0
MountainHiker Posted 21 years ago
Grammar
Another Punctuation Question
Hi,
Please comment on the underlined portion of quote. Actually, you may comment on any portion, but I am specifically interested in the underlined portion.
I look forward to your comments.
MountainHiker
Please comment on the underlined portion of quote. Actually, you may comment on any portion, but I am specifically interested in the underlined portion.
Consulting a dozen or so recently published punctuation guides, I can report that they contain minor disagreements on virtually all aspects of the above and that their only genuine consistency is in using Keats's poems as the prime example. Strange but true. They just can't leave it alone. "It is Keats' poems (NOT Keats's)," they thunder. Or alternatively: "It is Keats's poems (NOT Keats')." Well, poor old Keats, you can't help thinking. No wonder he developed that cough.
Having said that there are no absolute rights and wrongs in this matter, however, when many people wrote to ask why St Thomas' Hospital in London has no "s" after the apostrophe, I did feel that the answer much echo Dr Johnson's when asked to explain his erroneous definition of a pastern: "Ignorance, madam, pure ignorance." Of course it should be St Thomas's Hospital. Of course it should.
I look forward to your comments.
MountainHiker
Top answer
There are three basic rules, which I won't mention here. When a noun such as Keats is possessive, the lone apostrophe is fine and follows the rule. When the extra syllable is added, the extra s (Keats's is okay (Keats-uz).
- There are three basic rules, which I won't mention here.
- When a noun such as Keats is possessive, the lone apostrophe is fine and follows the rule.
- When the extra syllable is added, the extra s (Keats's is okay (Keats-uz).
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
8 Answers
0
There are three basic rules, which I won't mention here.
When a noun such as Keats is possessive, the lone apostrophe is fine and follows the rule. When the extra syllable is added, the extra s (Keats's is okay (Keats-uz).
When a noun such as Keats is possessive, the lone apostrophe is fine and follows the rule. When the extra syllable is added, the extra s (Keats's is okay (Keats-uz).
00
bermbits,
I was interested in the underlined portion. More specifically how "however" is treated. I would tend to use ";however," rather than the ",however,".
MountainHiker
I was interested in the underlined portion. More specifically how "however" is treated. I would tend to use ";however," rather than the ",however,".
MountainHiker
00
Besides the ", however, " - which I, too, write as "; however, ", the "much echo" is a problem. "closely echoes" is perhaps what was intended.
CJ
CJ
00
You can't put a semicolon before the 'however', because there is no independent clause preceding it. The bit needs re-working; it is awkward. You can keep the semicolon if you wish, but I would prefer a full stop and a new start on the complex sentence to follow:
'There are no absolute rights and wrongs in this matter. However, when many people wrote to ask why St. Thomas' Hospital in
'There are no absolute rights and wrongs in this matter. However, when many people wrote to ask why St. Thomas' Hospital in
00
All,
MM, I had misread the quote myself.
I took the stuff before the "however" as follows:
Having said that (all the preamble), there are no absolute rights and wrongs in this matter. I didn't read it as one contiguous phrase. But that is my error, not the author's.
All, I agree that the quoted phrase is awkward. Here is a more complete version of stuf
MM, I had misread the quote myself.
I took the stuff before the "however" as follows:
Having said that (all the preamble), there are no absolute rights and wrongs in this matter. I didn't read it as one contiguous phrase. But that is my error, not the author's.
All, I agree that the quoted phrase is awkward. Here is a more complete version of stuf
00
Mr. M. You are absolutely right. The semi-colon, should the writer have wanted one, would have been placed elsewhere, to wit:
....blah, blah, blah; however, having said that there are no absolute rights and wrongs in this matter, when ...
But that makes matters worse in terms of length and awkwardness.
I also agree that the "should ... echo" is better.
C
....blah, blah, blah; however, having said that there are no absolute rights and wrongs in this matter, when ...
But that makes matters worse in terms of length and awkwardness.
I also agree that the "should ... echo" is better.
C
00
And how about this, from the second paragraph of the 'Eats Shoots etc' excerpt?--
Shouldn't those semicolons be commas? I haven't time at the moment to read more of
Cruelty to punctuation is quite unlegislated: you can get away with pulling the legs off semicolons; shrivelling question marks on the garden path under a powerful magnifying glass; you name it.
Shouldn't those semicolons be commas? I haven't time at the moment to read more of
00
Hi Mister Micawber,
I tend to agree, though I guess there is room for ambiguity. I tend to use semicolons in lists where an a comma in the list items is already used. I can't think of a good example for demonstration purposes. Said differently, I use semicolons when a comma will not show the proper separation among the list items.
As far as Eats, Shoots & Leaves, I am not o
I tend to agree, though I guess there is room for ambiguity. I tend to use semicolons in lists where an a comma in the list items is already used. I can't think of a good example for demonstration purposes. Said differently, I use semicolons when a comma will not show the proper separation among the list items.
As far as Eats, Shoots & Leaves, I am not o
0
Related Questions