"Grammar Police" why ?

canonagain123 said:

Gerry Winterbourne said:

canonagain123 said:

Well, in that case I surmise it depends entirely on how your brain works, so there's individual variance. For me it's the other way around, I concentrate on the words and if I read a complete sentence or a complete phrase, nothing coming after it can change that. If I paused in the manner you suggested, it would be to wonder if I had to change my already certain assesment of the previous sentence being complete, so a different order entirely. I can't even think of an example or if that happens, but to make it a little clearer: if I read "come ,on inside he.. /said", my thoughts would go something like this. "Come on inside. He said. Come on inside, he said or possibly "Come on! Inside!", he said. No, it's definitely the first one. Oh, I notice there's some extra punctuation there, but no matter, none of it seems to be necessary."

Click to expand...

If I encountered "come on inside he said" I'd read it smoothly and probably (it would need a bit of context to be sure) construe it as "come on inside, he said". And that would be it unless something later cast doubt on that construction.

If I encountered "come ,on inside he.. /said" the first thing I'd notice would be the irregularities in punctuation. I'd pause to remove the punctuation mentally, which would get me to the starting point of the preceding paragraph. That pause is the slowing caused by the irregularities.

If you are saying that odd punctuation is something you simply don't notice - in other words, you actually perceive only the words and not the punctuation - then what is the purpose of the punctuation you put in your own writing? And if you do perceive it, how can that perception followed by removal of the errant punctuation be done in zero time.

Or, to put it another way, if the errant punctuation doesn't slow you down would you go through all this: my thoughts would go something like this. "Come on inside. He said. Come on inside, he said or possibly "Come on! Inside!", he said. No, it's definitely the first one. Oh, I notice there's some extra punctuation there, but no matter, none of it seems to be necessary" in no time at all?

Click to expand...

I simplified it a little bit, but it actually gets quite complicated. If that was written by someone else, my thoughts in complete order would go like this (some things in parentheses are to describe or explain).

Click to expand...

You seem to be describing two things here: (1) the way your thought processes operate while reading and (2) the actual interpretation you put on the words you see written. For example, unless you really give yourself instructions as you go along I doubt if you consciously think "understand the meaning of the sentence" although, of course, the end result of your efforts is that you do understand the sentence.

Member said:

"my thoughts would go something like this. complete sentence. understand the meaning of the sentence. expected next: thoughts. encountered a quote, make a mental note and skim ahead. several sentences without an ending quote, keep on reading. Comeone inside. He said. Come on inside, he said or possibly (pause: repetition: variation of the same. Check for irregularities/differences. activate attention to punctuation) Difference: "Come on inside" vs "Come on (exclamation) inside (exclamation) difference: tone in the latter more agitated, apprehensive, or possibly just louder. Keep reading. Oh, there's some extra punctuation there (at this point I'd skim back to the "come inside..\, " or remember there was extra punctuation (I would have made a mental note of its existence even if I ignored it completely as a factor in the meaning) at this point I would have the whole paragraph with its meaning clear in my head. I'd read the last bit "there, but no matter, none of it seems to be necessary" and note that it was exactly the thought I already deduced the whole idea/paragraph would have ended in (call it presumptuous reading, if you will. It actually makes reading a LOT faster, since most of the time I'm right and I have a pretty good feeling when I can just stop reading because no new unexpected information follows.) Mental note: uneven number of quotes and some quotes missing, automatically corrected.

Click to expand...

It takes time to do each of the things you've listed, albeit each item takes a very small amount of time. If the aberrant punctuation wasn't there your process would have been the same except that you wouldn't have taken the steps I've made bold. Unless you can take those steps in zero time you'd read quicker without the need for them.

Member said:

Enjoy the trip to inside my head?

Click to expand...

Interesting rather than enjoyable.

Member said:

When I compose a text, it goes in a completely different way, there's almost no similarity to how I read.

Click to expand...

Of course. But that's not what I was getting at. Whatever the internal process you use to generate writing, the output is visible on the page. You can go back and read it later but, usually, you write for someone else to read and understand what you've written. Like most of us, your writing is punctuated. Indeed, it's punctuated in the standard sort of way that is thought "right" by most English speakers.

Why do you punctuate? I can think of two likely reasons (both of which can operate together; I'd be interested if there are others I've missed). One is that you were taught to convert your thoughts - completely different, as you say - into a coherent text that others can understand. The other is that you are considerate of your readers(s) and put punctuation in to help them.

As I've said, your punctuation is standard; that's what makes it helpful. If just any old punctuation thrown in at random was helpful we'd never have developed standards. If punctuation didn't help at all we'd never have invented it. Flip this on its head and non-standard punctuation hinders rather than helps. That hindrance can have two effects (again, both could operate): slowing reading down or obscuring meaning.

Member said:

Did this get complicated enough yet?

Click to expand...

Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio (I labour to be brief, I become obscure) (Horace).

I think it's probably more complicated than either of us has expressed it.

ChristophBarthold said:

Jacobite said:

You shuld all lern to speek proper like whot I does.

Click to expand...

This is totally off topic, but what does a Jacobite do in the 21. century? ;-)

Click to expand...

He dreams of September 18th, 2014.;-)

canonagain123 said:

who uses 'loan' in lieu of 'lend'? "Can you loan me..." Who would say that? I've seriously never heard that yet.

Click to expand...

It's done all the time. It was even used for a song title a long time ago.


Websters refers to it as a transitive verb and a synonym of lend.


Read the whole thing as the history of it's use is very informative.

Just for fun, what is wrong with the following statement?

Too many cooks spoils the broth.

canonagain123 said:

Learn something new every day. I didn't know it had crept in a dictionary. I suppose by that standard it's now correct then.

Click to expand...

The verb loan may actually predate lend.

"The verb loan is one of the words English settlers brought to America and continued to use after it had died out in Britain. Its use was soon noticed by British visitors and somewhat later by the New England literati, who considered it a bit provincial. It was flatly declared wrong in 1870 by a popular commentator, who based his objection on etymology. A later scholar showed that the commentator was ignorant of Old English and thus unsound in his objection, but by then it was too late, as the condemnation had been picked up by many other commentators. Although a surprising number of critics still voice objections, loan is entirely standard as a verb. You should note that it is used only literally; lend is the verb used for figurative expressions, such as “lending a hand” or“lending enchantment.”

--
Tom
Look at the picture, not the pixels
------------
Miss use of the ability to do 100% pixel peeping is the bane of digital photography because it causes people to fret over inconsequential issues.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

I'm glad to have provided so much entertainment to most of you . I am not without same for careless editing. I'll be lucky if people from here on out say ' he made a Johnie '. the good news this thread is done . Peace

Bwah hah hah!