I've been noticing some of the distinctions in writing between Britain and American English. For one, I think I notice an abundance of commas in British writing. I have some examples from what I'm reading now although it's possible that it's old English style (it's from Charles Dickens). "The Chancellor is about to bow to the bar, when the prisoner is presented." Does the comma there actually make sense there? Or "...say Sheen and Gloss the mercers, to their friends the manufacturers..." It's interesting though that there isn't a comma before 'the mercers' and before 'the manufacturers.' What's with that? A last example is "'Nothing that you would call anything, has been done to-day.'"
Another question that I just remembered thinking about is the order of comma/period and quotation. I noticed that in the book itself and in Dickens' original preface, the comma or period comes before the quotation like this," Yet in the recent 'introduction' and 'note on the text,' the comma comes after the quotation like this', What's the difference there?
Posts: 6499 | Location: Grayson, Georgia, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
The comma is used to show the reader where there is a pause, that's all.For us that is their principal function. For us, it is their principal function. (Somehow there I could just think of putting no comma before 'that', because that's how I could, and often would, read it. Using 'it is' suggested a slower, more measured, address and a comma appeared )
The example you give of 'anything' is just such a case.
Dickens intended the reader to pause briefly where the single comma appears but to read straight on when it doesn't. Taking the 'the mercers' example we may take it that there is no comma after the names because he intended no pause. We may sense a little humour in this punctuation. A proprietor or an employee might well introduce himself as , say, "John Smith, Smith and Jones the printers" saying the last bit in a rush. Reciting this introduction repeatedly and mechanically, dozens or hundreds of times a day or week, leads to such garbling.It sounds as though Dickens may be having a little fun whilst giving us a better picture of the individual by this detail. The use of no comma for 'the manufacturers' is parodying this by repeating it for 'manufacturers'.The employees of manufacturers may have the same habit
Ah, ok. Thanks, Fred. That helped. The lack of commas for the titles makes sense, too. Thanks for responding to that. Whenever the commas come up in these situtation, I've been making sure to pause. It just that it seems like an odd pause, for me anyway. But okay, it makes sense.
Posts: 6499 | Location: Grayson, Georgia, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by jusork: It just that it seems like an odd pause, for me anyway. But okay, it makes sense.
If that's the only odd thing you find in British, you'll be lucky Apart from differences in vocabulary, of which all are aware, we have such fun as:
using 'shall'whereas in American 'will' is almost universal. Natives know when we use it, but everyone else,foreign grammarians included are puzzled
'one' for I; a peculiar usage of the upper classes (and me, but I'm seeing a counsellor about it ) for certain circumstances , though one cannot easily explain when. It is a devious device, worthy of a nation for whom plain speaking is thought an eccentricity of the child , the backward and Northerners.
And, best of all, switching a subject from plural to singular and back in the same paragraph or even the same sentence: 'The committee announced it had made a decision; it had met for hours; though they were still vague about details afterwards' This may occur in American but British has taken the practice way beyond that simple, compressed , example.
If you master those and remember the golden rule viz. to presume that no English person ever says anything which is completely serious or which is to be taken literally, you may get the hang of it all
Allow me to consult a couple of reference books on the subject of punctuation. First is the unexpected recent bestseller, Eats Shoots and Leaves by Lynne Truss:
quote:
More than any other mark, the comma draws our attention to the mixed origins of modern punctuation, and its consequent mingling of two quite distinct functions: (1) To illuminate the grammar of the sentence; (2) To point up -- rather in the manner of musical notation -- such literary qualities as rhythm, direction, pitch, tone and flow.
This is why grown men have knock-down fights over the comma in editorial offices: because these two roles...sometimes collide head-on
Because the comma serves so many different purposes it is the most widely used of all punctuation marks. Its varied and distinct uses result in its being by far the most troublesome of the marks; in fact, comma usage varies so greatly that only a few rules can be considered unchanging...Its overuse and misuse also obscure meaning more than the misapplication of any of the other marks.
Comma-watching is one of my hobbies. I note that some authors use commas routinely in the same places where others never do. Indeed the preponderance of commas -- or lack thereof -- seems to define an author's personal style. I tend to admire authors who can write clearly with minimal use of commas. I don't usually subscribe to FP's notion of the comma standing in for a spoken pause*. Jusork's examples from Dickens rankle my sensibilities -- I, too, don't see the need for these. Yet the rules of grammar do not prohibit or proscribe their use. As suggested by the books cited above, it's more-or-less a matter of style rather than correctness.
As for British vs. American usage: I think the trend over the centuries has been a decreasing use of commas. To the extent that Brits are the staunch Defenders of the Mother Tongue, it stands to reason that they keep to the older, more comma-ridden style of writing. Yet I suspect that the difference among authors in either one of the countries overshadows any overall difference between sides of the Atlantic.
* Truss tells this story about American humorist James Thurber:
quote:
Thurber was once asked by a correspondent: "Why did you have a comma in the sentence, 'After dinner, the men went into the living-room'?" And his answer was probably one of the loveliest things ever said about punctuaion. "This particular comma," Thurber explained, "was Ross's way of giving the men time to push back their chairs and stand up."
Posts: 1997 | Location: U.S. | Registered: 06-03-02
The grammar rule as I was taught it at school was to put punctuation marks in where you Imagine you take a breath ,I suppose most will coincide but you get the odd writer that will mark in an odd place such as within quote marks I omit placing anything like periods or commas on short quotes out of habit .Though on emails, (check this out) I do put question marks inside quote marks, but always if spell checked afterwards they are moved to the outside Must point out at school I was always near the bottom of the class at English (grammar)
Posts: 13343 | Location: 6 miles west of Wigan UK | Registered: 06-05-02
Commas do make an important difference when we use adjective clauses:
'My brother, who lives in London, is boring.' is read with a significant pause at each comma. It's a 'non-identifying' adjective clause, and the sentence clearly implies that I only have one brother - the comment about London is just extra information, by the way.
'My brother who lives in London is boring' has no pauses. The adjective clause is 'identifying' or 'necessary'. The sentence strongly implies that I have more than one brother, and I'm telling you which one is the computer geek who shows you endless slide-shows of his camping trip on his laptop. I could go on to say '...but my brother who lives in York is cool.'
I love that Thurber quote. For wild and free early punctuation see Tristram Shandy.
Commas are only controversial in Britain when they seem to have been breeding in the gaps between words. Every so often someone writes to a newspaper to complain of this. The point which is really being made is that the sentence would be more intelligible and read better if the writer had constructed it without having to use commas. So the complaint is not really that the comma is misused but that the writer is sloppy both in thinking and in constructing the sentences .
By the way, whatever happened to the semi-colon? It is rarely sighted in the writings of young British people. A pity because the idle among us; you may guess of one; can use it when they might have used a comma but either wanted a longer pause than that of the comma or were using a pair parenthetically so as to look classy ! It's a cop out from writing so badly that the commas become obvious .
If the writer has a rambling mind, and writes as the thoughts occur, whenever, so as now,so every time he pauses to think what goes best,whatever that might be, he ends up with, what I suppose we could call, depending on the circumstances, too many commas.
Some writers are fond of paranthesis, using commas as brackets, when writing, except in novels, and so, Irish writers excepted, end up, as in this example, with a whole load of them, if 'load'is the correct word.... That is another example of lazy construction. The whole sentence could be written plainly as several sentences in a direct style. As it is it reads as though the writer just put his thoughts, exceptions and reservations down as they occurred to him and separated them by the commas. They fall from mind to page without so much as an ordered plan to stop them.He could use ( ) instead but that looks, well, clumsy and sloppy (Or he could try a few semi-colons instead )
I hope my earlier post didn't give the impression that there are no rules whatsoever, or that "anything goes" with commas. There are still some definite grammatical rules mandating their use.
This sentence needs no comma.
This sentence, on the other hand, contains a clause that is properly set off with commas.
Posts: 1997 | Location: U.S. | Registered: 06-03-02
Clauses like your "non-identifying adjective clause" are called appositives, right?
quote:
Originally posted by FredPuli: If the writer has a rambling mind, and writes as the thoughts occur, whenever, so as now,so every time he pauses to think what goes best,whatever that might be, he ends up with, what I suppose we could call, depending on the circumstances, too many commas.
Some writers are fond of paranthesis, using commas as brackets, when writing, except in novels, and so, Irish writers excepted, end up, as in this example, with a whole load of them, if 'load'is the correct word....
Ha, that sounds just like Dickens in the story I'm reading.
I didn't get that impression, Prof. I thought it was clear.
Anybody want to try my other, more easily overlooked question?
Posts: 6499 | Location: Grayson, Georgia, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
The late Frank Muir, a renowned British broadcaster and writer, once said that the comma was one of the most important punctuation marks in the English Language. An example he used, was a classic song American title " What is this thing called love"
"What, is this thing called love!" "What is this, thing called love!" "What is this thing, called Love!" "What is this thing called, love"
Originally posted by jusork: Anybody want to try my other, more easily overlooked question?
Didn't want to say so.....but I didn't understand it. Could you express it in some other way?
Of course. It probably was unclear. Try this one.
In his book, when Dickens uses quotes, he ends the last word with a punctuation mark and then the quotation mark. Like this: '...Not that it's requisite, I am sure,' said the young man civilly.
In the introduction though, it's filled with quotes ended with quotation mark, then punctuation mark. Like this: 'as if the waters had but newly retired from the face of the earth'.
Posts: 6499 | Location: Grayson, Georgia, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by jusork: In his book, when Dickens uses quotes, he ends the last word with a punctuation mark and then the quotation mark. Like this: '...Not that it's requisite, I am sure,' said the young man civilly.
In the introduction though, it's filled with quotes ended with quotation mark, then punctuation mark. Like this: 'as if the waters had but newly retired from the face of the earth'.
Let me guess. The introduction was written by an American or is in an American edition. The text of Dickens' book is still set and punctuated as it was in England. So the difference is in the practice of punctuation and typesetting in different countries.
Here is The Times :
"Councils don't add value through owning the land that schools sit on, " she said.
There we find the comma put inside the inverted commas ( quotation marks). That is the usual British practice. [Note: No, I don't know what she, the Education Secretary, was talking about either; and I read the whole piece ]
We do the same at the end of a sentence. I interrupted her speech, but I expect she's still droning on. Let's pick up what she is saying:
"It will mean backing parents where they want good schools to expand, rather than blocking this because it might make life tougher for other schools. " [Dickens it ain't; though Dotheboys School comes to mind... ] The full stop (period) lies within the quotation.
[ Note: We don't now put a second full stop if the quotation ends in a full stop and also happens to be at the end of a sentence in the report. That's an example. The quote ends with a sentence so there is a stop within the quotation marks and the quote happens to be the end of a paragraph in the Times' report but the paper has not added another stop, even to show the end of the paragraph .That would be fussy and pedantic. ]
Nope. It says it wasedited with an Introduction and Notes by Nicola Bradbury. And in mini-biography about her, it says she was born in Somerset. Shes does use single quotation marks like you guys do instead of double though. It also says it was printed in England. Any other theories?
I always learned to do the order the same as you guys anyway. Most of the writing I've seen by Americans have been the same, too. Americans and Brits don't generally seem to differ there.
And you said we don't NOW put a full stop... Does that mean at one point, people went period, quotation mark, period?
Posts: 6499 | Location: Grayson, Georgia, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
)
Apart from differences in vocabulary, of which all are aware, we have such fun as:
