Deal me in!
-Carl
--On Thursday, September 23, 2004 3:20 PM +0100 bill kilpatrick
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> all contributors to this thread within a thread will
> be placed in competition for a green visor, a pair of
> sleeve garters and the prestigious, h.l. menken cigar
> butt (bronze) award.
>
> - ed.
>
> --- "Eugene C. Braig IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> At 05:16 PM 9/22/2004, Stewart McCoy wrote:
>> > Although it is true that an introductory passage
>> may be separated
>> > from what follows by a comma, it would be incorrect
>> to use a comma
>> > after "passage", as you suggest for a sentence in
>> my last e-mail,
>> > since "Throughout that passage" is not an
>> introductory passage, but
>> > an integral part of what follows. If I had written
>> the words in a
>> > different order, for example, "There is a distinct
>> absence of commas
>> > throughout that passage", you would, I think, be
>> less inclined to
>> > precede "throughout that passage" with a comma,
>> since those words
>> > would clearly belong to the main part of the
>> sentence. It was
>> > necessary to order the words as I did, beginning my
>> sentence with
>> > "Throughout that passage", because the following
>> subordinate clause
>> > ("which are used ...") refers back to "comma", not
>> to "passage". In
>> > other words, I don't want another comma. :-)
>>
>>
>> However, "Throughout this passage" is a
>> prepositional phrase that is
>> modifying the noun "commas" (which in turn is the
>> object of a prepositional
>> phrase modifying "absence"). As such, its ordinary
>> place would be
>> following "commas." In relocating it to the front
>> (and I agree with your
>> decision to do so), it is functioning as an
>> introductory phrase. As it is
>> a brief introductory phrase, I think most
>> grammarians would agree that
>> comma use is optional.
>>
>>
>>
>> > You mention Strunk and White. There are many such
>> authorities
>> > regarding the English language, and they almost
>> invariably disagree
>> > with each other somewhere along the line. The
>> English language
>> > remains wonderfully flexible, however much
>> grammarians try to
>> > straight-jacket the way we speak and write.
>>
>>
>> I will concede that there are almost as many grammar
>> authorities of the
>> English language as there are people who write in
>> English, and many
>> published sources do disagree to varying degrees. I
>> have at least six or
>> seven texts on my shelf that, in whole or part,
>> address the written
>> elements of style; they range from very general
>> (e.g., the previously cited
>> Strunk & White) to very specific (e.g., Pechenik.
>> J.A. 1997. A short guide
>> to writing about biology, 3rd ed. Longman, New
>> York.). Strunk & White
>> certainly is my favorite for its clarity and
>> concision. Whatever the case,
>> I think you write very well, Stewart (certainly
>> better than I do), so who
>> cares?
>>
>> But let's get back to the business of plucking, eh?
>> (Note my atypical use
>> of a conjunction to open this sentence with dramatic
>> effect.)
>>
>> E
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
