Grammar/Vocabulary ??? (1 Viewer)

[Holadem]

...that WSJ had a higher standard of writing. It was just an example I cooked up.

Still no answer? Neither phrase would raise your eyebrows?

--
H

 

[Jeff Gatie]

My opinion of the standard of writing at the NYT has been low for a long time. It does not surprise me this is what passes the editors. I have my opinions as to why this is. You may not agree, but I think we can agree the Old Gray Lady has sunk a few pegs in the last few years, both in integrity and in readership. IMHO, stuff like this is but a symptom of this decline.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Jeff: I can certainly agree with you on this one.

I wish I could remember a very recent example of poor syntax I came across in a NYT article. It probably wouldn't take me long to find one by scouring today's edition.

Composition standards have certainly dropped (as have other standards) at the Times.

 

[Ruz-El]

I was curious to see what all you had to say in this thread. I have a touch of dyslexia with a side order of just plain sloppy typing, I thought there might be some tips, etc. I've always thought that formality in person or writing should be based on the company your in.

fortunately you coders' are a bunch of dix..... i have nothing to worry about

 

[Kevin Hewell]

The biggest tip I can give is to always proof-read what you write.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Holadem wrote (post #116):


The answer is "no".

In the specialized meaning of 'out of money; financially ruined', broke (as in bankrupt, -rupt < Lat. ruptum, passive participle of rumpere 'to break') broke is the only correct form to use here.

"Bear Stearns is broken" would have an entirely different meaning (something like 'it's ailing and needs fixing').

The language is losing the -en-forms of the passive participles of so-called "irregular" verbs. Their place is usually taken by the simple past of the same verbs, by analogy to the "regular" verbs, which form both their pasts and their passive participles in -ed/-t, so that they're formally identical. Some verbs can take 2 participles in modern English, usually one or the other has a specialized meaning.

Exx.:

"The lady had drunk her fill of tea." (**"The lady had drunken her fill of tea.")

"The drunken sailor later approached her for sex."


"The boat was sunk by the crashing wave." (**"The boat was sunken by the crashing wave.")

"sunken treasure"

drunken and sunken are now confined to attributive adjective position.

shook ("I'm all shook up.") vs. shaken ("He was visibly shaken after the accident.")

took ("I been took!") vs. shaken ("She was taken in by the smooth-talking con artist.")


"The controversial position went to a proven failure."

but optional

"The old Ford had proved or proven itself in the cross-country vacation."

Note that older foughten has completely given way to modern fought.

Older boughten (no longer used) was always secondary to bought.



Note also for specialization of meaning:

"The young girl was struck by an old Chevy sedan while playing in the street."
"The working mother of five was stricken with cancer and died only three months after her diagnosis."

 

[Holadem]

Thanks, but that is assuming "broke" or a variation thereof must be used at all, which was not my point.

I was not inquiring about the correct form of to break/broke/broken. Rather, I was wondering if the sentence I quoted was not too informal for the context (the article).

If you had to convey in a report at work that some entity was bankrupt, would you describe them as "broke"?

--
H

 

[troy evans]

Excellent point. There are some news rags that I would expect to see informal terms used. Like the supermarket checkout mags and such. However, the WSJ is, at least for me, above that.

 

[Mike Frezon]

If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

 

[JeremyErwin]

I dunno. It's a political campaign, not a publicly traded company. Besides, "bankrupt" is a legal term.

 

[David Von Pein]

There are some good grammar reminders in this December 2007 video. I was pleased to find that I regularly only fracture one major "Grammar Rule", which I did just now by placing a quotation mark inside a comma! (Gasp! Horror!)

We are told by the Grammar Police that we are never, ever supposed to place quotation marks inside any punctuation marks. But, I'm sorry, I'm doing it anyway. Have for years. Because I think it makes sense to do it on many occasions...such as in a sentence like the one below:

Tom's three favorite movies are: "Star Wars", "Jaws", and "The Terminator".

But the way we are told (by the book) to write the above sentence is this way (which looks horrible and just doesn't feel right, IMO; but YMMV):

Tom's three favorite movies are: "Star Wars," "Jaws," and "The Terminator."

Somebody slap the cuffs on me, because I'm doing it the first way.

Good stuff in this video though. I like this woman. .....

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

And the rule is right, because when you set off a title like "Star Wars" you are not actually using punctuation. You are borrowing punctuation marks to serve another purpose, in this case to set-off a title from the rest of the text. That is something that can also be done by underlining the title, or putting it in bold or italic type. There are conventions the govern how this is done, even in printed publications. (Short story titles are generally given inside quotation marks, book titles in bold or italic. Movies and TV shows may be italicized, while an individual episode of a show would be in quotation marks.)

Nobody expects you to put commas inside the "quotation marks" in a list of titles, only inside quotation marks that are actually being used to enclose a quotation. In fact, if "quotation marks" had appeared at the end of a clause, I wouldn't have written it like this ("quotation marks,") either, and I don't think the rule requires me to, because the "irony" or "scare" quotes are, again, not being used as ordinary punctuation.

Regards,

Joe

 

[Marianne]

broke - Wiktionary

Broke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the British tabloids the headline might be:

"Bear Stearns is skint"

 

[andrew markworthy]

I've never been taught this. Instead, I was taught that under the Brit system, you start with single quotation marks and then if you need to place a quotation within a quotation, you use double punctuation marks (i.e. what Americans consider to be "conventional" punctuation marks). For example:

He said, 'I thought that things were going well but then he said, "what are you doing here?" and then things turned ugly'.

 

[JeremyErwin]

Compare the appearance of this article with this one. They look very different.

But with the proper templates, an author could format a paper that looked like it came from the Supreme Court, or looked like it came from Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences depending on his whims.
The author could not, however, rely on a computer to automatically rephrase his essay to appeal to lawyers or to scientists.

Punctuation and orthography is just markup-- easily changed to suit ones audience. Grammar and especially style require a certain amount of human intelligence, and are not well served by an automaton stitching together bits of boilerplate with wattle and daub...

 

[Kevin Hewell]

Cheeky!

 

[Mike Frezon]

David: If you peer through your living room blinds, you may see the Grammar Police pulling up to the curb.

I used to put the comma outside the quotation marks--whether at the end of a clause or even listing a number of movies (as in your example)...but then I learned that I was wrong. And ever since, I have done it the right way. I'm a good boy. I do whatever Strunk & White tell me (although, ironically, they do not directly address the comma/quotation issue).

One of my other favorite style/grammar books, however, The Little English Handbook quite succinctly states: "The period or comma always goes inside the closing quotation mark."

The authors note, however, that this is a clear case "where usage, rather than logic, has established the prevailing convention."

They go on to note that: "many reputable British editors and publishers put the period or comma outside the closing quotation marks, especially when the quotation marks enclose something less than a complete sentence. But, the American convention is almost universally to put the period or comma inside the closing quotation mark."

And this is why I decided to jump on the bandwagon--for real: "The advantage of such consistency is that you never have to pause and ask yourself, 'Is this a case where the period goes inside or outside the quotation mark?"

Makes it easy.

 

[Marianne]

Bear Stearns are skint is how the Brits would say it!

(Notice the absence of quotation marks.)

 

[KurtEP]

So, who creates these grammatical "rules" and where does their authority spring from? Is it in the Constitution somewhere? The Magna Carta? The Twelve Tablets? Do they cite Hammurabi's code? Did the Lady of the Lake touch them with her magical sword?

I always understood that dictionaries were collections of the words in use at any time compiled by editors so that people would have some sort of reference. They seemed to take the most common spellings and meanings for words and run with them. I assume grammar references are the same. Somehow, though, they seem to have garnered the force of law. Yet, if you read writings from even the most educated and respected persons from, say, the 1700's, you see all kinds of non standard spelling and punctuation.

It amuses me to see people splitting hairs over grammar. Certainly, if you are writing a legal document or the like, grammar should be as standard as possible to avoid any ambiguity. Also, if you don't want to come across as a complete idiot, it helps to use grammar and spelling in a manner consistent with common usage. However, to suggest that some grammar is "CORRECT" as though it were plucked out of the aether, or has the force of some sort of natural law, is absurd.

I'll even argue that using certain types of grammar that is very correct, or having too broad a vocabulary can actually hinder your communication in certain contexts. You need to tailor your writing to the target. I once used the word exacerbate in a document meant to be read by bankers and was severely dressed down for it by my client. My use was perfectly correct, but arguably incorrect in that bankers apparently have a limited vocabulary that doesn't encompass words having more than two syllables. :frowning: That meant that I simply wasn't communicating effectively. I've since lowered my expectations.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Much of grammar has been established by convention and standardization.

In some cases, there are definite terms of use. There are, however, cases in which choices need to be made--based on subject matter, desired effect, and audience.

That doesn't mean mistakes cannot be made and rules should be followed. While you might tailor word selection based upon the comprehension of your audience, you still need to follow rules of construction, grammar and punctuation to get your message across with clarity and precision.