Punctuation that denotes pauses like , ; : should be placed based on where the writer wants a pause and how long the pause should be, or when needed to avoid ambiguity, NOT on the bullshit arbitrary grammar “rules” that got made up to sell grammar books and enforce the class divide.
It’s very easy to find classics full of “bad” grammar when it comes to the punctuation because it’s in fact not bad.
Wholeheartedly agree, it’s not like the best authors ever follow those rules in that way, grammar should be used to enhance readability, pacing, and tone when you have a good idea how it may be read.
It’s very easy to find classics full of “bad” grammar when it comes to the punctuation because it’s in fact not bad.
This is wrong for at least four reasons:
Incidents of “incorrect” punctuation in classics is due in large part to the role of various punctuation marks changing over time. For example, the semicolon was once used at the end of questions like a question mark. The em-dash was used in earlier modern English for long pauses, but is no longer.
“Classics” is a broad category, and they were written for many different purposes and audiences: they should not necessarily be held as paragons of style. If you’re trying to write intentionally, and for a large audience, the grammatical use of punctuation is helpful. For example, Emily Dickinson’s poems were primarily written for herself, and were highly stylistic. Not a style you’d want to replicate when writing, for example, a newspaper article.
There is a punctuation which explicitly denotes a pause: the en-dash. Why use punctuation which has a specific purpose to do the exact same thing?
Different dialects use pause in different ways. Just as purely phonetic spelling would be terrible for internationally audiences, purely phonetic spelling would make texts more difficult to understand. You say punctuation rules enforce a class divide. I say they help bridge class divides by giving a common set of rules not based on and particular English.
Writer here. Don’t blindly follow dumb style rules. I write how I speak; and when you write how you speak, you end up using a lot of semicolons and em dashes (if you’re competent). Each “pausing-type” punctuation means something specific, and they are all vital for clarity and natural flow. And informal or spliced sentences are good. Style rules are too formal, and sometimes as antiquated as “‘ain’t aint’ a word”. So instead do what works— what makes things natural and easy to read.
Punctuation that denotes pauses like , ; : should be placed based on where the writer wants a pause and how long the pause should be, or when needed to avoid ambiguity, NOT on the bullshit arbitrary grammar “rules” that got made up to sell grammar books and enforce the class divide.
It’s very easy to find classics full of “bad” grammar when it comes to the punctuation because it’s in fact not bad.
Nice to see another fan of the Shatner Comma on the fediverse.
I’ve never heard it called the “Shatner Comma” until today, and I will never, call it anything else.
Discovered it years ago!
Holy shit, another person who calls it that! I found it on accident years ago and I love to use that term.
Wholeheartedly agree, it’s not like the best authors ever follow those rules in that way, grammar should be used to enhance readability, pacing, and tone when you have a good idea how it may be read.
This is how I do it, and I’m not sorry.
This is wrong for at least four reasons:
Incidents of “incorrect” punctuation in classics is due in large part to the role of various punctuation marks changing over time. For example, the semicolon was once used at the end of questions like a question mark. The em-dash was used in earlier modern English for long pauses, but is no longer.
“Classics” is a broad category, and they were written for many different purposes and audiences: they should not necessarily be held as paragons of style. If you’re trying to write intentionally, and for a large audience, the grammatical use of punctuation is helpful. For example, Emily Dickinson’s poems were primarily written for herself, and were highly stylistic. Not a style you’d want to replicate when writing, for example, a newspaper article.
There is a punctuation which explicitly denotes a pause: the en-dash. Why use punctuation which has a specific purpose to do the exact same thing?
Different dialects use pause in different ways. Just as purely phonetic spelling would be terrible for internationally audiences, purely phonetic spelling would make texts more difficult to understand. You say punctuation rules enforce a class divide. I say they help bridge class divides by giving a common set of rules not based on and particular English.
But the purpose of those punctuation marks is not to denote a pause. They each have their own individual purpose.
Or just go the Cormac McCarthy route and wage a lifelong holy war against it.
Writer here. Don’t blindly follow dumb style rules. I write how I speak; and when you write how you speak, you end up using a lot of semicolons and em dashes (if you’re competent). Each “pausing-type” punctuation means something specific, and they are all vital for clarity and natural flow. And informal or spliced sentences are good. Style rules are too formal, and sometimes as antiquated as “‘ain’t aint’ a word”. So instead do what works— what makes things natural and easy to read.
This is an idea that would’ve never crossed my mind due to the school system but I love it. Now to see if my teachers will xD