[BostonCard]

Apropos expressing things clearly, this Yogiism comes to us by way of Cal basketball coach Cuonzo Martin

https://twitter.com/con_chron/status/687375405813121024

BC

[BostonCard]

Apropos expressing things clearly, this Yogiism comes to us by way of Cal basketball coach Cuonzo Martin

https://twitter.com/con_chron/status/687375405813121024

BC

[doublespiral]

I have a pet peeve to discuss with the above posters, who I refer to as "Cardboarders". Some would say I just committed a sin by not referring to you as "Cardboarders." This issue comes up quite often in the drafting of agreements and other legal documents, but since the punctuation mark is not part of the defined term, I break the rule.

Oooh, this is getting good now....

[doublespiral]

I have a pet peeve to discuss with the above posters, who I refer to as "Cardboarders". Some would say I just committed a sin by not referring to you as "Cardboarders." This issue comes up quite often in the drafting of agreements and other legal documents, but since the punctuation mark is not part of the defined term, I break the rule.

Oooh, this is getting good now....

[Roberton3]

[quote author=standfan link=topic=14361.msg152699#msg152699 date=1452715852]
I have a pet peeve to discuss with the above posters, who I refer to as "Cardboarders". Some would say I just committed a sin by not referring to you as "Cardboarders." This issue comes up quite often in the drafting of agreements and other legal documents, but since the punctuation mark is not part of the defined term, I break the rule.

I think you missed something in one of the two words you put in quotation marks. The only difference I can see is a period inside the quotation in one and outside in the other. That wouldn't appear to be the question at hand.
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure that's exactly the difference that Standfan intended.

The grammar rule here is one that differs between British and American English.  The British rule (i.e., if punctuation isn't part of what you're quoting, it goes outside the quotation marks) seems much more sensible.

[Roberton3]

[quote author=standfan link=topic=14361.msg152699#msg152699 date=1452715852]
I have a pet peeve to discuss with the above posters, who I refer to as "Cardboarders". Some would say I just committed a sin by not referring to you as "Cardboarders." This issue comes up quite often in the drafting of agreements and other legal documents, but since the punctuation mark is not part of the defined term, I break the rule.

I think you missed something in one of the two words you put in quotation marks. The only difference I can see is a period inside the quotation in one and outside in the other. That wouldn't appear to be the question at hand.
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure that's exactly the difference that Standfan intended.

The grammar rule here is one that differs between British and American English.  The British rule (i.e., if punctuation isn't part of what you're quoting, it goes outside the quotation marks) seems much more sensible.

[Leftcoast]

I'm with Roberton and Standfan.  If the period isn't in the quotation the period goes after the quotation mark - and it drives any proofreaders crazy.  /Lefty

[Leftcoast]

I'm with Roberton and Standfan.  If the period isn't in the quotation the period goes after the quotation mark - and it drives any proofreaders crazy.  /Lefty

[CowboyIndian]

.... the above posters, who I refer to as "Cardboarders".

It's "whom".

[CowboyIndian]

.... the above posters, who I refer to as "Cardboarders".

It's "whom".

[Rally]

[quote author=standfan link=topic=14361.msg152699#msg152699 date=1452715852].... the above posters, who I refer to as "Cardboarders".

It's "whom".
[/quote]

"To whom I refer to as"  or just, "who I call Cardboarders."  (And if you think Sister Anastasia would have let me get away with putting that period outside the quotation mark you don't have the scars of Catholic school.)

[Rally]

[quote author=standfan link=topic=14361.msg152699#msg152699 date=1452715852].... the above posters, who I refer to as "Cardboarders".

It's "whom".
[/quote]

"To whom I refer to as"  or just, "who I call Cardboarders."  (And if you think Sister Anastasia would have let me get away with putting that period outside the quotation mark you don't have the scars of Catholic school.)

[standfan]

[quote author=standfan link=topic=14361.msg152699#msg152699 date=1452715852].... the above posters, who I refer to as "Cardboarders".

It's "whom".
[/quote]
LOL. I actually noticed the error the second time (I'm slow but not completely stupid) I reread my post and decided to leave it to see who would correct me. I should have known CI would come through.

Would it be best to say: "... posters, to whom I refer to as 'Cardboarders'"?

[standfan]

[quote author=standfan link=topic=14361.msg152699#msg152699 date=1452715852].... the above posters, who I refer to as "Cardboarders".

It's "whom".
[/quote]
LOL. I actually noticed the error the second time (I'm slow but not completely stupid) I reread my post and decided to leave it to see who would correct me. I should have known CI would come through.

Would it be best to say: "... posters, to whom I refer to as 'Cardboarders'"?

[Extra Point]

[quote author=Extra Point link=topic=14361.msg152692#msg152692 date=1452711243]
Most style guides have changed their position on beginning a sentence with a conjunction.

In most cases where somebody begins a sentence with a conjunction, they are trying to join the thought of that sentence to the previous sentence. Usually that is properly done within a single sentence. Sometimes one can make an impact on emphasis or style by breaking the conjoined thoughts into two sentences. I think this would qualify as using the sentence break as a super-comma, as I mentioned above. Doing that all of the time, or doing so when a strong break is not necessarily intended, tends to dilute the impact of the non-standard usage.
[/quote]

The reason for making the use of a conjunction to start a sentence "legal" and "proper" is that it allows you to break up a long sentence into two sentences. Doing this is especially important when writing to a broad audience -- Shorter sentences increase readability. I have had two technical writing classes that strongly advocated breaking up sentences this way for this reason. Don't worry about your 10th grade English teacher spiting venom on your paper. Times have changed. The average adult in this country now reads at a 6th grade level. This paragraph is written at an 11th grade level. What this means is that the average adult will have difficulty reading my writing.

Now for my pet peeve: The main objective when writing anything is to convey information and concepts in a meaningful way to a target audience. Writers should be evaluated on how well they accomplish this goal. In most cases, adhering to grammar guidelines is beneficial in this regard, but not always. The English language is constantly evolving and grammar rules reluctantly follow suit eons later. If breaking an ancient grammar rule makes your writing more understandable, then so what. If a handful of people want to deduct 2 points then that is their problem.

[Extra Point]

[quote author=Extra Point link=topic=14361.msg152692#msg152692 date=1452711243]
Most style guides have changed their position on beginning a sentence with a conjunction.

In most cases where somebody begins a sentence with a conjunction, they are trying to join the thought of that sentence to the previous sentence. Usually that is properly done within a single sentence. Sometimes one can make an impact on emphasis or style by breaking the conjoined thoughts into two sentences. I think this would qualify as using the sentence break as a super-comma, as I mentioned above. Doing that all of the time, or doing so when a strong break is not necessarily intended, tends to dilute the impact of the non-standard usage.
[/quote]

The reason for making the use of a conjunction to start a sentence "legal" and "proper" is that it allows you to break up a long sentence into two sentences. Doing this is especially important when writing to a broad audience -- Shorter sentences increase readability. I have had two technical writing classes that strongly advocated breaking up sentences this way for this reason. Don't worry about your 10th grade English teacher spiting venom on your paper. Times have changed. The average adult in this country now reads at a 6th grade level. This paragraph is written at an 11th grade level. What this means is that the average adult will have difficulty reading my writing.

Now for my pet peeve: The main objective when writing anything is to convey information and concepts in a meaningful way to a target audience. Writers should be evaluated on how well they accomplish this goal. In most cases, adhering to grammar guidelines is beneficial in this regard, but not always. The English language is constantly evolving and grammar rules reluctantly follow suit eons later. If breaking an ancient grammar rule makes your writing more understandable, then so what. If a handful of people want to deduct 2 points then that is their problem.

[oldalum]

Would it be best to say: "... posters, to whom I refer to as 'Cardboarders'"?

Yes, if you leave out the second "to!"
(now what did I do wrong?)

[oldalum]

Would it be best to say: "... posters, to whom I refer to as 'Cardboarders'"?

Yes, if you leave out the second "to!"
(now what did I do wrong?)

[BostonCard]

The reason for making the use of a conjunction to start a sentence "legal" and "proper" is that it allows you to break up a long sentence into two sentences. Doing this is especially important when writing to a broad audience -- Shorter sentences increase readability. I have had two technical writing classes that strongly advocated breaking up sentences this way for this reason. Don't worry about your 10th grade English teacher spiting venom on your paper. Times have changed. The average adult in this country now reads at a 6th grade level. This paragraph is written at an 11th grade level. What this means is that the average adult Cal grad will have difficulty reading my writing.

There, fixed it for you.

BC

[BostonCard]

The reason for making the use of a conjunction to start a sentence "legal" and "proper" is that it allows you to break up a long sentence into two sentences. Doing this is especially important when writing to a broad audience -- Shorter sentences increase readability. I have had two technical writing classes that strongly advocated breaking up sentences this way for this reason. Don't worry about your 10th grade English teacher spiting venom on your paper. Times have changed. The average adult in this country now reads at a 6th grade level. This paragraph is written at an 11th grade level. What this means is that the average adult Cal grad will have difficulty reading my writing.

There, fixed it for you.

BC

[CornFed]

[quote author=CowboyIndian link=topic=14361.msg152729#msg152729 date=1452728854]
[quote author=standfan link=topic=14361.msg152699#msg152699 date=1452715852].... the above posters, who I refer to as "Cardboarders".

It's "whom".
[/quote]
LOL. I actually noticed the error the second time (I'm slow but not completely stupid) I reread my post and decided to leave it to see who would correct me. I should have known CI would come through.

Would it be best to say: "... posters, to whom I refer to as 'Cardboarders'"?
[/quote]

Ahhh!  The very rare prepositional infinitive.

[CornFed]

[quote author=CowboyIndian link=topic=14361.msg152729#msg152729 date=1452728854]
[quote author=standfan link=topic=14361.msg152699#msg152699 date=1452715852].... the above posters, who I refer to as "Cardboarders".

It's "whom".
[/quote]
LOL. I actually noticed the error the second time (I'm slow but not completely stupid) I reread my post and decided to leave it to see who would correct me. I should have known CI would come through.

Would it be best to say: "... posters, to whom I refer to as 'Cardboarders'"?
[/quote]

Ahhh!  The very rare prepositional infinitive.

[CornFed]

[quote author=standfan link=topic=14361.msg152743#msg152743 date=1452731814]
Would it be best to say: "... posters, to whom I refer to as 'Cardboarders'"?

Yes, if you leave out the second "to!"
(now what did I do wrong?)
[/quote]

Exclamation mark.  Why is it even there and if it's going to be there, shouldn't it be outside the quotation marks?  (Oh no, now we are in "do" loop).

[CornFed]

[quote author=standfan link=topic=14361.msg152743#msg152743 date=1452731814]
Would it be best to say: "... posters, to whom I refer to as 'Cardboarders'"?

Yes, if you leave out the second "to!"
(now what did I do wrong?)
[/quote]

Exclamation mark.  Why is it even there and if it's going to be there, shouldn't it be outside the quotation marks?  (Oh no, now we are in "do" loop).

[doublespiral]

Now that I'm attuned to it, I'm seeing it everywhere from Mr. Gemmell:

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...r-rankings

He's on a roll! Guess I'll just enjoy the ride....

[doublespiral]

Now that I'm attuned to it, I'm seeing it everywhere from Mr. Gemmell:

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...r-rankings

He's on a roll! Guess I'll just enjoy the ride....

[M T]

If breaking an ancient grammar rule makes your writing more understandable, then so what. If a handful of people want to deduct 2 points then that is their problem.

Shouldn't the first sentence end with "then so what?"?  (Go Brits!  Try that whole question on, you Yanks!)

Now, should the second sentence refer to "its problem" (the handful)?  Or ( :) ) did you do that intentionally just to make your point?

[M T]

If breaking an ancient grammar rule makes your writing more understandable, then so what. If a handful of people want to deduct 2 points then that is their problem.

Shouldn't the first sentence end with "then so what?"?  (Go Brits!  Try that whole question on, you Yanks!)

Now, should the second sentence refer to "its problem" (the handful)?  Or ( :) ) did you do that intentionally just to make your point?

[Extra Point]

[quote author=Extra Point link=topic=14361.msg152745#msg152745 date=1452733052]
If breaking an ancient grammar rule makes your writing more understandable, then so what. If a handful of people want to deduct 2 points then that is their problem.

Shouldn't the first sentence end with "then so what?"?  (Go Brits!  Try that whole question on, you Yanks!)

Now, should the second sentence refer to "its problem" (the handful)?  Or ( :) ) did you do that intentionally just to make your point?
[/quote]

Thanks! Your suggestions make my writing sound more better.

[Extra Point]

[quote author=Extra Point link=topic=14361.msg152745#msg152745 date=1452733052]
If breaking an ancient grammar rule makes your writing more understandable, then so what. If a handful of people want to deduct 2 points then that is their problem.

Shouldn't the first sentence end with "then so what?"?  (Go Brits!  Try that whole question on, you Yanks!)

Now, should the second sentence refer to "its problem" (the handful)?  Or ( :) ) did you do that intentionally just to make your point?
[/quote]

Thanks! Your suggestions make my writing sound more better.