• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!

116 posts in this topic

5 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

As far as I'm concerned, "ain't" is perfectly fine, but it's also useful for conveying information about the speaker when writing dialogue.

Yes, usually implies a lower-status individual. I was quite startled by one of PG Wodehouse's early Blandings Castle stories when Lord Emsworth (a not too bright, but definitely upper-crust character) used "ain't" several times.  I believe Lord Ickenham (otherwise known as Uncle Fred), a very bright character, also used the word once or twice. Wodehouse had an excellent ear for English, it seems unlikely that these were accidents on his part.

Both characters' formative years would have been late nineteenth century, so I surmise that "ain't was a word in good standing then.

Of course, I just thought to check, there's a Wikipedia article that discusses this very thing.  I wonder how good it is.

Edited by Amiable Dorsai
Missing apostrophe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Random thought, from a very white bread older dude.  Sort of on topic with current NP.

I know that "bae" is supposed to be an acronym for "before anyone else", but wouldn't bao (before all others) be some what better?  Of course Bao has some other meanings as well, but none of them even remotely mean poop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mlooney said:

Random thought, from a very white bread older dude.  Sort of on topic with current NP.

I know that "bae" is supposed to be an acronym for "before anyone else", but wouldn't bao (before all others) be some what better?  Of course Bao has some other meanings as well, but none of them even remotely mean poop.

Probably, at least in terms of what the acronym stands for. In the case of Bae over Bao, it's more likely what sounds better when spoken as an acronym. "So and so is my bao." just doesn't roll of the tongue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Scotty said:

Probably, at least in terms of what the acronym stands for. In the case of Bae over Bao, it's more likely what sounds better when spoken as an acronym. "So and so is my bao." just doesn't roll of the tongue.

To my "white and nerdy" tongue, "bae" doesn't roll either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mlooney said:

To my "white and nerdy" tongue, "bae" doesn't roll either.

I look at it this way: it works for the people using it. If it doesn't work for me, I use alternatives or make up my own.

And get looked at like I was weird. Which I am, so that's OK, I guess.

mlooney likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

I look at it this way: it works for the people using it. If it doesn't work for me, I use alternatives or make up my own.

And get looked at like I was weird. Which I am, so that's OK, I guess.

I am a role playing gamer, programmer, veteran in an odd branch of the army, who spent my adult formative years in Germany.  From the American south.  Add in ADHD and being an aspi and I'm not 100% sure I really speak English when I drop into full geek mode.

When I was more or less functional and working around normal people, I was asked what the hell did you just say at least 3 or 4 times a week.

The Old Hack likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Drasvin said:

So the average immortal can possibly be tackled by your typical highly trained government paranormal operative, assuming fairness and stuff. 

Hmm, I wonder how well an Immortal would fair against a tank...

The second case should be "fare" not "fair."  This is an example of homonyms, words which sound the same but are spelled differently.  In a fair fight, a human wizard would fare pretty well.  (You'll sometimes see the spelling faire used for Renaissance Faires, which are basically amusement park meets shopping mall set in an idealized version of Renaissance Europe, usually England.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, CritterKeeper said:

(You'll sometimes see the spelling faire used for Renaissance Faires, which are basically amusement park meets shopping mall set in an idealized version of Renaissance Europe, usually England.)

You mean the one that has Parsley, Sage, Rosemary and Thyme? Remembering [them] to one who lives there? Who once was a true love of [theirs]?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tom Sewell said:

After all, she was an "Agent Wolf" good enough to fool the male nurse/orderly/guy in a stolen set of scrubs. 

It still jars me to see terms like "male nurse" or "lady doctor."  You rarely see anyone refer to a "lady nurse" or a "male doctor" unless it's a discussion specifically about gender roles.  Why not just say he fooled the nurse?  Why do so many people (in general, not picking on Tom specifically here) still speak as if certain jobs belong to one gender, and any time someone doesn't meet those expectations it must be pointed out?

5 hours ago, PSadlon said:

Helena & Dimitri are difficult, in part because of the forced reset. They obviously have some sorta conscience so it's unlikely their evil or chaotic enough to justify anything they want to do. At the same time they don't seemed overly burden with the need to follow the rules or even do the right thing. I kinda want to say they are true neutral but I just don't know for sure.

Ah, the classic example, one of the most common pet peeves, there/their/they're!  Let's see if we can work up a good, succinct explanation of the rules for this one.

First test for which one fits is to try substituting "they are."  If that sounds right and makes sense, then you want they're.

Next, does it refer to a place, or to a person or to something that person possesses?  A place is probably there and a person or possession is probably their.  I sometimes have a hard time explaining it better than this, anyone else want to take a stab at it?  If you've got an example that doesn't fit, please don't just point it out, give a rule for how to know which one to use. :-)

If we do a good job on this one, we can move on to you're/your/yore....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so which one is correct here?

"There ya go, y'all"

/me takes her list away from CritterKeeper, adds /me's name to it.  

:P

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mlooney said:

OK, so which one is correct here?

"There ya go, y'all"

Not correct. It should be, "There y'all go."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, ProfessorTomoe said:

Not correct. It should be, "There y'all go."

Nope,  that means a whole other thing there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, mlooney said:

OK, so which one is correct here?

"There ya go, y'all"

Seems pretty clear your choice of there is correct.

59 minutes ago, mlooney said:

/me takes her list away from CritterKeeper, adds /me's name to it.  

:P

 

You already put your own name on there ages ago, honey!

*flips to correct page, adds a couple of stars and a smiley-face next to mlooney's name, hands list back*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I am not sure how typoes rate in this, but I am reprinting this old and wonderful list of Bible typoes a friend of mine dragged out to show how easy it is to completely change the meaning of a Biblical commandment through careless copying or translation:

>Precisely -- _for the most part_. Yet it is in those minute errors
>that one does not readily notice that changes are most likely to
>occur.
>
    Just by way of example:

- 'A man shalt not marry his grandmother's wife' - The Affinity Bible
of 1923.
- 'And Rebekah arose, and her camels' - Gen 24:61, The Camels Bible of
1823 (they're normally her damsels; witchcraft is suspected)
- In Luke 22:34 of the Denial Bible of 1792, the apostle who denies
Jesus is called Philip.
- 'I discharge thee before God ... that thou observe these things'
Timothy 5:21, The Discharge Bible of 1806
- 'Who hath ears to ear, let him hear' - Matthew 13:43, The Ears to
Ear Bible of 1810.
- 'The fool hath said in his heart that there is a God' - Psalm 14:1,
The Fools Bible of the reign of Charles I.
- 'Her sins which are many are forgotten' (instead of forgiven) Luke
7:47, The Forgotten Sins Bible of 1638.
- A 1611 edition transposes Judas in place of Jesus in Matthew 26:36.
- 'Shall I bring to the birth and not cease to bring forth' Isaiah
66:9, The Large Family Bible of 1820 (it's supposed to be cause to
bring forth).
- The Lions Bible of 1804 gives us (among others):
    'The murderer shall surely be put together' (instead of to
death) Numbers 25:18;
    'But thy son shall come forth out of thy lions' 1 Kings 8:19;
    'For thy flesh lusteth after the spirit' (and not against it)
Galatians 5:17.
- 'and there was more sea' Revelation 1641, The More Sea Bible of 1641
(there is in fact no more sea).
- 'These are murderers' Jude 16, The Murderers' Bible of 1801 (they
are actually murmurers, a lesser crime unless they were in the
theatre).
- 'Blessed are the placemakers' Matthew 5:9, The Placemakers' Bible of
1562.
- 'printers have persecuted me without a cause' Psalm 119:161, The
Printers' Bible (veiled critique of management or just a typo?
Ordinarily the persecuters are princes).
- 'sin on more' John 5:14, The 'Sin on' Bible of 1716.
- 'And it shall come to pass that the fishes shall stand upon it'
Ezekiel 47:10, The Standing Fishes Bible of 1806.
- 'the sting of his tongue' (rather than the string) Mark 7:35, The
Sting Bible of 1746.
- The 'To remain' Bible of 1805 failed to remove the eponymous
editor's marginal comment from the line 'persecuted him that was born
after the spirit to remain, even so it is now' (Galatians 4:29), an
error repeated in two later editions produced by the Bible Society in
1805 and 1819.
- 'Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the Kingdom of God'
1 Corinithians 6:9, The Unrighteous Bible of 1653. Moreover, Romans
6:13 has 'Neither yield ye your members as instruments of
righteousness unto sin'.
- An edition of 1717 calls the Parable of the Vineyard in Luke 20 the
Parable of the Vinegar.
- 'Thou shalt commit adultery' Exodus 20:14, The wicked (or
Adulterous) Bible. The fine ruined the printer.
- 'Buggre Alle this for a Larke. I ame sick to mye Hart of
typefetting. Master Bilton if no Gentleman, and Master Scagges noe
more than a tightfisted Southwarke Knobbefticke. I telle you, onne a
day laike thif Ennywone withe half an oz. of Sense should bee oute in
the Sunneshain, ane notte Stucke here alle the liuelong daie inn thif
mowldey olde By-Our-Lady Workfhoppe. @*"AE@;!*' Ezekiel 48:5, The
Buggre Alle this Bible of 1651, also notable for containing
twenty-seven verses in the third chapter of Genesis, instead of the
more usual twenty-four.
    They followed verse 24, which in the King James Version reads:
    'So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the
garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way,
to keep the way of the tree of life', and read:
    25 And the Lord spake unto the Angel that guarded the eastern
gate, /saying/ Where is the flaming sword which was given unto thee?
    26 And the Angel said, I had it here only a moment ago, I must
have put /it/ down somewhere, forget my own head next.
    27 And the Lord did not ask him again.

    Thanks and all respect to Messrs Gaiman and Pratchett, but the
rest are kosher... urm, or whatever. These are just some of the
typesetting errors which got noticed, and in most cases a single word
or letter changes meanings quite radically.

 

This list provided by Luke Slater, an old friend of mine. I still think of him with gratitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read the current three pages of this thread and now my head hurts...

Imma share this thread whenever someone asks why programming is so hard; there is a reason why the medium of programming is called a programming language.

Now that I think about it, what is everyone's opinion on using 'Imma' instead of  'I am going to'? Or slang in general?

Edited by Myranuse
Word ordering + clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Myranuse said:

I've read the current three pages of this thread and now my head hurts...

Imma share this thread whenever someone asks why programming is so hard; there is a reason why the medium of programming is called a programming language.

Now that I think about it, what is everyone's opinion on using 'Imma' instead of  'I am going to'? Or slang in general?

People can use slang if they like. My primary concern is comprehension, not policing diction or style. I have from time to time used slang myself, depending on the situation and the context. There are some kinds of slang that I consider extremely repellent and refuse to use, but that is my personal taste and not a specific judgment of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Myranuse said:

I've read the current three pages of this thread and now my head hurts...

Imma share this thread whenever someone asks why programming is so hard; there is a reason why the medium of programming is called a programming language.

Now that I think about it, what is everyone's opinion on using 'Imma' instead of  'I am going to'? Or slang in general?

I use slang for comedic or emphasis purposes nine times out of ten, especially when typing on the internet. I do enjoy doing so, but when needing to be more serious or understood I drop the slang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Matoyak said:

I use slang for comedic or emphasis purposes nine times out of ten, especially when typing on the internet. I do enjoy doing so, but when needing to be more serious or understood I drop the slang.

What Matoyak said. Slang for effect (or intentional brevity/levity) only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you ask me, what's appropriate to use in writing depends on whether it's used in dialogue or in narration. And even then, it'd be different between first-person and third-person. Basically it's whether or not it's a character using such-and-such.

Slang. Pauses. Misspellings to indicate either a deliberate or accidental mispronunciation. Using the wrong word. Emoticons and abbreviations in texts. All of these I consider acceptable to use for dialogue and in-character writings.

Dialogue between two characters? Three? One? They can use those. Feel free to write them like Jeff Goldblum. It's fine. As long as it's in dialogue, go for it.

There's a text message conversation in your story? Show it in full, with all the ;)s and LOLs intact. It's fine.

First-person narration? I'LL ALLOW IT! Let the narrator narrate the way they want to narrate. If that means showing all the pauses or self-interruptions or excessive profanity or imitating Charlie Gordon because that's how the character would narrate? By all means. Don't let me stop you.

Third-person narration? NO. You cannot. It is forbidden. A third-person narrator is not a character in the story. Their narration should obey grammar, spelling, and punctuation as much as possible. This may also apply to second-person narration.

(that said, unreliable narrators might get away with it. unusual word choice to suggest that the second-/third-person narrator might be a character after all...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zorua said:

Third-person narration? NO. You cannot. It is forbidden. A third-person narrator is not a character in the story. Their narration should obey grammar, spelling, and punctuation as much as possible. This may also apply to second-person narration.

(that said, unreliable narrators might get away with it. unusual word choice to suggest that the second-/third-person narrator might be a character after all...)

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LemonyNarrator ?

Matoyak and CritterKeeper like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: 2 spaces after a period.  The actually rule is a em-quad after a full stop, and an en-quad after all other stops.

From Here

  • There were earlier standards before the single-space standard, and they involved much wider spaces after sentences.
  • Typewriter practice actually imitated the larger spaces of the time when typewriters first came to be used.  They adopted the practice of proportional fonts into monospace fonts, rather than the other way around.
  • Literally centuries of typesetters and printers believed that a wider space was necessary after a period, particularly in the English-speaking world.  It was the standard since at least the time that William Caslon created the first English typeface in the early 1700s (and part of a tradition that went back further), and it was not seriously questioned among English or American typesetters until the 1920s or so.
  • The “standard” of one space is maybe 60 years old at the most, with some publishers retaining wider spaces as a house style well into the 1950s and even a few in the 1960s.
  • As for the “ugly” white space, the holes after the sentence were said to make it easier to parse sentences.  Earlier printers had advice to deal with the situations where the holes became too numerous or looked bad.
  • The primary reasons for the move to a single uniform space had little to do with a consensus among expert typographers concerning aesthetics.  Instead, the move was driven by publishers who wanted cheaper publications, decreasing expertise in the typesetting profession, and new technology that made it difficult (and sometimes impossible) to conform to the earlier wide-spaced standards.

[Spaces] are of several kinds according to the Dimensions of the Blanks, or Intervals to be made by them, viz. Quadrats, to fill up a Break at the end of a Paragraph, or the like; M quadrats, which are square, and of the thickness of an m, serving to make the distance after a Period, or between Sentence and Sentence, N quadrats, of the thickness of an n, to be placed after Colons, Semicolons, and Commas; and thick or thin Spaces, to be used between the Words in justifying.  (Vol. 2, p. 876)

n regular spacing all points [punctuation marks] should have an n-quadrat after them, except the full point [period], which must have an m-quadrat, as terminating a sentence.” (Caleb Stower, The Compositor’s and Pressman’s Guide to the Art of Printing, London, 1808, p. 10)

n regular spacing all points should have an n-quadrat after them, except the full point, which must have an m-quadrat, as terminating a sentence.” (Charles Partington, The Printer’s Complete Guide, London, 1825, p. 207)

“In regular spacing, the full point should have an em quadrat after it; the semicolon, colon, and notes of interrogation [question mark] and admiration [exclamation point], should have an en quadrat; but the two latter, where they take the place of the full point, that is, when placed at the end of a sentence, must have after them an em quadrat.” (Cornelius Van Winkle, The Printers’ Guide, New York, 1836, pp. 135–136)

The best spacing, undoubtedly, is a thick space between every word, an n quad after every colon, semicolon, and f, and an m quad after every period, and point of exclamation and interrogation, when ending a sentence.” (Theodore Gazlay, The Practical Printers’ Assistant, Cincinnati, 1836, p. 22)

“The thick space is, in thickness, equal to one-third of the body of each sized type [i.e., 1/3 em], and has long since been considered the most proper separation for words. . . . A wide-spaced line with only the usual em quadrat remaining after a full point, admiration, or interrogation, or with only a hair space before these two latter, and before a semicolon or colon, is out of proportion.” (Thomas Ford, The Compositor’s Handbook, London, 1854, p. 36)

“The comma requires only a thick space, but the other points should have a hair space before and an en quadrate after them, except the full-point, which should have an em quadrate, as terminating a sentence.” (Thomas MacKellar, The American Printer, Philadelphia, 1866, p. 113)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive my ignorance, but in a monospaced font such as most mechanical typewriters, arent all characters (and thus all spaces) spaces equal to the width of the "m"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume people who say to use two spaces after a period are the same kind of people who say that you can't split an infinitive or start a sentence with a coordinating conjunction. That's just not the rule. The biggest and most widely used style guides pretty much all agree that you only need one space after a period. You can look in basically any modern publication—a book, a newspaper, a web article, whatever—and the standard is a single space following terminal punctuation. If you're using two spaces, you're either using APA style for some reason, or you have your head in the sand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now