Curse you grammarists!

Argh, I'm just venting frustration here.

Personally I think it's dumb to have such arbitrary and unnatural rules as "not ending sentences with prepositions" or not splitting infinitives. Unfortunately, since I'm writing an academic paper, I have to try to avoid them in order to come across as "educated." Err....! Look what you've done!

Also, American punctuation is stupid, I think. I believe punctuation is supposed to go *inside* of the quotes and parentheses, even if the quoted part is a smaller part of the sentence as a whole "like this," instead of the more sensible way "like this". The same goes for parentheses (I think.) I think that's a stupid way to do it (but again, personal opinion).

1. More mature to say "different," rather than "stupid." When some children meet with a challenge, they call the challenge stupid. That you have to satisfy your teachers is not the fault of the language aces in the U.S. Well, maybe it's not just their fault. Consider that also there are aces in the UK, CA, AU, etc. (whatever their equivalent names are to Spain's Real Academia) It doesn't necessarily stand to reason that this is USA's fault just because USA bores some people on certain other issues.

2. I agree with you that there shouldn't be a difference in the way English speakers around the world punctuate written information. Maybe an expert on this board can explain the lack of a consensus among nations. Let's hope that stubbornness and pride aren't part of the reasoning.

3. Also, use newspaper and magazine articles as a quick reference (at least where the placement of quotation marks are concerned), and I don't mean media of a questionable background.

Gabe, I forgot to add:

I know you're venting frustration.

Yeah, but American style punctuation is illogical. I'd find it a challange to adapt to this "stupidity" ... or "differentness" (if you will).

It's different for sure, American punctution. Different not only to the punctuation standards used in other English dialects but different to the standards used in other languages.

We (non-Americans) use our style because, well, it just makes sense. Americans use their style (apparently) because it's supposed to look prettier ... hmmm ... dunno how.

''We (non-Americans) use our style because, well, it just makes sense. Americans use their style (apparently) because it's supposed to look prettier ... hmmm ... dunno how.''

Jim,

How would it be if everyone started using less and less punctuation

Note that I didnt use any punctuation at the end of that sentence nor did I put an apostrophe in didnt

Well how would it be

You can see by how it looks here

Is it very difficult to read

Is it very difficult to understand what Im writing without punctuation

It could lead to ambiguity as well as reading difficulty.

>Maybe an expert on this board can explain the lack of a consensus
>among nations.

There has never been a real standardization of English punctuation in the way that there is a standardization of spelling. Large publishers will adopt a fixed style (or pick a stylebook to follow) for consistency, but different large publishers choose different ones. Newspapers tend to have a different style than books.

There are some parts of English punctuation that are standard. For example, a period ends a regular sentence. But the use of commas, the use of hypens/en dashes/em dashes, etc. varies widely.

In general, publishers that care about punctuation will have a copy editor who will go through and fix all the punctuation to match the publisher's standard. So all that Gabe has to do is avoid making obvious mistakes (such as adding extra commas) and the editors will take care of subtle points (such as putting closing punctuation inside of quotes).

>>There has never been a real standardization of English punctuation in the way that there is a standardization of spelling.<<

That is strange. By the way, I agree that American style of punctuation is a little bit illogical. In my language punctuation goes outside of quotation marks, brackets etc., unless the whole sentence is inside of them. Written in English, it would look like this:

Example 1: "I was sitting right there. (He didn't see me, though.)" - the full-stop is inside the brackets

Example 2: "I was sitting right there (even though he didn't see me)." -
the full-stop is outside of brackets

It is just logical, it goes with the rest of the sentence. I think that way is used in most languages.

I have heard a rumor several times that the ``American'' punctuation style was invented for use with movable type on printing presses because it protected the small pieces of metal that made periods and commas by putting a larger piece of metal beside them. I don't know if this is actually true.

>Example 1: "I was sitting right there. (He didn't see me, though.)" -
>he full-stop is inside the brackets
>Example 2: "I was sitting right there (even though he didn't see me)." -

American punctuation would be the same for those two examples. Periods don't move inside parentheses, only inside quotations. Unless an entire sentence is in parentheses, as in example 2. At least, that is the style I have learned in educated American writing.

Here is a short primer of ``American'' punctuation.

(1) Follow the English rules except with periods and commas.
(2) A period of comma which, in English rules, would follow a quotation mark is moved inside the quotation mark. This in no way means that the quotation is an entire sentence.
(3) Exclamation marks and question marks do not move inside quotations UNLESS they are part of the quotation. No period is necessary.

He yelled, ``Fire!''
She asked, ``Where?''
Did you say ``hop''?


(3) There are many other rules dealing with dashes, hyphens, etc. but they are too esoteric for anyone to remember except editors.

>>He yelled, "Fire!''
She asked, "Where?''
Did you say "hop''? <<

Well, in these examples the punctuation would be the same in my native language. (Except for one thing - we would use ":" instead of comma before the quote, so it would be like >>He yelled: "Fire!"<<) But the point is: If the text inside of quotation marks is a part of the sentence, then the punctuation goes outside. If the whole sentence is inside the quotation marks, then the punctuation goes inside. That rules applies for periods and commas as well as any other punctuation mark.

Oops, typo....I meant "that rule applies", not "that rules applies".

The word Tense comes form Latin Tempus, meaning time. Indeed, grammarists have first agreed that tense is to used to express time. But there is a big trouble: there aren't as many notions of time as tenses. Take the common use of the three tenses -- Simple Past, Present Perfect, Simple Present -- for example: three tenses have to share only two notions of time: past and present. There is one tense too many. Therefore, grammarists elbow the agreement and switch a tense from time to a meaning: Simple Present denotes Habit. So, they may claim the two tenses left are for two notions of time: Present Perfect is for present time, and Simple Past is for past time.

-- This is why they claim Simple Present denotes Habit, drawing your attention away from time, and not mentioning 'present Habit'.

-- This is why some grammarists even call Simple Present action 'timeless'.

-- This is why they emphasize Present Perfect is a 'present tense'.

After all, they cannot rationalize that both Simple Present and Present Perfect denote the present time, can they?


Switching a tense from time to a meaning has broken the agreement to use tense, but grammar writers have thought it feasible temporarily, and that they may have updated it later, perhaps very soon. However, in doing so, they have to accept a little inconvenience: they cannot put the three tenses together for contrast. Have you ever seen they compare Simple Present with Present Perfect at all? Certainly not! If they do, students will instantly see which is the real owner of 'present time':

Ex: He works in that company. (a present action)
Ex: He has worked in that company. (a past action)

Rather, all we have seen from grammars is the comparison between Present Perfect and Simple Past. They will not put the three tenses together for a contrast. This avoidance has already become a must in the conventional grammar.

Even treating Simple Present unfairly, grammar writers are baffled by the Present Perfect tense alone, which can actually denote something either present or past:

Ex: He has worked there since 2001. (a present action)
Ex: He has worked there before/in the past. (a past action)

Therefore, the tense ITSELF is a contradiction, or a confusion, which drives grammar writers to their wit's end. The dual denotations are so obvious and so incompatible, but grammarians have always avoided the sharp incompatibility. Displaying firework in the explanation, they can make the two contradictory functions sound like not so contradictory. Nonetheless, unfortunately, the notions of time are once again not enough. Two notions of time, past and present, are not enough to share for Simple Past and the two contradictory notions of Present Perfect. Then again, grammars break the agreement further and switch a part of Present Perfect to meaning: denoting Result, Consequence, or Aspect.

If grammar writers still remember to emphasize the present time for Present Perfect, they may call its meaning Current Relevancy. Luckily, the bully Present Perfect still owns the present time. In contrast, grammars have never clearly pointed out that Simple Present denotes a Current Habit.

Because Present Perfect itself is a confusion containing two contradictory notions, it is a sheer difficulty if one wants to compare it further with Simple Past. The two tenses, Simple Past and Present Perfect, are a famous pair of nuisances in the explanation of tense. It is even very hard for scholars to tell the nuance in their usage. Obviously, a strategy has to be maneuvered to tell the difference, for the sake of students. This is why grammars preach "Present Perfect cannot stay with past time adverbials":

Ex: *He has worked there yesterday.
== The correct tense here should have been Simple Past.

However, in preaching so, they have done something that they thought, again, was temporary: to hide away unfavorable evidences -- those structures in which Present Perfect stays with past time adverbials:

Ex: He has worked there in the past three years.

In my terms, time adverbials in the pattern "in the past xx years" are called Past Family. Hiding them away from grammar books is a registered mark of the old approach in explaining tense. If you ask about the Past Family, grammarians can find many excuses to explain the pattern, switching past to last, for example, so the pattern "in the last xx years" doesn't sound like 'past'. The bad thing is, they still cannot find excuses to explain why all of grammar books or websites have missed the Past Family.

When will they update the grammar?

I'm American, and I don't put any punctuation inside quotation marks that doesn't belong with whatever's being quoted. I have no problem with writing "I have to try to avoid them in order to come across as 'educated'." -- putting the period (or full stop, if you prefer) outside of the first quote and inside the second.

Punctuation varies from country to country, and most academic rules are arbitrary and (occasionally) pointless. Ordinary people rarely remember them after graduation, anyway. What I mean to say is, "don't sweat it" -- use what you like.

Or what will get you the best grade....