ParanetOnline
McAnally's (The Community Pub) => Author Craft => Topic started by: meg_evonne on May 04, 2011, 01:32:23 PM
-
I found this sentence (punctuation removed) from a recent read. I'm curious how you would punctuate it. I'll wait a few days and then post the copy from the book and identify it. I know it's tough to read without punctuation (even tougher to type), but I figure we'll see a wide variety of suggestions. Grammar: science or art, or perhaps science and art?
"He saw himself as a man manager and was a public voice in the drive to reform Scotlands penal system brighter better-equipped halls a strong emphasis on vocational training education and counseling no more overcrowding no more brutality."
I certainly would not have written it as the author did, but I'm a grammar duffer at the best of times.
-
Depends on a number of factors: what exactly were the author's intentions in terms of meaning? What style? Is it intended to mimic an oral approach?
-
Here's my edit ;D
"He saw himself as a man manager, and was a public voice in the drive to reform Scotlands penal system; brighter, better-equipped halls, a strong emphasis on vocational training, education and counseling; no more overcrowding, no more brutality."
I can diagram them too, although I'd not want to do this one. ;)
-
He saw himself as a man, manager and was a public voice in the drive to reform Scotland's penal system; brighter, better-equipped halls; a strong emphasis on vocational training. Education and counseling; no more overcrowding, no more brutality...
It's different, and not exactly how I would have worded it but... whatevs.
-
both are close. To make it easier, I will allow that it reads, "man manager" with quotes, although there may be additional punctuation in there as well. And you are both very close.
-
He saw himself as a man manager and was a public voice in the drive to reform Scotland's penal system; brighter, better-equipped halls; a strong emphasis on vocational training, education and counseling; no more overcrowding, no more brutality...
Is this better?
I was trying to make a different meaning than what was already posted... didn't realize that we were trying to capture the original. Guess I forgot that part of the directions...
heehee
-
yes, I caught it. *smiling*
-
Here's mine:
"Fish."
Sorry, I'll go back to work now....
-
Bluegills? *smiling*
-
Well, it IS the penal system....
-
"He saw himself as a man-manager and was a public voice in the drive to reform Scotland's penal system: brighter, better-equipped halls, a strong emphasis on vocational training, education and counseling, no more overcrowding, no more brutality."
I use commas instead of semicolons here because semicolons project more of a pause in the thought process, as opposed to a simple continuation of a list (as indicated by the colon). But I'd like to know precisely what was meant by "man manager"; if they meant "a man and a manager", a slash would be more appropriate.
-
the way I had puntuated it was more of a monolouge... the semi colons were where a heroic pose would be struck and chin lifted to the distance...
-
I was punctuating it to be a grammatical, written sentence; stage-direction punctuation is a bit iffy in that area.
-
or as in a speech... direct quote narration from a 3rd person limited POV... maybe?
-
"He saw himself as a man-manager and was a public voice in the drive to reform Scotland's penal system: brighter, better-equipped halls, a strong emphasis on vocational training, education and counseling, no more overcrowding, no more brutality."
I use commas instead of semicolons here because semicolons project more of a pause in the thought process, as opposed to a simple continuation of a list (as indicated by the colon). But I'd like to know precisely what was meant by "man manager"; if they meant "a man and a manager", a slash would be more appropriate.
I'd do it like this, except maybe a comma after education and a semicolon after counseling.
-
The sentence is from "Let It Bleed" by Ian Rankin.
I've been delving into my Elements of Style and elsewhere. The author is Scottish so the Chicago Manual probably won't match, but this sentence just--bugs me. It was a relief to see your varied opinions as well.
Here is the way it is in the book:
"He saw himself as a "man manager," and was a public voice in the drive to reform Scotland's penal system: brighter, better-equipped halls; a strong emphasis on vocational training education and counseling; no more overcrowding, no more brutality."
On the first comma, Elements of Style says, "Place a comma before a conjunction introducing an independent clause." Since there isn't a specific subject (He for example) before "was a..." then there shouldn't be one, right?
I'm on-board with the use of the colon as the rule reads, "Use a colon after an independent clause to introduce a list of particulars, an appositive, an amplification, or an illustrative quotation."
Then Elements of Style says, "Do not join independent clauses with a comma. If two or more clauses grammatically complete and not joined by a conjunction are to form a single compound sentence, the proper mark of punctuation is a semicolon." None of the items after the colon are true independent clauses, yet there they are--two semicolons. Yet, in this sentence, it rings true to me.
This is the 'art' part of grammar, right? I can see a 'breaking of the rule' to add emphasis and, perhaps, to be clear due to the length of the individual items in the list, or as a "pause in the thought process" per Shecky's comments. Yet, it makes me pull my hair out...
-
I'd do it like this, except maybe a comma after education and a semicolon after counseling.
1) I'm not a fan of Oxford commas in general, save in cases where it would genuinely aid comprehension (and most of those cases can be avoided with a modicum of rewording or syntax shift).
2) A sentence that requires both a colon and a semicolon (or, in general, any combination of two or more of both/either of those) is too long and should be reworked.
*puts away grammar swastika*
-
1) I'm not a fan of Oxford commas in general, save in cases where it would genuinely aid comprehension (and most of those cases can be avoided with a modicum of rewording or syntax shift).
2) A sentence that requires both a colon and a semicolon (or, in general, any combination of two or more of both/either of those) is too long and should be reworked.
*puts away grammar swastika*
1) I know. :P But Chicago MLA is generally what's used in publishing.
2) I think that sentence is cumbersome and should be reworked anyway.On the first comma, Elements of Style says, "Place a comma before a conjunction introducing an independent clause." Since there isn't a specific subject (He for example) before "was a..." then there shouldn't be one, right?
Exactly. A lot of people see "and" and immediately think there should be a comma before it, because they were taught to always put a comma before or, but, and. The distinction is that it's to separate two sentences joined by one of those three-sometimes so, as well.
Then Elements of Style says, "Do not join independent clauses with a comma. If two or more clauses grammatically complete and not joined by a conjunction are to form a single compound sentence, the proper mark of punctuation is a semicolon." None of the items after the colon are true independent clauses, yet there they are--two semicolons. Yet, in this sentence, it rings true to me.
For the most part, yes, you use a semicolon in place of the comma/conjunction, but in this case, the semicolons are used for a list where there are parts to each section that use commas. It's to separate the elements that stay together, like "brighter, better-equipped halls" because otherwise, it's difficult to tell.
And looking back, it's actually in the book as "a strong emphasis on vocational training education and counseling"? Because there really should be a comma in that list somewhere.
Elements of Style by Strunk and White? That's a very dry book, and even though it's well written, it's not always completely understandable--the explanations could be plainer.
-
I've always preferred MLA.
-
Id hazard a try, but I learned to read via Hooked on Phonics and a bunch of Tom Swift novels, so Grammar is all but foreign to me. For that matter, can anyone tell me the actual usage of a semicolon? The best Ive ever gotten is that is is halfway between a Comma and a Period. Which is a rather useless explanation, when you think about it :P
-
At its most fundamental, a semicolon means that what follows, although a complete thought (i.e., sentence) in and of itself, is tied pretty strongly to the thought preceding it. But it's not just an elucidation of that preceding thought, which would take a colon (e.g., "He only feared one thing: fear itself."), and it's a little more separated from that thought than a comma would indicate. It's not just a continuation; it's sort of a whole thought that is linked to it.
-
Yeah, what ^ he said.
-
^
^ Yeah, what they said.
-
At its most fundamental, a semicolon means that what follows, although a complete thought (i.e., sentence) in and of itself, is tied pretty strongly to the thought preceding it. But it's not just an elucidation of that preceding thought, which would take a colon (e.g., "He only feared one thing: fear itself."), and it's a little more separated from that thought than a comma would indicate. It's not just a continuation; it's sort of a whole thought that is linked to it.
OK, this is now cut and pasted into my writing advice quotes. Shecky now has a file on my computer and "the elucidation of that preceding thought" is added to my list of grammar rules. This also explains several additional lines from Rankin's book that I also underlined to examine.
To be honest, the MLA intimidates me. Heck, I had to go take a linguistics class (as a 55 year old) in order to understand the terminology in E/S. Proudly, I aced it, but the dang class ended before it reached punctuation, and I never found time to take the next. I tried the internet sources, but most of it is simplistic at best.
Bottom line, whatever I've learned, I still have to USE it. I'm better, but I'm still too lazy or too discombobulated to pay attention or usually too tired to correct properly. *sigh* Looking at this sentence, I know it's not right either. Ah well...
As to the call to rewrite the sentence, what isn't known in this discussion thread is that Rankin uses it in a descriptive section where the 'traditional' means were already used. It was probably chosen to impart info with speed, while not emphasizing it via additional shorter sentences. It is easily understandable to the reader. Therefore, as communication--it works.