Punctuation Marks and Etc. of the English Language

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 :)

...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

The best projects often use a microcontroller with external chips to enhance and complement it's capabilities.

The above sentence is taken from some other Section of this Forum. I am looking for some kinds of improvements that could be contributed in this sentence in respect of subject-verb and antecedent-pronoun agreements. I would like to propose the following form of the above sentence.

"The best projects often use a microcontroller*s* with external chips to enhance and complement their it's capabilities."

My query/question: Is there any chance that a reader might associate the pronoun (their) with projects or chips and not with microcontrollers? Is there a way to paraphrase the sentence so that the said ambiguity (if any) could be avoided/minimized in respect of antecedent-pronoun agreement?

I'm not convinced that your version provides any improvement in clarity - though I would say it is equally acceptable.

It's a moot technical point whether the microcontroller enhances the external chips or vice versa.

Another option might be External chips can enhance a microcontroller's capability

That's less than half as many words as the original.

Mark Twain is supposed to have said "If I Had More Time I Would Write a Shorter Letter"

...R

Chips enhance micro-controllers.

|500x281

Not like that

Like this

...R

GolamMostafa: The above sentence is taken from some other Section of this Forum. I am looking for some kinds of improvements that could be contributed in this sentence in respect of subject-verb and antecedent-pronoun agreements. I would like to propose the following form of the above sentence.

"The best projects often use a microcontroller*s* with external chips to enhance and complement their it's capabilities."

My query/question: Is there any chance that a reader might associate the pronoun (their) with projects or chips and not with microcontrollers? Is there a way to paraphrase the sentence so that the said ambiguity (if any) could be avoided/minimized in respect of antecedent-pronoun agreement?

In your solution the fact that the 'projects' and the 'microcontrollers' are now both plural does make the meaning of 'their' ambiguous. It could also be taken as meaning that the best projects use multiple micropocessors. I thought the the original was clear. The best projects use a single microprocessor and it's (the microprocessor) capabilities are enhanced by external chips.

ardly: The best projects use a single microprocessor and it's (the microprocessor) capabilities are enhanced by external chips.

sp. "its capabilities"

AWOL: sp. "its capabilities"

I always get confused by its v it's , you are correct; The word it’s is always short for ‘it is’ (as in it's raining), or in informal speech, for ‘it has’ (as in it's got six legs). The word its means ‘belonging to it’ (as in hold its head still while I jump on its back). It is a possessive pronoun like his.

ardly:
I thought the the original was clear. The best projects use a single microprocessor and it’s (the microprocessor) capabilities are enhanced by external chips.

AWOL:
sp. “its capabilities”

Knowing that it’s is a contraction for ‘it is or it has’ and its is a ‘possessive case’, the original sentence may take the following form

“The best projects often use a microcontroller with external chips to enhance and complement its (microcontroller) capabilities.”