Philotic Web

Posted: **Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:42 am**

Okay, folks, I have a question.

When you're typing emoticons (that don't automatically turn into cute little smilies) at the end of a sentence, do you still punctuate following that? Or before? Or not at all?

Like, pretend I said something funny here. :)

I'd like to know which style is correct :).

I think the above one looks like the smile is drooling, so I'm guessing it's wrong :)

However, you could put a space between the smile and the period, which looks less like drool :) .

Which one is appropriate, and since emoticons are so popular, do you think there will ever be a formal rule on how to use them with punctuation? :)

Or should that be :) ?

Posted: **Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:48 am**

I like it after the punctuation. :stonedkermit

Posted: **Wed Oct 24, 2007 12:07 pm**

After the punctuation. I wouldn't consider myself an authority on grammar, but to me the punctuation represents the end of a thought, and the emoticon is seperate from that, and thus, should go after the punctuation, or in parentheses in the middle

Posted: **Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:13 pm**

Although, I've always had problems with smilies in parentheses, too, (because, putting a close parenthesis after a smilie makes it look double-chinned :)).

Posted: **Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:49 pm**

. :).

Posted: **Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:31 pm**

I wonder, though. Does your opinion change when the smiley is used mid-paragraph? It seems sort of odd, just floating out there between sentences. :) I'm not sure I like that, either :). Although, I suppose, it's better than the alternative. Hm.

Posted: **Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:36 pm**

or just forego punctuation and just use a smiley

Â«ducksÂ»

I think it kinda depends, with a question mark especially, coming before a question mark sort of means "said with a smile" to me, while a smiley after a question mark means the question could have a completely different tone and you're smiling afterwards to establish a different tone, clarify a meaning, take the bite out of potentially harsh words, or add accent to something neutral.

Do you think I'm funny? Funny?

Funny how

? Funny like a clown?

Do I amuse you

?

(realises the goodfellas example doesn't really apply when the smiley is transformed into an emoticon, but it was fun to type.

)

Posted: **Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:41 pm**

Well when it comes to grammar, I am probably the Nazis worst enemy, so much so that they will probably put me in there form of "concentration camps" (otherwise known as English classes

) for life; but until they do I will have to side with after, with a space.

Yeah, I know I am going to feel the glow of many a Grammar Nazis, just with this post.

Posted: **Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:10 pm**

Technically the answer has to be none of the above. This is due to the fact that the smiley is an improper use of punctuation marks and therefore is an affront to all that is holy. Or at least to all that is grammar.

So there

Posted: **Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:38 pm**

Generally, if I intended to punctuate the sentence with a period, I omit the punctuation and simply write the smilie. If, however, I write it in conjunction with a question or exclamation mark, I write it after the punctuation.

To wit:

I use smilies too often

You do not!

Are you sure?

I see them all over the place

Now, when I need to place a smilie inside of parentheses in a medium or format that doesn't automatically convert the keystrokes into a visual smilie, I insert a space before the closing parenthesis.

And no, I don't suspect it will ever be a formal rule. But who knows.

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:27 am**

When you're typing emoticons (that don't automatically turn into cute little smilies) at the end of a sentence, do you still punctuate following that? Or before? Or not at all?

I found it funny how the last option is not a choice in the poll.

I've never heard of any "correct" way of doing it, but I don't remember ever seeing an emoticon immediately before a full stop. Usually people either omit punctuation or put the full stop afterwards. There's also the embed-in-parens way (like this :). I tend not to use them a lot, though.

Oh, and you may be interested in this (warning: PDF) if you're curious about emoticon usage.

And just a random note on emoticons: I hate things that convert text emoticons to image-smileys. I mean, for something like stonedkermit it makes sense, since there's no text equivalent. But I think the text ones have a very different effect than seeing an image "equivalent", which makes things weird when communication over e.g. an IM client when using them.

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:09 pm**

Well when it comes to grammar,

Well, when it comes to grammar,

I am probably the Nazis

Nazis'

worst enemy, so much so that they will probably put me in there

their

form of "concentration camps" (otherwise known as English classes ) for life; but until they do I will have to side with after, with a space.

Yeah, I know I am going to feel the glow of many a Grammar Nazis,

Nazi (singular)

just with this post.

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:41 pm**

You missed a few needed commas in there, Ethan.

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:37 pm**

And we would not put you into English class. No, we would put you somewhere where you would actually learn grammar, along with everybody in English who has not learned their grammar. Rather, all those who do not know proper grammar would be sent to Latin class. For, indeed, with Latin having been studied, they will understand proper grammar.

Posted: **Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:00 pm**

See, I disagree, Brent. I think you can learn proper grammar in an English class. I'm enrolled in a class entitled "Structures of the English Language" (taught by the President of the American Dialect Society--if you've read any AP stories about "new" words being added to the dictionary, you've read his quotes) because it's required for Literature and Writing majors. But despite the fact that nobody would take it if it weren't required, the class certainly is extremely valuable.

I further disagree that you can learn English grammar by studying the grammar of Latin instead of English. For starters, the best way to understand the mechanics of any language is to study (*gasp*) that language. English is a bastard language. The best way to understand its mechanics is to study it. You don't study Spanish to understand the mechanics of French. They share a lot in common and if you know one, it's easier to pick up the other, but that doesn't mean you should pick the former over the latter when trying to understand the latter. It's just silly. Plus it just makes you sound more pompous than I am, which is a feat not easily accomplished.

Posted: **Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:42 pm**

You certainly have your crankybritches on today.

Posted: **Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:23 pm**

Woo, I can drop names too!

The thing is that most schools don't offer an English grammar and usage course, and most students who graduate with English degrees don't know jack s*** about the English language. How many times have I seen papers graded by utterly incompetent English TAs who can't tell a passive sentence from Adam and are convinced that they are always, always wrong, no matter what?

The thing is, learning a foreign language is an excellent way to learn grammar - if they teach it grammatically, which is not the case for most modern language courses. Dead and/or ancient languages get taught by grammar, and if you take more than a couple introductory courses, you are going to develop an instinctive understanding of most of the basic structures of grammar. Latin is especially good for this, because while English is a Germanic language, a few musty old snobs a hundred years ago or so decided that it needed to follow Latinate rules as much as possible. Taking Latin helps one understand why we have those rules, and (if one is observant and spend enough time with the language) where they are silly and arbitrary. Heck, chuck in some Anglo-Saxon, if you want to understand even more.

Most schools don't offer English grammar and usage courses. Most students don't take them. And a single term's worth of it is (look out, my turn to be snobby!) no match for several years of working with the language that - arbitrarily as may be - forms the basis of standard "good grammar" in English. You have to learn not only to recognise structures, but to understand them, use them, react to them almost on instinct. It's not perfect, but it is very, very good. (Greek is also good for this, but I never took it, so I can't comment from experience.)

English Lit students are - to be blunt and entirely snobby - grammatically illiterate as a whole. This includes those who have taken an into to linguistics course (though those are a bit better than others). There are few more depressing and frustrating experiences than being stuck in a class full of English majors trying to diagram their first sentence. (After such an experience, Latin students are allowed to be a little bitter.) It's not their fault - they've never been taught. Even ESL, they've never been taught. English departments focus on criticism and theory, to the detriment of linguistic knowledge. Sad, but true. If your school is a pioneer and actually makes you learn a bit of grammar, and you actually learn from it - hey, bully for you. And I mean that entirely without sarcasm.

Meanwhile, I will stick with my Latin, who have never been offered an English structures class in my life. And I will get the funny in Brent's concluding sentence.

Posted: **Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:30 pm**

And to add to what EL has said, I've taken a class called Structure of the English language. It was a good class, although not required for English students at my previous university (I have no clue what the standards are here). However, as EL said, that semester, while it taught me a lot, has not taught me near so much as even the small amount of Latin that I have. This is because such a class is largely theory, whereas in Latin all you can do is practice using what you know over and over and over again. And let's face it, you learn something much deeper by doing it repeatedly than just by studying it.

Posted: **Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:20 pm**

I love Latin as much as the next guy (well, probably a lot more, actually), but I am cautious about using it as a way of studying English grammar. Yes, studying Latin grammar has made me much, much more aware of grammar in general, and has given me an array of grammatical concepts which I can apply to English. However, historically, people have tried to apply the grammar of Latin directly to English, which just doesn't work. There is absolutely no reason for English to prohibit split infinitives other than the fact that in Latin, an infinitive is a single word, and therefore unsplittable. Likewise, the proscription against ending a sentence with a preposition is pretty much arbitrary. That's a part of the English language, and there are many instances in which the theoretically "correct" way sounds awkward and stilted.

Posted: **Sat Oct 27, 2007 3:06 am**

Taking Latin helps one understand why we have those rules, and (if one is observant and spend enough time with the language) where they are silly and arbitrary.

That's why I said that, Wizz. Knowing where the rules come from and why is a good way to know how "rules" get misapplied to English. Instead of learning a roster of silly prescriptivist rules, students learn where they came from.

The other big thing is the inflected bit. You can't skim and inflected language. You have to know how nouns function, the difference between tense and mood and voice. It's grammar immersion. No, it doesn't translate precisely into English. But it's a very rare person who will sit down and spend 3, 4, 5 years or a lifetime parsing English sentences - and those people exist in linguistics programs, not English departments. People who graduate with a degree in English don't get taught grammar and structure.

They should - they really should. These are the people who will be teaching my future children. And many other children. They will teach them the smattering of half-understood and arbitrary "rules" that they picked up on the internet or by reading the excreable Strunk and White. All prescriptivism and no sense. It's a shame.

I will trust the knowledge of my Latinist colleagues over any English major any day of the week.

Posted: **Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:39 am**

I found it funny how the last option is not a choice in the poll.

It was, but for some reason when I hit submit, the poll-gods decided it wasn't worth having and it was lost in cyberspace.

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2007 3:41 pm**

The thing is that most schools don't offer an English grammar and usage course, and most students who graduate with English degrees don't know jack s*** about the English language.

Pure unsubstantiated crap. Unless you'd feel like backing this kind of outrageous crap up, I'd suggesting keeping it to a minimum.

The thing is, learning a foreign language is an excellent way to learn grammar - if they teach it grammatically, which is not the case for most modern language courses. Dead and/or ancient languages get taught by grammar, and if you take more than a couple introductory courses, you are going to develop an instinctive understanding of most of the basic structures of grammar.

I never said that learning a foreign language wasn't helpful for understanding grammar in general. I said that the best way to understand the grammar of one language is to (*gasp*) study the mechanics of the same language. You can sit there on your high horse and talk about how much Latin has helped you all you want. Great, I'm glad you like it. You're still dead wrong that studying one language better teaches you the mechanics of another than the one you're trying to understand. I never said that learning Latin wasn't helpful in understanding grammar, just that it most certainly is not more helpful than learning the mechanics of English itself.

Taking Latin helps one understand why we have those rules, and (if one is observant and spend enough time with the language) where they are silly and arbitrary. Heck, chuck in some Anglo-Saxon, if you want to understand even more.

Guess what? You can learn exactly the same thing in classes designed to teach the mechanics of the English language. (A comment about the last bit quoted: we're required to take a year of both Old English and Middle English.)

Most schools don't offer English grammar and usage courses. Most students don't take them.

See above.

And a single term's worth of it is (look out, my turn to be snobby!) no match for several years of working with the language that - arbitrarily as may be - forms the basis of standard "good grammar" in English.

And several years of working with the mechanics of Latin is no match for several years of working with the mechanics of English. You're trying to compare apples with oranges (one course with a lifetime of study). Well, one course in Latin is no match for a lifetime of studying the mechanics of English. See, I can make invalid comparisons, too.

You have to learn not only to recognise structures, but to understand them, use them, react to them almost on instinct. It's not perfect, but it is very, very good. (Greek is also good for this, but I never took it, so I can't comment from experience.)

And this can't be done by studying the mechanics of English itself?

More to come...

Posted: **Mon Oct 29, 2007 5:32 pm**

English Lit students are - to be blunt and entirely snobby - grammatically illiterate as a whole.

Word.

Posted: **Mon Oct 29, 2007 8:31 pm**

I think, normally, I put it after the punctuation and the space.

Because, to me, it's a separate thing. It's not part of the sentence, so it comes after it, but needs some space to delineate its place.
That's the way I do it anyway.
SARA

Posted: **Mon Oct 29, 2007 9:26 pm**

Guess what? You can learn exactly the same thing in classes designed to teach the mechanics of the English language. (A comment about the last bit quoted: we're required to take a year of both Old English and Middle English.)

Out of curiosity, which school do you go to? I have never heard of any school requiring English students to study those.

Posted: **Tue Oct 30, 2007 9:53 am**

I'd rather not give out all of my personal information to everyone, but feel free to hit me up on AIM if you're really interested.

PS -- Waterloo apparently requires English students to take the same kind of courses, as well.

Posted: **Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:33 pm**

Well since the above question is dead, I don't think Kirsten will mind if I take over her thread (or at least I hope not).

I recently attended a Grammar refresher (yes, by choice because I actually make some effort to write well. Despite what popular opinion may be

) and the teacher stated an interested point about sentence list and commas. It seems to be a small debate about whether a comma is needed after the second to last item in a list or if the comma basically means "and/or" so can be ignored when "and/or" is actually used.

Example:
Jill went to the store to pick up bread, meat, and milk.

or

Jill went to the store to pick up bread, meat and milk.

Well the teacher gave the best explanation; but I want to know what you think. She said that the second example is part of journalistic grammar, where characters can be a big deal because of newspaper columns and such; but the method for every day grammar is technically the first one.

I think this might have been said before on one of the boards; but conversations do have a habit of being recycled.

Thanks.

Posted: **Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:44 pm**

I've always heard that the Oxford comma's presence or absence had no bearing on meaning and that both were grammatical. That being said, I will always use it as I find it brings clarity to the text and prevents the last two items of a list being linked more strongly than intended.

Posted: **Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:52 pm**

Well the teacher gave the best explanation; but I want to know what you think. She said that the second example is part of journalistic grammar, where characters can be a big deal because of newspaper columns and such; but the method for every day grammar is technically the first one.

It's commonly called the "Oxford comma." Why? Oxford requires it in their publications. Traditionally, those trained in journalism always left it off and part of that certainly was due to character limits and the cost of ink. There does seem to be a shift taking place on that count, though, as many more journalism students are being taught that either both ways are acceptable or that the Oxford comma is preferred. This could certainly be a matter of experts vs professionals, though. The experts (professors) are trying to make a shift, but if the professionals (those in the field) don't accept it, it only hinders those entering the workforce with an education based upon the shift.

At any rate, I always use the Oxford comma, but that's sort of my personal thing. It's correct both ways and you can write amazing prose using either (Hemingway avoided commas like the plague!). I'd suggest reading Eats, Shoots, and Leaves if you're really interested in this, as it makes grammar quirky and fun. The author(s) devote quite a bit of time to the Oxford comma, too.

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:02 am**

Example:
Jill went to the store to pick up bread, meat, and milk.

or

Jill went to the store to pick up bread, meat and milk.

I read the latter as if you're speaking to someone named "meat and milk". I'm not saying anything about correctness w.r.t grammar or anything; that's just how I usually see it.

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:10 pm**

I found the bit about it being called an Oxford comma a rather interesting bit of trivia, and I will, of course, use it at the first available opportunity.

In high school, our teachers acknowledged that it could be left off, but threatened us with slow, painful death if we did leave it off. They considered it to be lazy (and slightly confusing) not to use it.

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:49 pm**

Not to bring actual logic into a discussion of English punctuation rules, but to me, the comma represents a pause in the speech stream, and when I'm speaking, I pause after every item in the list, including the second to last one, so I prefer to put that comma there. Just my 2 cents.

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:34 pm**

I've always heard that the Oxford comma's presence or absence had no bearing on meaning and that both were grammatical. That being said, I will always use it as I find it brings clarity to the text and prevents the last two items of a list being linked more strongly than intended.

Exactly.

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:41 pm**

So yesterday in my third-year class we discussed our papers that were just handed back. In particular, certain grammatical aspects were discussed. For example, the appropriate usage of the apostrophe and where not to use it.

For instance, the plural of "table" is "tables," not "table's." The possessive singular is "table's," not "tables'." And the possessive plural is "tables'," not "tables's."

Presumably everyone in this class has had roughly three years of university education and this is still an issue. And, sadly enough, I am not surprised at all as I have seen just such issues and worse in fourth-year English papers.

Posted: **Thu Nov 08, 2007 3:36 am**

For instance, the plural of "table" is "tables," not "table's." The possessive singular is "table's," not "tables'." And the possessive plural is "tables'," not "tables's."

Presumably everyone in this class has had roughly three years of university education and this is still an issue.

They didn't know/understand the rules, or there were just mistakes involving the above rule in whatever paper? Just because someone writes "the tables leg is loose" doesn't mean they don't understand English.

Philotic Web

Random Question for the Grammar Nazis

Random Question for the Grammar Nazis

Re: Random Question for the Grammar Nazis

Re: Random Question for the Grammar Nazis