could possibly have done /will almost certainly have done /may (delete as appropriate) say these days. As I think I might already have mentioned; I was learning English grammar in Scotland - which is not as straightforward as it might at first seem. My grandparents (for example) were still speaking, to a very large extent, the version of Scots as written-down by the likes of Robert Burns et al in the late 18th century....

 

 

Pip.

[Cougar]

"If a painter mixes yellow paint with red paint on their palette the hue of the resulting mixture will be orange."

Of course, there should be a comma after "palette," Pippy. Tsk, tsk.

No there shouldn't. What purpose would a comma serve in that sentence?

 

 

It separates the leading dependent clause from the following independent clause. But of course, this is just one of those differences between British and American English, of which there are quite a few.

 

It's a solid rule in American English that if the dependent clause (starting with "if" or many others) comes first, it must be followed by a comma. There is no comma necessary if the dependent clause comes second (as in this very sentence). There, the word "if" gives clear indication that something different is coming up.

 

Also, as mentioned, there's no rule in American English that commas always have to come in twos although they often do.

 

With respect to the other question, would is a weird word.

 

 

[jdgm]

 

With all due respect, jdgm, here I will (and, I'm 100% certain, all my successive tutors of English would) disagree with you.

 

According to the version of written English taught to me by my professors any sentence construction considered as a whole (i.e. excluding any text which might feature within a pair of commas) must stand as a proper sentence on its own; the punctuated text merely adding (as, for example, might be the case) extra information about the main body of the text. Remove the punctuated text and the sentence must continue to be grammatically correct. "Not so, I have to point out.", therefore (according to the 'rules' in place when I was learning to write), is grammatically incorrect.

 

"Your School Might Vary" as they might have done/could possibly have done /will almost certainly have done /may (delete as appropriate) say these days. As I think I might already have already mentioned; I was learning English grammar in Scotland - which is not as straightforward as it might at first seem. My grandparents (for example) were still speaking, to a very large extent, the version of Scots as written-down by the likes of Robert Burns et al in the late 18th century....

 

 

Pip.

 

Yes I entirely agree with your statement about the punctuated text, and try and follow that rule myself.

We will have to agree to differ on this as my school did vary, to to speak; as I understand it, single commas in a sentence are not grammatically incorrect - now.

And I think this came about in the 20th Century through the efforts - misguided or not - of many writers to extend the language, make it work in an original way, and reflect changing patterns of speech more accurately.

IMO Hemingway is a prime example of this, though I couldn't tell you whether his writing follows the double comma rule or not.

 

I have used as many single commas as possible in the above response. Time for an emoticon!

 

Now back to the would......

[pippy]

......this is just one of those differences between British and American English, of which there are quite a few. It's a solid rule in American English that if the dependent clause comes first, it must be followed by a comma. There is no comma necessary if the dependent clause comes second...

 

With respect to the other question, would is a weird word...

The 'dependent clause' detail is very interesting, Cougar. Thanks for the explanation.

And I like the alliteration! 'Would' can be turned to so many various guises when used in either past, present or future tenses it makes for a fascinating word...

 

Yes I entirely agree with your statement about the punctuated text, and try and follow that rule myself.

We will have to agree to differ on this as my school did vary, to to speak; as I understand it, single commas in a sentence are not grammatically incorrect - now. And I think this came about in the 20th Century through the efforts - misguided or not - of many writers to extend the language, make it work in an original way, and reflect changing patterns of speech more accurately.

IMO Hemingway is a prime example of this, though I couldn't tell you whether his writing follows the double comma rule or not.

 

Now back to the would......

Oddly enough I was wondering if my educational time-frame was partly responsible for the strict rigidity of the grammar which I received.

 

My 'educators' would have been taught English in the 1930s and '40s which suggests that they, in their turn, would more than likely have been taught their rules of grammar just after the turn of the 20th century. I'm in no position to say with certainty which authors' works were the standard school textbooks back in those days but at a guess they would have had, as prime examples of the English language, the likes of Scott, Shaw, Wells and "the rest of the boys in the band". To a large extent we had, as our benchmark, those self-same works which date (primarily) from the Victorian era! We did study some books which were written by 20th. C. authors but even these were still what we might, today, call fairly 'old fashioned'. Steinbeck, Buchan and Greene wrote in a style more in keeping with the previous age than they were looking forward to Osborne and Amis. The output of e.e.cummings was, as might be expected, completley ignored! We did do some Hemmingway and Huxley but I cannot remember with clarity how their use of the language might have differed - been more modern - than their forebears.

 

Once we have finished with 'would' perhaps we could start discussing 'If I was' 'and 'If I were'?

 

Pip.

[saturn]

Who would have thought a thread on grammar would have so much interest on a guitar forum?

[LP Trad Pro II]

I'm gonna go check in with the UMGF and see if they are talking about Math.

[merciful-evans]

I recall a Jeeves & Wooster story when Wooster was 'correcting' Gershwin's lyric for 'Old Man River'.

Bridge:

'You and me, we sweat and strain...' became

'You and I, we perspire and...' etc

 

For lyrics I am with the 'poetic licence' school of thought. Whatever gets the point across is good. Sometimes bad grammar can be innovative and creative.

 

 

Yosemite Sam saying 'I will assist no one', is not as funny as 'I aint-a doing no nothing for nobody'.

[Black Dog]

Grammar? We don't need no stinkin' grammar.

[pippy]

I recall a Jeeves & Wooster story when Wooster was 'correcting' Gershwin's lyric for 'Old Man River'.

Bridge:

'You and me, we sweat and strain...' became

'You and I, we perspire and...' etc

 

For lyrics I am with the 'poetic licence' school of thought. Whatever gets the point across is good. Sometimes bad grammar can be innovative and creative.

 

Yosemite Sam saying 'I will assist no one', is not as funny as 'I aint-a doing no nothing for nobody'.

I agree with all the above (and Wodehouse is peerless IMO).

 

Having heard, one Burns Night, Burns' poem 'To a Mouse' translated into 'Proper English' and recited with a cut-glass Received Pronunciation accent was particularly amusing.

 

As far as cartoon characters and bad grammar are concerned? This has always been a personal favourite;

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24e-B00iiws

 

Pip.

[jdgm]

 

Oddly enough I was wondering if my educational time-frame was partly responsible for the strict rigidity of the grammar which I received.

 

My 'educators' would have been taught English in the 1930s and '40s which suggests that they, in their turn, would more than likely have been taught their rules of grammar just after the turn of the 20th century. I'm in no position to say with certainty which authors' works were the standard school textbooks back in those days but at a guess they would have had, as prime examples of the English language, the likes of Scott, Shaw, Wells and "the rest of the boys in the band". To a large extent we had, as our benchmark, those self-same works which date (primarily) from the Victorian era! We did study some books which were written by 20th. C. authors but even these were still what we might, today, call fairly 'old fashioned'. Steinbeck, Buchan and Greene wrote in a style more in keeping with the previous age than they were looking forward to Osborne and Amis.

Pip.

 

Also the people who taught us were brought up with a great deal of Latin and Greek; I have Latin 'O' level, which I passed nearly 50 years ago and can't now remember much of (I failed Greek, I'm afraid).

So their reading material would have been classics - Homer, Plato, Ovid, all the Greek playwrights as well as Shakespeare, a lot from the Bible (I also passed 'Religious Knowledge 'O' level), Milton and so on. All very serious and high-minded.

IMO the change from all that probably began with Dickens.

[badbluesplayer]

Fancy writing's great but it's not very effective. If it was we'd talk like that. But we don't. Because it's too cumbersome. Or cumberbun. One of those.

[saturn]

I

As far as cartoon characters and bad grammar are concerned? This has always been a personal favourite;

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24e-B00iiws

 

Pip.

 

Mine too.

[merciful-evans]

Mine too.

 

Me too too.

[LP Trad Pro II]

Me too too.

Don't you mean tutu.