So confused- Grammar Question

[Eluard]

What a beautifully trenchant observation.

And isn't it a joy and wonder to see a thread on grammar run to two full pages?

I agree, a great observation from Stella — completely correct.

But speaking of the em dash — dontcha just hate seeing people using hyphens where they should be using em dashes. As in "He went to the car-she wasn't in it." This really sets my teeth on edge, and I see it even on cable television adverts.

 

[cloudy]

My god I have met fellow human beings who appreciate semicolons and em dashes!!!! I'm not alone!!!

Maybe we should form The Semicolon Preservation Society — we could call ourselves the semi-anal-retentives!

I adore semi-colons - em dashes, too.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I agree, a great observation from Stella — completely correct.

But speaking of the em dash — dontcha just hate seeing people using hyphens where they should be using em dashes. As in "He went to the car-she wasn't in it." This really sets my teeth on edge, and I see it even on cable television adverts.

For years I didn't know the difference. Just recently, I found myself a beta reader who KNOWS-- she does copy editing for a newspaper, I think.

She's taught me the em-dash, (I use a double-dash instead of finding the key commands to make a longer solid dash) and also why we end quoted dialogue with a comma instead of a full stop when there's a "she said" or other sentence continuation. After fifty years, I finally understand!

 

[Eluard]

For years I didn't know the difference. Just recently, I found myself a beta reader who KNOWS-- she does copy editing for a newspaper, I think.

She's taught me the em-dash, (I use a double-dash instead of finding the key commands to make a longer solid dash) and also why we end quoted dialogue with a comma instead of a full stop when there's a "she said" or other sentence continuation. After fifty years, I finally understand!

Yes, think how much easier it would be if they just taught this stuff in schools. But…nah… that's just a crazy idea!

 

[BlackShanglan]

I agree, a great observation from Stella — completely correct.

But speaking of the em dash — dontcha just hate seeing people using hyphens where they should be using em dashes. As in "He went to the car-she wasn't in it." This really sets my teeth on edge, and I see it even on cable television adverts.

Amen to that.

My own personal bogeyman is the construction of ellipses with random numbers of dots or numbers of dots evidently intended to reflect the relative length of pause or severity of thought break involved. I have a friend who occasionally taunts me by writing me email messages replete with such devices. He's quite the ... merry prankster.

 

[Eluard]

Amen to that.

My own personal bogeyman is the construction of ellipses with random numbers of dots or numbers of dots evidently intended to reflect the relative length of pause or severity of thought break involved. I have a friend who occasionally taunts me by writing me email messages replete with such devices. He's quite the ... merry prankster.

True, but I do think that the dots of the ellipsis in modern digital fonts are a bit too close together. It's ok if you are writing a thesis, but for a novel it's just wrong. To see it done right I would point to the original typesetting for Gravity's Rainbow — whoever did that was a master of the craft.

But of course if the ellipsis is at the end of the sentence then there definitely need to be four dots. Otherwise we might as well let barbarism rule.

 

[michchick98]

Okay, I've searched through the forums here and can't find a definitive answer to this.

I'm editing a story for someone and I've been telling him that when addressing someone directly by their title, the title as well as the name is capitalized. But, when just referring to them as their title, the title is not capitalized.

Here are examples to show what I mean:

"Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Governor Jennifer Granholm," the announcer said.

In that instance, it's proper to capitalize governor, correct?

But if it were more like this:

The announcer waited for the crowd to calm down before he introduced the governor.

Would 'governor' be capitalized?

I just don't want to tell the author the wrong thing and have him look silly for making the changes when he was correct in the first place.

Here's a very small snippet of his story:

Princess GoldenFlower, with two of her maids, followed the eunuch. They went into a territory very few had ventured. They were within the emperor’s private sanctuary.

I changed this so 'eunuch' and 'emperor' weren't capitalized.

Also, here's another I am confused about:

As she kneeled down, waiting in front of his highness' big wooden chair, her heart started to pound.

He had 'his highness' capitalized, was I wrong to change it?

One more:

She was so deep in thought that she didn’t feel his presence until the eunuch spoke. “Please bow in the presence of His Highness.”

Again, I changed it so 'eunuch' was not capitalized, but the eunuch was speaking to the princess and referring to the emperor as 'his highness' so should it (his highness) be capitalized?

Yes, confusing I know, but I want to get this right for the author I am editing.

 

[sr71plt]

Okay, I've searched through the forums here and can't find a definitive answer to this.

I'm editing a story for someone and I've been telling him that when addressing someone directly by their title, the title as well as the name is capitalized. But, when just referring to them as their title, the title is not capitalized.

Here are examples to show what I mean:

"Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Governor Jennifer Granholm," the announcer said.

In that instance, it's proper to capitalize governor, correct?

right [Chicago Manual of Style 8.21]

But if it were more like this:

The announcer waited for the crowd to calm down before he introduced the governor.

Would 'governor' be capitalized?

No [CMA, 8.21, 8.22]

Also, here's another I am confused about:

As she kneeled down, waiting in front of his highness' big wooden chair, her heart started to pound.

He had 'his highness' capitalized, was I wrong to change it?

You were right to change it. It's only capped (with few quirky exceptions, this not being one of them) if it was direct address.

"I kneel down before you, Your Highness." [CMA 8.22]

One more:

She was so deep in thought that she didn’t feel his presence until the eunuch spoke. “Please bow in the presence of His Highness.”

Again, I changed it so 'eunuch' was not capitalized, but the eunuch was speaking to the princess and referring to the emperor as 'his highness' so should it (his highness) be capitalized?

A fuzzy one (in U.S. use. British use would cap it without a thought). CMA 8.22 indicates no (but doesn't directly address it). CMA 8.35 indicates yes (direct name substitute of an honorific title). Personally, I'd cap it as a direct substitute for a name in this placement.

One you didn't ask about, but which gives people the trots: If the title is in apposition, it isn't capped. (CMA 8.23)

Steve, his highness of Lower Slobovia.

the bright and shining royal highness, Agraphobia.

 

[michchick98]

right [Chicago Manual of Style 8.21]



No [CMA, 8.21, 8.22]




You were right to change it. It's only capped (with few quirky exceptions, this not being one of them) if it was direct address.

"I kneel down before you, Your Highness." [CMA 8.22]





A fuzzy one (in U.S. use. British use would cap it without a thought). CMA 8.22 indicates no (but doesn't directly address it). CMA 8.35 indicates yes (direct name substitute of an honorific title). Personally, I'd cap it as a direct substitute for a name in this placement.

One you didn't ask about, but which gives people the trots: If the title is in apposition, it isn't capped. (CMA 8.23)

Steve, his highness of Lower Slobovia.

the bright and shining royal highness, Agraphobia.

References to the emperor (and prince, princess and empress) throughout the story shouldn't be capitalized unless it's followed by their name. Got it. Thanks!

That's basically what I thought. I just wanted to be sure since I'd told the author basically the same thing.

 

[sr71plt]

References to the emperor (and prince, princess and empress) throughout the story shouldn't be capitalized unless it's followed by their name. Got it. Thanks!

That's basically what I thought. I just wanted to be sure since I'd told the author basically the same thing.

Ummm, not quite. "Prince, you're standing on my foot." is a case where it should be capitalized--direct address, the title substituting for a name.

"Here comes the Prince of Knuckletown" is also one of the exceptions I mentioned existed--when the title is index to a specific personification. (CMA 8.34)

the prince; Prince Charles; the Prince of Wales
the duke; the duchess; the Duke and Duchess of Windsor

English doesn't even pretend to be easy.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

"Governer Joe Blow" is like "Mister Joe Blow". It gets capitalized. It's a proper noun, part of a name.

"Here comes the governor" is like "Here comes the ice cream man". It's not someone's name, so it doesn't get capitalized.

The "His Highness" is tricky. It's such an elevated honorarium that I would tend to capitalize it wherever it appeared, like "His Holiness". I just can't see writing a lowercase "his holiness". It's kind of a self-contradiction and calls attention to itself, and you don't want that.

 

[sr71plt]

"Governer Joe Blow" is like "Mister Joe Blow". It gets capitalized. It's a proper noun, part of a name.

"Here comes the governor" is like "Here comes the ice cream man". It's not someone's name, so it doesn't get capitalized.

The "His Highness" is tricky. It's such an elevated honorarium that I would tend to capitalize it wherever it appeared, like "His Holiness". I just can't see writing a lowercase "his holiness". It's kind of a self-contradiction and calls attention to itself, and you don't want that.

Then I guess you'd really be mortified to know that "the pope" (CMA 8.29) and "the queen" (CMA 8.26) don't get capped in the American system.

 

[SlickTony]

Not allowed to teach grammar? Seriously? Gah.

 

[colddiesel]

Then I guess you'd really be mortified to know that "the pope" (CMA 8.29) and "the queen" (CMA 8.26) don't get capped in the American system.

My original education was British and I would say either:-

1 Her Royal Highness the Queen or His Holiness the Pope . Or

2 the queen or the pope

It may seem illogical but it's the personal "her and his" which drives the change

 

[sr71plt]

My original education was British and I would say either:-

1 Her Royal Highness the Queen or His Holiness the Pope . Or

2 the queen or the pope

It may seem illogical but it's the personal "her and his" which drives the change

In these exact examples, they would do that in the U.S. system too (as I think I noted somewhere in my postngs). However, most British publishers will refer to "the Queen," when referring to Eizabeth II, and the U.S. system won't--it even uses "the president" (no cap).

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Then I guess you'd really be mortified to know that "the pope" (CMA 8.29) and "the queen" (CMA 8.26) don't get capped in the American system.

No. Neither "the pope" nor "the queen" are proper nouns, so why should they ever be capitalized. They're like "the governor", which also isn't capitalized.

I'm not mortified a bit, but I'll bet you're deeply chagrinned.

--Zoot

 

[Xelebes]

I agree, a great observation from Stella — completely correct.

But speaking of the em dash — dontcha just hate seeing people using hyphens where they should be using em dashes. As in "He went to the car-she wasn't in it." This really sets my teeth on edge, and I see it even on cable television adverts.

The em dash, outside of elaborated word processors, are difficult to enter and are often excluded from many text-input applications like websites and html. I know - I might try with making my best use of the hyphen to give the effect of having an em dash in.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I note conventions as I read. Every publisher seems to have her own conventions for grammar and punctuation. I post on a journalist board, and different conventions is always a hot topic.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Speaking from the classroom point of view, rather than that of the professional keyboard twiddler, deep subtleties of grammatic correctness can wait. If someone insists on self-flagellation and becoming a professional writer formal grammer is required. For the majority of the rest of humanity, we spend too damned much time obsessing over stories as it is. Writing, however much we may adore it, is nothing more than the record of speech. Therefore whatever communicates verbally should stand as the model for grammer, not the other way around. Getting the children to speak clearly is hard enough without subjecting them to the confusion of artificial rules.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Speaking from the classroom point of view, rather than that of the professional keyboard twiddler, deep subtleties of grammatic correctness can wait. If someone insists on self-flagellation and becoming a professional writer formal grammer is required. For the majority of the rest of humanity, we spend too damned much time obsessing over stories as it is. Writing, however much we may adore it, is nothing more than the record of speech. Therefore whatever communicates verbally should stand as the model for grammer, not the other way around. Getting the children to speak clearly is hard enough without subjecting them to the confusion of artificial rules.

Oh, no one's going to die of an uncapitalized "his highness". Some people love baseball, some of us just find language and grammar endlessly fascinating.

Noam Chomsky posited that the ability to use and create language is built into the human mind, that we automatically generate "grammars". That's kind of astonishing if you think about it. He said language is an instinct in man, the tendency to turn experience into nouns and verbs and adjectives and then manipulate them in order to think. In his view, that's what set man apart from all other animals, that we generate grammars. You can teach other animals to talk, but they never go on to generate their own grammars, they never generalize from what they've learned, while humans do it instinctively.

Like, if we'd never even seen the title "his highness" before, we'd still instinctively know it should be capitalized, but not be sure when or where, because we generalize from the other honorifics we know. Given the nonsense word Zneebix we could automatically start thinking of a red Zneebix or a fast Zneebix or a skinny Zneebix even though we don't know what they are because we can generalize from our grammars. We have the structures built into us.

 

[Iconoclast99]

Speaking from the classroom point of view, rather than that of the professional keyboard twiddler, deep subtleties of grammatic correctness can wait. If someone insists on self-flagellation and becoming a professional writer formal grammer is required. For the majority of the rest of humanity, we spend too damned much time obsessing over stories as it is. Writing, however much we may adore it, is nothing more than the record of speech. Therefore whatever communicates verbally should stand as the model for grammer, not the other way around. Getting the children to speak clearly is hard enough without subjecting them to the confusion of artificial rules.

My thoughts exactly, with the proviso that good writing should be clear in its intent. My particular bugbear is the confusion of the possessive (apostrophe-s) and the plural forms of nouns.

Thousands of years ago I learned the definition of gerunds but now I can't even remember what they are, nor care. I still like the word gerund, though. So Jabberwocky.

Iconoclast

 

[starrkers]

I note conventions as I read. Every publisher seems to have her own conventions for grammar and punctuation. I post on a journalist board, and different conventions is always a hot topic.

I'm still trying to knock myself out of style conventions that ruled my life for 15 years.