Jarvik7 Wrote:The reference to historical writing was not directed at you, coming before the "@yudantaiteki"

I couldn't find any freely accessible online versions of the major style guides I've had to write under, but here is Reuters' style guide: http://handbook.reuters.com/index.php/B#but

I shouldn't have phrased my request that way, I know there are style guides that say this, but that doesn't make it a blanket injunction. Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage indicates that most usage commentators do not consider it a problem. It's clearly heavily used; IMO a "rule" that is contrary to usage is not a rule worth following. (By "usage" I mean, of course, usage in a particular type of writing. If something is used in casual speech that doesn't mean it's appropriate for formal writing.) Rules can even differ between types of formal writing; using the personal pronoun is very common in academic writing (at least in the humanities) but may not be as acceptable in other media.

(I'm still wondering what the other "mistakes" were in those sentences by Royall Tyler and Gaye Rowley.)

Jarvik7 Wrote:Horrible writing will eventually become the accepted norm I guess. Free variation for spelling returns?

ah, the perils of democracy - might have to rethink that majority idea. heh

It seems like J7 is describing technical writing: manuals, reports, contracts, business disclosure docs. There's a great range of stuff between that and fiction though - articles, essays, academic writing which combine dry communication of information with more interesting style.

Thora Wrote:psst J7 - your dialect is showing. :-)

J7 Wrote:Did I spell something Canadian style? I thought four years in Texas drilled that out of me.

heh I've worked for UK and US employers and was expected to write like them. (Canadian spelling, vocab and syntax is a mix of UK and US.) As a result, I'm now a mess - some kind of multiple spelling disorder. :-)

The dialect comment was just a reference to Heriticalrants assumption in #46 and your #72 which struck me as slightly amusing. ("anyways" apparently varies by dialect.)

wccrawford Wrote:Good communication is extremely important, but not more important than being good at your job.

Oh well yes of course! What I thought I was implying but apparently wasn't clear was that all else being equal, the better communicator will get the promotion. So, if your boss (so assuming you already got the job) is considering whether to promote you (so you're probably good at the job too) or your colleague (who's also good) he's going to consider the one who communicates effectively and properly more.

Offshore Wrote:As for using because at the start of a sentence, even though it is correct as long as the sentence isn't a fragment, almost every teacher I've ever had has said just don't do it period. And for the record, I sympathize with hereticalrants on that point because in my experience, 90% of the time someone starts a sentence with because it's a fragment anyway.

I'm thinking of something like:
"Because of the exponential rise in the human population, I predict that we will all die soon."

As far as I know, this is entirely correct.

hereticalrants Wrote:I'm thinking of something like:
"Because of the exponential rise in the human population, I predict that we will all die soon."

As far as I know, this is entirely correct.

It is correct, and as far as I know, is the only "correct" way to use because at the start of a sentence. The only time it makes sense to me is if it follows a "Because a, b happens" or something like that I don't know, lol.

Most people I see using because do something like: "We saw a movie and loved it. Because the movie had a lot of action scenes." Then said person has a blank stare on their face when the teacher marks it wrong on something.

It's a good thing we're all learning Japanese anyway. Maybe I'm just a naive beginner, but it seems like a far more logical language in the end than English is. Not that Japanese has no exceptions or quirky rules of its own, but the list of exceptions, rules, and nuances in the English language is mind-boggling.

We point out that native Japanese speakers may forget some kanji and words. I can accept that because the sheer amount of kanji is insane whether they're rarely used or not. Likewise, we as native English speakers forget grammar points because not only is there 500 different rules, every rule has 50 exceptions

Well, my point really was to say that rules that have no basis in English usage historically are often perpetuated at the expense of clear, concise writing that is meant to promote good communication. I'm not at all suggesting we go back to using 'dout', though apparently some people still do. :-)

I agree that what the majority of people who are actually writing in a certain register, such as technical reports or whatnot, are the people who end up determining what the standard ends up being (subject to evolution) for that register. Yes, there are good standards, and there is such a thing as good style, because these rules make or are supposed to make written language better able to communicate what you intend to. If 90% of writers in any register (Austen, or some technical manual) happily use prepositions at the end of a sentence, then the rule that no sentence should end in a preposition should obviously not be followed so strictly - at times it makes sense not to end on a preposition, and other times it does. Incidentally the rule comes from the fact that it was called a "preposition" due to appearing in front of a noun (just like in Latin), so apparently logically it means it can never appear at the end, even though it's entirely grammatical to do so and people do it all the time. Some people seem to follow this so strictly that their writing becomes quite clumsy and hard to read.

I don't believe that the majority of writers, unless they are writing purely technical manuals, are put off by the rule that you should not start a sentence with "and" or "but". Having written and edited many academic papers I would suggest it is used and acceptable in certain cases. Sometimes, yes, it sounds wrong or clumsy. Perhaps at one stage it was not acceptable (also for arbitrary reasons), but I think that is changing. My point is that this rule being considered bad style never actually had any basis in grammar or usage, and keeps being perpetuated despite being used everywhere, in a number of different registers. Certainly because I was taught it at school, now when I write I'm very mindful of the "rule", even if I do break it sometimes. In many cases it does sound like bad style to use it, but in other cases it makes sense and is the clearest way to express what you want, which has nothing to do with fiction writers being all surreal with the text and whatnot.

In short, I agree if 90% of people are put off by what you write, it's probably bad style. Where there are definite rules, such as for they're/their/there, it's very annoying when people don't bother to get it right. I'm just suggesting, like others here, that and/but at the beginning of a sentence isn't necessarily always bad style.

*Remembers when this thread was about cute girls who couldn't read on a college level*

ropsta Wrote:*Remembers when this thread was about cute girls who couldn't read on a college level*

I remember that! Man, those were the good ol' days. It feels like only yesterday...

Nemotoad Wrote:Perhaps at one stage it was not acceptable (also for arbitrary reasons), but I think that is changing.

I'm not sure when that stage would have been; the King James Bible has tons of sentence-initial "and" and "but", and that was obviously intended as a piece of serious writing. Now, this probably had a lot to do with them trying to fit each verse as a sentence, but the KJV bible had an enormous impact on the development of English (particularly literary and formal English), so it's not surprising that the effects would continue even today.

What I believe happened is that people were taught in high school not to do it because unskilled writers can misuse sentence-initial and/but, and rather than dealing with the specifics they just told the students not to use it at all.

As Nemotoad, what I object to is not rules, but rules that have no basis in current usage or the history of the language.

EDIT: To me, sentence-initial "but" and "however" are stylistically different -- the latter, being longer (and often followed by a comma), puts a much heavier weight on the contrast than the former does. I looked at my MA thesis and I used both sentence-initial however and but, although I didn't look through it in detail enough to figure out the difference.

Burritolingus Wrote:I remember that! Man, those were the good ol' days. It feels like only yesterday...

Has it been that long already? Man! Where dooees the time go?

Offshore Wrote:Most people I see using because do something like: "We saw a movie and loved it. Because the movie had a lot of action scenes."

Gah. That's getting my "URK" going, again, man...

Quote:*Remembers when this thread was about cute girls who couldn't read on a college level*

Huh?

Oh, yeah. Right. The opening video.

About that... I couldn't read any of the words that they couldn't read, either. Maybe that's because I've hardly been studying Japanese for 6 months, or maybe it's because I'm just stupid and inherently bad at language?

yudantaiteki Wrote:

Nemotoad Wrote:Perhaps at one stage it was not acceptable (also for arbitrary reasons), but I think that is changing.

I'm not sure when that stage would have been; the King James Bible has tons of sentence-initial "and" and "but", and that was obviously intended as a piece of serious writing.

But that was just ancient verses! And why were you reading that anyway?! Also, why on earth would you think that it was intended to be serious? Haven't you read Spike Milligan's version?

Incedentally, this is the only situation in which I start a sentance with "and" or "but," even in the spoken language: Interjections in direct response to someone else.

"But why?!?"
"...and you think that because....?"
"but... but... but... *sobs*"
"And you say nerds don't have fun."
etc.

ropsta Wrote:*Remembers when this thread was about cute girls who couldn't read on a college level*

The vid in the OP reminds me of this video. I don't understand anything in the Japanese vid, but I still think this video is a strong contender for showcasing stupidity. It's an old vid that most people have probably seen already anyway.

I think she did quite well actually. I don't know that I could do much better if I were put on the spot like that. Besides, she's only 20.

Thora Wrote:I think she did quite well actually. I don't know that I could do much better if I were put on the spot like that. Besides, she's only 20.

Are you talking about Miss South Carolina? Seriously? She trained for -years- for that. She was hardly 'put on the spot'.

Yeah... some of the girls making those mistakes are still in high school.

@Offshore

Thank you for this brilliant display of humanity.

先輩 Wrote:I think she did quite well actually. I don't know that I could do much better if I were put on the spot like that. Besides, she's only 20.

It was clearly staged, there's no reason any person over the age of 18 shouldn't be able to answer a question like that (said in a mocking tone)

wccrawford, well...I might have been able to answer it better if the question had been about locating Canada on a map ... maybe.


okay...I think I need remedial smilie education. What exactly is the difference between and ? I thought was to show a kind of affectionate teasing. And was to show that a stupid remark was intentional or that a sarcastic comment is intended in a friendly way. no?
[no edit - got the wrong post]

Thora Wrote:wccrawford, well...I might have been able to answer it better if the question had been about locating Canada on a map ... maybe.


okay...I think I need remedial smilie education. What exactly is the difference between and ? I thought was to show a kind of affectionate teasing. And was to show that a stupid remark was intentional or that a sarcastic comment is intended in a friendly way. no?

is a wink and is sticking your tongue out. Take them to mean whatever you want... Everyone else does.

wccrawford Wrote: is a wink and is sticking your tongue out.

Cool, hadn't noticed that...

Edit: So, for the avoidance of any doubt, wccrawford, let me try it again [with improvements]:

"I think she did quite well actually. [I don't really mean this. I actually think she did a hilariously bad job. This was a nod to post #17.] I don't know that I could do much better if I were put on the spot like that. [I don't actually mean this. If you take this part seriously, I wonder what you think of me. This was also a nod to post #17.] Besides, she's only 20. [I actually have no idea how old she is. I didn't take the time to research it. This was a nod to post #57.] [These are all friendly nods bc I respect and like the nodee and am just having a bit of fun. Although I suspect he'd get that...]"

There, that's better. Those smilies are too tricky for me. (?)

lol, that answer was not staged at all. That girl truly acts just like that in real life. She's apparently on the (current?) season of "The Amazing Race." I don;t watch it but my parents do and say that she is pure comic gold. Like thanking people in Chile using danke, lol