Thread: Grammar 101

I think quoting is for reference. As for the Joe statement, I would keep the apostrophe.

Originally posted by Howetzer
I do not fully understand a few. I was busy sniffing glue in grammar school *

*

examples:

Joe's state is Ohio.
Since it is not actually Joes. Do you add an apostrophe?

Quotes:

Seeker said that ice dawg said " blah blah bla blalbla" *
Who are you actually quoting? Seeker said it, But it is once removed.
I would guess the original person? *

And when you quote words. For what reason? *

Howiezer is acting a bit "freakish" this morning.
Words with emphasise?

It's Joe his state is ohio, so that's an 's.

And seeker said that icedog said "I sniffed glue", then seeker told you that icedog said 'bla'.

Not that hard, is it?

if it is possessive, it always gets and apostrophe:

Joe's state is Ohio.


unless it's a pronoun like "it":

This is my favorite rose bush. Its blooms are pink.

Joe posseses Ohio as his homestate.

Quotes are for reference or emphasis

eg. I learned how to get girls from watching the "James Bond" films.
or emphasis (more like sarcasm) He's acting weird today because he probably just "waxed his banana"

heh, i am really bad for putting quotations around words/phrases. this is because they are not as "objective" as people make them out to be.

i really am too groggy today to explain it, but can only give that example.

roughly, it is signifying that one does not accept the popular, accepted meaning/usage of a particular word or phrase.

another example: johnny went to war and killed twenty men....he came back a "man".

the above means that in general opinion killing people makes one a "man", but the author does not agree, and defines "man" in a way that does not involve killing.

To really stand out from the crowd Howetzer, if you're to use quotes, make sure to follow proper punctuation rules (which SO many people get wrong):

commas, periods, question marks, and exclamation marks always always *always* appear within the quotes, irrespective of whether or not they were originally part of the quotation. Always. No exceptions.

Double hyphens, semi-colons, and colons appear outside of the quotes; not within.

Eg.

So then I turned to him and said, "Run, run little man!"

Frank suddenly stopped the car in front of "Ed's Pub"; he had an eerie feeling he had been there before.

You may also get away with using a colon in the last one, since the second thought actually explains the behaviour of his action.

Frank suddenly stopped the car in front of "Ed's Pub": he had an eerie feeling he had been there before.

In fact, a double-hyphen perhaps too could be used.

Frank suddenly stopped the car in front of "Ed's Pub"--he had an eerie feeling he had been there before.

I must confess in some instances it's ambiguous to me which to use.

If using semi-colons and colons though, the two ideas must always be sentences that could stand complete on their own.

Originally posted by icedawg
colons, and colons

Thanks everyone!

And Ice. Are you a grammar school teacher or something?

Originally posted by icedawg
commas, periods, question marks, and exclamation marks always always *always* appear within the quotes, irrespective of whether or not they were originally part of the quotation. *Always. *No exceptions.

That means that sentences may possibly end without any punctuation, but instead with a quotation mark. I don't believe it. Maybe you just got the two groups switched? That's how it makes sense to me...Keep the sentence enders out of the quotes, keep the sentence continuers in the quotation marks.

That means that sentences may possibly end without any punctuation, but instead with a quotation mark. I don't believe it. Maybe you just got the two groups switched? That's how it makes sense to me...Keep the sentence enders out of the quotes, keep the sentence continuers in the quotation marks.

Nope, he's right. I didn't hear about the ; : and -- part, but that makes obvious sense.

[quote]Thanks everyone!

And Ice. Are you a grammar school teacher or something?

This is basic english grammar ... it's okay we all forget this stuff

colons, and colons

I laughed my ass off when I saw this. Thank you.

PS: Ice, it's "e.g."

Originally posted by Neruo+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Neruo)</div>

It's Joe his state is ohio, so that's an 's.
Not that hard, is it?[/b]

States are capitalized. I did not think that was too hard. + a run on sentence?

<!--QuoteBegin-ataraxis
This is basic english grammar ... it's okay we all forget this stuff

I am not trying to be a provocateur but...
I don't give a shit what is considered basic hard, normal or excepted. To me, if I feel something is %&#*@ up, I have issues with it.
Just as people argue hand over fist over the doctrines of the Bible, why cannot people disagree with basic English?
I think in a linear manner in many issues to avoid confusion.
The state of Ohio does not belong to Joe.
A word to be emphasized should be underlined or bold.

Another good example.
Let's say today is Friday. Most people I run into would consider next Saturday to be actually 8 days from Friday. Actually being the Saturday after the next.
You can't argue that that is not wrong.
I simply ask: What is the next Saturday? The true answer is tomorrow.

Just venting. I have just always wondered why some areas are just accepted while others are not.

Another Q. > Los Angeles' free ways suck. (before the existing s or after

[quote]Another Q. > Los Angeles' free ways suck. (before the existing s or after[/color]

You'd have two s's. *wonders if punctuation on that is right* If the word ends in an -s in the singular, to form the possessive you still would add 's. You only add the appostraphe in the case of plural possession. For example:

The wolf's teeth are sharp. (Singular)
The wolves' teeth are sharp.

And another thing, I'm not a grammar Nazi, persay, but I am a language major so I appreciate it when people use proper grammar. Commas in English gave me the most trouble.

[quote]Another Q. > Los Angeles' free ways suck. (before the existing s or after[/color]


Correct: "Los Angeles's freeways suck"


Though iff I were writing, I would instead write "The freeways of Los Angeles suck", purely because I think that when dealing with some proper nouns, using apostrophes for the possessive is just a bit clumsy, and doesn't read well.

Originally posted by icedawg
commas, periods, question marks, and exclamation marks always always *always* appear within the quotes, irrespective of whether or not they were originally part of the quotation. *Always. *No exceptions.

i think question marks depend on whether or not they are part of the original quote.

Did Seeker just say, "I had a lucid dream"?
vs.
Seeker asked, "Did you have a lucid dream?"

Seeker said that ice dawg said " blah blah bla blalbla" *
Who are you actually quoting? Seeker said it, But it is once removed. *
I would guess the original person?[/b]

again, depends on context.

Seeker told me that Icedawg said, "I had a lucid dream."
vs.
Seeker said, "Icedawg just said, 'I had a lucid dream.'"
vs.
Seeker said, "Icedawg just told me that he had a lucid dream."

in the first case, the only direct quote is icedawg's, so it's the only one in quotation marks. in the second case, i am directly quoting seeker, who directly quotes icedawg, so they both belong in quotation marks. in the last case, i am directly quoting seeker, who gets quotation marks, but he is not directly quoting icedawg, so he doesn't get them.

(direct quote=saying the actual words that the other person said. indirect quote=saying the idea, but not the actual words.)

commas, periods, question marks, and exclamation marks always always *always* appear within the quotes, irrespective of whether or not they were originally part of the quotation. Always. No exceptions.

i think question marks depend on whether or not they are part of the original quote.

Did Seeker just say, "I had a lucid dream"?
vs.
Seeker asked, "Did you have a lucid dream?"[/quote]

Nope...I'm 100% positive.

However, I have noted that Americans like to--just as an example--uppercase the first letter following a colon, which so far as I can tell is not the case with proper English rules. It is possible the U.S. culture has also added its own interpretation to punctuation within quotation marks. Regardless, I stand by what I said in regards to proper punctuation with quotation marks, completely and absolutely.

Originally posted by icedawg
5.103 If the material introduced by a colon consists of more than one sentence, or if it is a formal statement, a quotation, or a speech in dialogue, it should begin with a capital letter. Otherwise it may begin with a lowercase letter:

To Henrietta, there seemed no possibility of waking from her nightmare: If she were to reveal what was in the letter, her reputation would be ruined and her marriage at an end. On the other hand, if she were to remain silent, her husband would be in mortal danger.

Henrietta's distress seemed insupportable: not only had her lover abandoned her at the last moment, but she had already sent a note to her husband announcing her intention of leaving him.

I wish only to state the following: Anyone found in possession of forged papers will immediately be arrested.

Originally posted by The Blue Meanie



Correct: "Los Angeles's freeways suck"


Though iff I were writing, I would instead write "The freeways of Los Angeles suck", purely because I think that when dealing with some proper nouns, using apostrophes for the possessive is just a bit clumsy, and doesn't read well.

I do not think that is correct.
Is it not Los Angeles' Freeways suck? I really do not know. That is why I am asking. But that ti me does not seem correct. (what about freeway's ???)

I think I know less than when we started.

Well, if you were using "Los Angeles" as an adjective, then you wouldn't have to use an appostraphe. You could just say "Los Angeles freeways suck." If you wanted to make it possessive, though, since Los Angeles is singular it would be "Los Angeles's freeways suck."

[quote]

I do not think that is correct.
Is it not Los Angeles' Freeways suck? I really do not know. That is why I am asking. But that ti me does not seem correct. (what about freeway's ???)

I think I know less than when we started.

It can be either. Both Los Angeles's and Los Angeles' are perfectly acceptable, it's up to the writer to decide how many ezeses are too many.

Imagine that. Modern English, a dynamic language?

The debate about whether to add an apostrophe "s" to make a possessive out of a word that already ends in an "s" can get pretty heated. I believe the original grammatical rule for modern English states that the apostrophe "s" should be added rather than just an apostrophe (so that it would be "Los Angeles's freeways" instead of "Los Angeles' freeways"); however, it has become more and more acceptable to use the simple apostrophe. I'm not sure if style manuals have officially changed that rule or not, though. Perhaps Kage23 can look it up in the Chicago manual. My style manuals are all packed away in the attic and I'm not too eager to dig them out.

Originally posted by Peregrinus
The debate about whether to add an apostrophe "s" to make a possessive out of a word that already ends in an "s" can get pretty heated. *I believe the original grammatical rule for modern English states that the apostrophe "s" should be added rather than just an apostrophe (so that it would be "Los Angeles's freeways" instead of "Los Angeles' freeways"); however, it has become more and more acceptable to use the simple apostrophe. *I'm not sure if style manuals have officially changed that rule or not, though. *Perhaps Kage23 can look it up in the Chicago manual. *My style manuals are all packed away in the attic and I'm not too eager to dig them out.

no problem.

Originally posted by CMS 14
6.19 The possessive of singlar nouns is formed by the addition of an apostrophe and an s, and the possessive of plural nouns (except for a few irregular plurals) by the addition of an apostrophe only:
the horse's mouth * the puppies' tails * the children's desk
There are a few exceptions to the rule for common nouns. In one notable case, tradition and euphony dictate the use of the apostrophe only:
for appearance' (conscience', righteousness', etc.) sake
In another instance, the possessive singular of such uninflected nouns as series and species is also formed with the apostrophe only, although the more usual way to express possession with such nouns is by the prepositional phrase: of the species.

6.24 The general rule for the possessive of nouns covers most proper nouns, including most names ending in sibilants [a sibilant is an s or z sound] (but see exceptions in 6.26-27 and alternatives in 6.30):
Kansas's * Texas's * Burns's poems * General Nogues's troops * Marx's theories * Jefferson Davis's home * Berlioz's opera * Dickens's novels * Ross's land * Jones's reputation * the Rosses' and the Williamses' lands * the Joneses' reputation

6.26 Traditional exceptions to the general rule for forming the possessive are the names Jesus and Moses:
in Jesus' name * Moses' leadership

6.27 Names of more than one syllable with an unaccented ending pronounced eez form another category of exceptions. Many Greek and hellenized names fit this pattern. For reasons of euphony the possessive s is seldom added to such names:
Euripides' plays * Xerxes' army * Demosthenes' orations * R. S. Surtees' novels * Ramses' tomb * Charles Yerkes' benefactions

6.30 How to form the possessive of polysyllabic personal names ending with the sound of s or z probably occasions more dissension among writers and editors than any other orthographic matter open to disagreement. Some espouse the rule that the possessive of all such names should be formed by the addition of an apostrophe only. Such a rule would outlaw spellings like "Dylan Thomas's poetry," "Roy Harris's compositions," and "Maria Callas's performance" in favor of "Thomas'," "Harris'," and "Callas'," which would not commend themselves to many. Other writers and editors simply abandon the attempt to define in precise phonic or orthographic terms the class of polysyllabic names to which only the apostrophe should be attached and follow a more pragmatic rule. In essence this is, "If it ends with a z sound, treat it like a plural; if it ends with an s sound, treat it like a singular." Thus they would write "Dickens', Hopkins', Williams'," but also "Harris's, Thomas's, Callas's, Angus's, Willis's," and the like. The University of Chicago Press prefers the procedures outlined above (6.24-27). It is willing, however, to accept other ways of handling these situations if they are consistently followed throughout a manuscript.

whew, that's a lot of material. i think most important for the Los Angeles discussion is 6.24 and 6.30. it seems to me that the most correct usage would be "Los Angeles's freeways," although "Los Angeles' freeways" would be acceptable if you consistently follow that pattern. perhaps the easiest thing to do would be to say "the freeways of Los Angeles."

Thanks Kage!

Ah, a new one. Nice. The quest continues.

Even though it is improper grammer, This annoys me

I asked Tom if he liked my new car and he said "Yes, it is very nice."

I think that if there are quotation marks the period should be outside of the quote. but if it is the end of a sentence in the quote AND the accual sentence, it should be added to both, not just the quote. like this.

I asked Tom if he liked my new car and he said "Yes, it is very nice.".

That is my pet peeve of english grammar.