I must agree here.
I recently learned it is indeed allowable to end a sentence with a preposition. That was so freeing. Though I do believe ending a sentence with a proposition can be more entertaining.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Which is correct? Whom v. Who
- Thread starter benlee
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I must agree here.
I recently learned it is indeed allowable to end a sentence with a preposition. That was so freeing. Though I do believe ending a sentence with a proposition can be more entertaining.
I'm an idiot. I read the thread, and just realized what a preposition was. It's something that goes before the position of something. I guess if it the word 'preposition' was pronounced "pree - position", I would have been able to guess.
Since we're discussing grammar, can someone tell me whether I should use single quotation or double quotation marks when I quote someone? (single: ' , or double: ")
When I entered high school, I think I used single quotation marks, but later switched to double quotation marks for nearly everything. I think the English use single quotation marks, while Americans use double. Not sure.
You're not an idiot.
I work as a freelance editor, proofreader and translator, and have had to use different stylesheets from different publishers. British and American usage differ here. The Chicago Manual of Style points out that in the US, quoted words, phrases, and sentences are enclosed in double quotation marks, and single QM are used for quotes within quotes. But it also says that the reverse is true in most other English-speaking countries. So it depends where you are, or at least for which publication you are writing.
Don't believe everything you hear.
The thing that bothers me the most is when people use "I" when they should use "me". Since we're talking about prepositions, one way to remember it is the fact that "I" can't be the object of a preposition.
He gave it to me and Sarah.
She talked to Sarah and me about the situation.
It's for Sarah and me to decide.
But:
Sarah and I had a discussion with her about it.
And in the last sentence above, you see another example of not being able to use a subject pronoun (I, he, she etc) as an object: after the preposition "with", you can't use "she", you have to use "her".
I think people say "She gave it to Sarah and I"
because they were corrected when they said things like "Sarah and me are going to the movies". Just goes to show that it's important to say WHY something should be different, not just correct people. All this stuff is a lot easier to remember if you grew up in a family where the language input is always correct, and where you yourself were corrected when you said something wrong. My mother did that, and she did it in a way that made it interesting, I thought. But my brother did something really funny once. He said "Rich and me are going to the movies" (or something like that). My mom said "Rich and I", and my brother looked at her quietly for a moment, sighed, and said, "Me and Rich and I are going to the movies".
It's also a lot easier if you studied Latin and/or Greek, where gender, number, case and tense are much more important. In Greek and Latin the word order, especially in verse, is far more flexible, and often the only way to find out which noun an adjective is describing is to check which words agree in case and gender.
Or the opposite in Classical Chinese, where a character often can be one of many things (verb, noun, particle, the name of the author's uncle
) depending on the context. So you can't ignore grammar if you want to figure it out.It's a lot less work (but less interesting, too, I suppose) to have it spoon-fed while growing up.
You're not an idiot.
Thanks. I switched from single quotations to double because my teacher circled all my quotation marks on an essay to inform me that I was using them incorrectly. I was baffled, but since he was an English teacher, I didn't argue (as I don't know my grammar anyway).
Turns out I was (sort of) right! This is in Canada anyway, where we're treading along the British English/American English border, particularly with regards to spelling.
In fact, I just learned that the word "cheque" was spelt "check" by Americans. I was shocked, as I had no idea. I know the obvious differences, and differences such as "defense" and "defence" (British/Canadian way), but not "cheque" and "check".
I just didn't realize the quotation marks were different. My teacher was right, but he really could have told me that I wasn't entirely wrong.
The thing that bothers me the most is when people use "I" when they should use "me". Since we're talking about prepositions, one way to remember it is the fact that "I" can't be the object of a preposition.
He gave it to me and Sarah.
She talked to Sarah and me about the situation.
It's for Sarah and me to decide.
But:
Sarah and I had a discussion with her about it.
And in the last sentence above, you see another example of not being able to use a subject pronoun (I, he, she etc) as an object: after the preposition "with", you can't use "she", you have to use "her".
I think people say "She gave it to Sarah and I"
I learnt a lot from reading that. Thanks.
The thing that bothers me the most is when people use "I" when they should use "me". Since we're talking about prepositions, one way to remember it is the fact that "I" can't be the object of a preposition.
He gave it to me and Sarah.
She talked to Sarah and me about the situation.
It's for Sarah and me to decide.
But:
Sarah and I had a discussion with her about it.
And in the last sentence above, you see another example of not being able to use a subject pronoun (I, he, she etc) as an object: after the preposition "with", you can't use "she", you have to use "her".
I think people say "She gave it to Sarah and I"
Of course, the simple way to check whether your use of 'me' or 'I' is correct or not is to remove the second person from the sentence. Thus, the incorrect sentence "She gave it to Sarah and I" becomes "She gave it to I," which is clearly incorrect!
It is an odd sentence gramatically, in that it folds back on itself. If you say "whom," it sounds as if Johnny is about to serve in some capacity for someone else (as someone else's object). If you use "who," it's as if Johnny is being asked which person to serve. Then you have the added "...as your attorney" to reckon with. A sentence's flow and grace is as important as its grammatical correctness; further, a grammatically correct sentence is not necessarily a good sentence. I agree that Johnny's dilemma is best rewritten. I was an English major in college and, anytime I got lost in a sentence, and couldn't find the breadcrumbs I had dropped to show me my way out, I would simply give up and rewrite the sucker.
As an aside, here's a punctuation teaser. Punctuate this sentence so it makes grammatical sense: "John where William had had had had had had had had had had the teachers approval." Put in any punctuation necessary to make this a proper sentence.
John, where James had had "had", had had "had had"; "had had" had had the teacher's approval.
Wow, correct except for a few small points (and William's name change
). Instead of the semicolon, put a comma, and put all commas inside the quotation marks. In American English, commas go inside quotation marks. In British English, they go outside the quotation marks.I've done a lot of editing, and I've found it is inevitable that you will make little mistakes and end up looking like a hypocrite. Editing reminds me of Dylan's line, "...Fearing not that I'd become my enemy in the instance that I preach."
Wow, correct except for a few small points (and William's name change
The semicolon in the above is correct (well, both are probably strictly correct, but the semicolon is more correct).
The semicolon is incorrect. The comma is needed to conclude the thought begun by the word "where." These are not two independent thoughts.
Wow, correct except for a few small points (and William's name change
Actually, in the Oxford Guide to Style, it says that only punctuation marks that were included in what is being quoted, should be inside the QM. And "had had" isn't really a quote here - quotation marks like these are called "scare quotes", I believe (Chicago Manual of Style 7.58). Here, the QM show that "had had" is being isolated, not quoted per say.
But I concede that there IS a norm that allows punctuation to be inside of quotation marks (unless it's a quote within a sentence, just to complicate matters more).
And the question of semicolon vs. comma here is a matter of choice. I prefer the semicolon because it makes it easier for the reader to decipher a complicated sentence. Since the phrases on either side of semicolon can both function as complete sentences, it's ok.
This is fun, most of the people I know aren't interested in talking about stuff like this.
Nah. This:
John, where James had had "had", had had "had had".
Means that John put "had" where James (or William
) had put "had had". It's a complete thought - albeit unnecessarily clumsily expressed. Better to say:
James wrote "had" where John wrote "had had".
But then it wouldn't be so much fun.
It gets really crazy to edit articles for different publications at the same time. They often use different styles, and it drives me up the wall trying to remember who wants what.
Actually, in the Oxford Guide to Style, it says that only punctuation marks that were included in what is being quoted, should be inside the QM. And "had had" isn't really a quote here - quotation marks like these are called "scare quotes", I believe (Chicago Manual of Style 7.58). Here, the QM show that "had had" is being isolated, not quoted per say.
But I concede that there IS a norm that allows punctuation to be inside of quotation marks (unless it's a quote within a sentence, just to complicate matters more).
And the question of semicolon vs. comma here is a matter of choice. I prefer the semicolon because it makes it easier for the reader to decipher a complicated sentence. Since the phrases on either side of semicolon can both function as complete sentences, it's ok.
This is fun, most of the people I know aren't interested in talking about stuff like this.
I'll have to do some research regarding the inside/outside commas, but regarding the sentence, the comma is not a matter of choice. For this sentence to make sense you need the comma. Otherwise, the second sentence, though grammatically correct in itself, reads as an afterthought. Also, the challenge was to add punctuation to make it one logical sentence.
I agree there aren't many people interested in chatting about issues like this. It's nice to find others who are.
But with the semicolon, it IS one sentence.
Doesn't matter that it consists of two phrases that can each function as a sentence. And a sentence can easily be an afterthought in context - it's still a sentence.The inside / outside comma thing is a zoo. The CMS even contradicts itself if you look long enough. That's why I always require the stylesheet from whatever publication is going to get the article.
But with the semicolon, it IS one sentence.
The inside / outside comma thing is a zoo. The CMS even contradicts itself if you look long enough. That's why I always require the stylesheet from whatever publication is going to get the article.
It is one sentence, but, if you use a semicolon, the second part still becomes an afterthought rather than the concluding clause begun by the word "where." "Where" sets up a sense of anticipation that is relieved by that final clause. But, I suppose both are valid
.Yeah, I've been looking around and there are lots of rules and exceptions. Keeping with American usage, I always keep commas inside quotation marks except where doing so could cause confusion, and have never had a problem.
The two clauses separated by the semicolon in that example can both function as complete sentences. Thus, the semicolon is appropriate.
Yea, I don't think there are any standards here, to be honest. I think I use both, but more often put punctuation marks outside, unless there is an entire sentence inside the quotation marks.
Who says that everyone must write in American English? I prefer to write in English.
It would depend entirely on your location, wouldn't it? If you lived in GB I would certainly recommend that you write in British English, where the placement of commas and periods with quotation marks depends upon the usage.
My point: there are most certainly standards regarding the placement of commas, periods, and quotation marks.
But what if you're writing a tech manual and give the reader the following instructions, "Type 'ctrl3&$buffer2,' hit the space bar twice, then hit enter." If you put the comma inside the quotes you run the risk of the person using that as the string of text to enter. In this case, you are causing confusion. You could always tell the reader not to add the final comma, but that might be confusing for some.
I think you'll find the correct Latin phrase is per se, meaning "in itself", rather than "per say", meaning nothing intelligible.
Indeed, some technical writings choose to place the comma outside in the event that placing it inside might cause confusion. However, technical pieces rarely follow strict english guidelines; the two are very different.