Punctuation Marks and Etc. of the English Language

GolamMostafa:
Given below a sentence which has just been taken from an anonymous poster of some other section.

If you describe the project you want to create so that we understand the context of your question it will be much easier to help.

My question/query is: Do we need to put the comma (,) punctuation mark 'at the appropriate place' in order to show the dependent relationship between the two clauses (dependent and independent) of the sentence?

Now that you have drawn it to my attention, I think it may be a little better like this
If you describe the project you want to create (so that we understand the context of your question) it will be much easier to help.

Humble apologies for my slackness - however I doubt if there is any confusion as written. If you think it can reasonably be interpreted in a different way to what I intended please let me know.

...R

GolamMostafa:
Then why are the Technical School going students burdened with so many years of English Language Course (in my country, it is for 13 years for non-natives) if they are not required to practice strictly the punctuation rules of the language?

Two things that shocked me during my teenage years. i) On leaving secondary education I received extremely good English Language and English Literature exam grades. ii) The following week, on my first day at work, I was told to unlearn the punctuation skills I had put so much effort into learning. The explanation was when writing business and technical English one may presume the reader has a grasp of spoken English so is able to infer the punctuation for themselves.

I still struggle with the distinction 37 years on. It reminds me of the years I worked abroad, conversing in English with non-native English speakers. When I got back to the UK I found my vocabulary had collapsed. Took a good five years to recover.

I would like to add that I think your English is excellent Golam.

Robin2:
What the rules of grammar say?

If the "rules of grammar" do not reflect how language is used then it is the rules that are wrong.

Grammar attempts to describe the consensus for how a language is spoken. English grammar is rather ambiguous, due to the mixed heritage. The language developed from competing occupations, before being exported around the globe. Despite the ancient roots English remains one of the fastest evolving languages, as far as I know.

Punctuation, on the other hand, is just a series of marks intended to make the written word easier to understand.

[Shudder(!)]
Open punctuation whereby the reader is left to infer their own punctuation reduces English (a remarkably flexible and expressive language) to the lowest common denominator.

Imagine speaking the following words to the mechanical beat of a metronome.

And now the end is near and so I face the final curtain my friend I will say it clear I will state my case of which I am certain I have lived a life that is full I have traveled each and every highway and more much more than this I did it my way.

In fact I doubt that there are many native and adult English speakers who could say or read those words without subconsciously adding punctuation to them.

The more this Thread continues the more convinced I become of the validity of my second point in Reply #4.

Punctuation is vital, to convey the cadence of English speech and thought. Meaning does not depend merely on the arrangement of words but also the formation of phrases. I hope the lyrics I quoted above demonstrate just how powerful punctuation can be.

msssltd:
could say or read those words without subconsciously adding punctuation to them.

I don't think that contradicts my assertion that punctuation is "just a series of marks intended to make the written word easier to understand" - given that I was writing about written language and I was drawing a distinction between grammar and punctuation.

...R

I have taken the following sentence from a post of some other Section. I am (being a non-native) facing hard time to bring tense/punctuation correction (if needed) in this beautifully constructed sentence. I would highly appreciate if someone (native or non-native) paraphrases the sentence.

The side by side screenshot you posted makes no sense compared with the Zround scoreboards page but looking at your screenshot of the Zround message setup page I suspect that you can use whatever you like as the command string at the start of the message rather than them being fixed as I had assumed

I would like to see the sentence written as: (please, comment)
The side by side screenshot you have posted makes no sense compared with the Zround scoreboards page**;** but looking at your screenshot of the Zround message setup page**,** I suspect that you can use whatever you like as the command string at the start of the message rather than them being fixed as I had have assumed**.**

sp. "side-by-side"

sp. "side-by-side"

1. According to THE OXFORD PAPERBACK DICTIONARY, the 'side by side' (standing close together) is a valid construct.

2. According to this link, side-by-side is the alternate spelling of side by side.

3. According to this link, 'This hyphenated spelling is usually used before a noun it modifies, whereas the unhyphenated spelling is used after a noun it modifies.' (There are no examples.)

This hyphenated spelling is usually used before a noun it modifies

"screenshot" being the noun.

According to THE OXFORD PAPERBACK DICTIONARY

But Oxford is weird about 's' and 'z'.

GolamMostafa:
I would like to see the sentence written as: (please, comment)
The side by side screenshot you have posted makes no sense compared with the Zround scoreboards page**;** but looking at your screenshot of the Zround message setup page**,** I suspect that you can use whatever you like as the command string at the start of the message rather than them being fixed as I had have assumed**.**

I don't know the grammatically technical difference between "posted" and "have posted" but in this case I think the plain "posted" is more correct. It is a simple statement of something done in the past. However "have posted" is certainly not seriously incorrect or confusing.

The other change from "had" to "have" changes the meaning - it is not simply a grammatical change. "Had assumed" describes a situation at a time in the past (without stating whether or not the situation is continuing). "Have assumed" describes a continuing situation.

...R

Why is they’re an grammar topic in are arduino forum I ain’t too big on book reeding i just want the arduino too make blinky lights butt not sparky ones... because if you’re arduino is sparking your probably letting the smoke out

^an exercise for grammatical hobbyists.

Robin2:
I don't know the grammatically technical difference between "posted" and "have posted" but in this case I think the plain "posted" is more correct. It is a simple statement of something done in the past. However "have posted" is certainly not seriously incorrect or confusing.

The other change from "had" to "have" changes the meaning - it is not simply a grammatical change. "Had assumed" describes a situation at a time in the past (without stating whether or not the situation is continuing). "Have assumed" describes a continuing situation.

...R

Thanks @Robin2 for critical analysis which will help me to understand the syntax and semantic structure of the given sentence in much broader context.

I ain't too big on book reeding

sp. " i aint two big on buck reeding"

Let's eat kids.

Use a comma, save lives.

But it works very well because I can print the actual data that I am going to send and print the data that is received and understand both of them without any need to "interpret" anything.

I would like to paraphrase the above quoted sentence (taken from some other section of this Forum) as follows because I am really serious to apply the rules of the transitional verb, parallelism, and co-coordinating conjunction. Please, put your comments. I am a non-native, and I have learnt the English Language in 12 years of schooling.

But**,** it works very well because I can print the actual data that I am going to send and print the data that I am going to receive is received. and I understand both of them without any need to "interpret" anything.

You physically cannot print data that you are "going to receive". You can only print it after you have received it.

I thought I had seen a minor improvement to my sentence, but on second thoughts I think it is fine the way it is.

If there is some part of it that you think could be misinterpreted please let me know.

...R

GolamMostafa:


Quote

But it works very well because I can print the actual data that I am going to send and print the data that is received and understand both of them without any need to "interpret" anything.

I would like to paraphrase the above quoted sentence (taken from some other section of this Forum) as follows because I am really serious to apply the rules of the transitional verb, parallelism, and co-coordinating conjunction. Please, put your comments. I am a non-native, and I have learnt the English Language in 12 years of schooling.

But**,** it works very well because I can print the actual data that I am going to send and print the data that I am going to receive is received. and I understand both of them without any need to "interpret" anything.

Here is my go;
"But it works very well because I can print both the transmitted and received data, and understand both of them, without any need to 'interpret' anything".
Without the context it is difficult. However I think the fact that the original author talked about doing something in the future is irrelevant to what he he was trying to convey. Hence I have simplified things, and changed the wording a bit, which is what paraphrasing is about.

ardly:
Here is my go;
"But it works very well because I can print both the transmitted and received data, and understand both of them, without any need to 'interpret' anything".

I think the second comma is inappropriate :slight_smile:

...R

Robin2:
I think the second comma is inappropriate :slight_smile:

...R

The part of the sentence between the two commas contains supplemental information and can be removed e.g. ;
"But it works very well because I can print both the transmitted and received data without any need to 'interpret' anything".
I am sure there is some grammatical term for this. I wish I had a more formal understanding of grammer.

ardly:
The part of the sentence between the two commas contains supplemental information and can be removed e.g. ;
"But it works very well because I can print both the transmitted and received data without any need to 'interpret' anything".
I am sure there is some grammatical term for this. I wish I had a more formal understanding of grammer.

A 'supplemental information' has been defined as a piece of 'additional clarifying information' which when removed from the sentence, the intended meaning of the sentence does not change. The following rules are there in the English Language Grammar to include 'supplemental information' in a sentence; however, it is the author and context that dictate which one to use.

1. Use a pair of parentheses -- () across the supplemental information :
(and understand both of them)

2. Use opening comma (,) and closing comma (,) across the supplemental information :
,and understand both of them,

3. Use opening en-dash (-) and closing en-dash (-) across the supplemental information :

  • and understand both of them -

I personally use the Option-1 as too many commas in a sentence get me lost to align the pronouns with their respective antecedents.

If the poster/author really wants that the 'supplemental information' may stay in his sentence for good reason, the sentence could be presented as:
"But it works very well because I can print both the transmitted and received data (and understand both of them) without any need to 'interpret' anything". This is an elegant form up to now owing to @ardly (K+) .

ardly:
The part of the sentence between the two commas contains supplemental information and can be removed e.g. ;
"But it works very well because I can print both the transmitted and received data without any need to 'interpret' anything".

That version of the sentence has a different meaning from my original. In your version I find it it is unclear where, or by what, the "interpret" action is done. It raises the question why would there be a need to "interpret".

My version makes it clear (I hope) that I am the interpreter.

I have the same problem with this version

"But it works very well because I can print both the transmitted and received data (and understand both of them) without any need to 'interpret' anything".

The words "understand" and "interpret" work together in this statement and should not be separated.

...R