Important notice from the GRAMMAR POLICE. Plz read. This means you.

[stephyd]

This thread is nothing but an exhibition of  verbiose pomposity . I think, in all my life, I have never read such an outpouring of needless animosity to other people, regarding almost irrelevant triviality. As an Englishwoman, I can assure you that English is a language constantly changing in form, structure and content. So much so that our dictionaries and grammar books are updated regularly. In other words, we don't actually give a damn how you write something, as long as it is clearly understandable.  We even have a Society for Plain English (who would consider this thread as an offence to the English language) who are held with great regard. We do have basic rules of grammar, but beyond that, it is our greatest joy to toy and play with our language and  find new ways of expressing ourselves. In other words, UK English is constantly growing, and long may it continue to do so. Britannia rules, OK!
Your inane chitchat regarding the minutiae of  our wonderful and adaptable English language is no more than v.d. pontificated by anal retentives, pompous self-deluded asses with nothing better to do with their time
In plain English - what a load of tripe!

[ZeKat]

This thread is nothing but an exhibition of  verbiose pomposity . I think, in all my life, I have never read such an outpouring of needless animosity to other people, regarding almost irrelevant triviality. As an Englishwoman, I can assure you that English is a language constantly changing in form, structure and content. So much so that our dictionaries and grammar books are updated regularly. In other words, we don't actually give a damn how you write something, as long as it is clearly understandable.  We even have a Society for Plain English (who would consider this thread as an offence to the English language) who are held with great regard. We do have basic rules of grammar, but beyond that, it is our greatest joy to toy and play with our language and  find new ways of expressing ourselves. In other words, UK English is constantly growing, and long may it continue to do so. Britannia rules, OK!
Your inane chitchat regarding the minutiae of  our wonderful and adaptable English language is no more than v.d. pontificated by anal retentives, pompous self-deluded asses with nothing better to do with their time
In plain English - what a load of tripe!

Still, you need to stop using double spaces, and especially spaces before a full stop, no matter how you decide to spell. Also, it's spelled "verbose". I think you should stick to plain English, really.

[Kyna]

as long as it is clearly understandable.

That's the critical part of your post.  Personally, I find posts where people have taken the trouble to use appropriate punctuation and correct spelling to be much clearer and much more understandable than posts that lack those attributes.

[snabul]

For me, english is a foreign language. I learn english inter alia by reading your postings.

Most of the time it is very hard to translate the gobbledygook (?) that befalls me at other sites.

So, for me it is very comfortable to have the GRAMMAR POLICE around, here.

[rufio]

It can't be a subordinate clause if it is the ONLY clause.

Since it was the object of a preposition, it's hard to see how it could be anything else.

When exactly? Oh, say when you don't confuse nouns with their homonyms?

Confusing homophones is a lexical issue, though, not a syntactical one.  In any case, there were no confused homophones in that fragment.

[Liz]

This thread is nothing but an exhibition of  verbiose pomposity... As an Englishwoman, I can assure you that English is a language constantly changing... Your inane chitchat regarding the minutiae of  our wonderful and adaptable English language...

For those wishing to skip the diatribe, allow me to summarise: I ARE ENGLISH! RESPEKT MAH AUTHORITAH!
Honestly, stephyd, the idea that being "an Englishwoman" makes you some sort of linguistic authority is pomposity on a level the rest of this thread couldn't dream of achieving.

[maxon]

Oi - another one.  Where do they come from?

[Kyna]

Oi - another one.  Where do they come from?

* Kyna misses the days when the only link to MATY that was given out led to the front page of the site.  None of this direct linking to the forums business.

[rohina]

It can't be a subordinate clause if it is the ONLY clause.

Since it was the object of a preposition, it's hard to see how it could be anything else.

So, you agree, it was a fragment.

When exactly? Oh, say when you don't confuse nouns with their homonyms?

Confusing homophones is a lexical issue, though, not a syntactical one.  In any case, there were no confused homophones in that fragment.

My point, which is sailing merrily over your headpeen, is that wanking on about style ought to be an activity reserved for people who can express themselves correctly on a regular basis.

[rufio]

So, you agree, it was a fragment.

The issue is not whether or not it was a fragment, but when it is ok to use fragments for effect.  Why do I feel like I'm repeating myself?  Oh, right...

My point, which is sailing merrily over your headpeen, is that wanking on about style ought to be an activity reserved for people who can express themselves correctly on a regular basis.

And my point is that spelling is not related to syntax or the style of sentence structure.  It seems my first intuition was right, and that the only people who are allowed to make stylistic choices about their language are the people who make certain sanctioned vocabulary choices as well.

[Liz]

The issue is not whether or not it was a fragment, but when it is ok to use fragments for effect.

My point, which is sailing merrily over your headpeen, is that wanking on about style ought to be an activity reserved for people who can express themselves correctly on a regular basis.

It seems my first intuition was right, and that the only people who are allowed to make stylistic choices about their language are the people who make certain sanctioned vocabulary choices as well.

rufio, the point you fail repeatedly to grasp is that someone's stylistic choices will only gain legitimacy if she can otherwise display a competent command of basic grammar skills, skills which apparently still elude you, given the total mess you continue to make of sentences like the two I've quoted.

[rufio]

If there is something wrong with my grammar, please don't hesitate to tell me what it is.  Also, technically speaking, spelling is not the same thing as grammar, and I don't see what it has to do with stylistic choices about syntax.  I could understand it if it was a rule that was purely governed by popular perception, but rohina, by asserting that her personal expertise on the subject outranks everyone else's, seems to be indicating that stylistics is actually a kind of objectively quantifiable science.  All I am asking for is the objectively quantifiable rules of said science.

[rohina]

Oh, for fuck's sake. If you would stop for 2 seconds trying to make me into the villain, you would see that my argument isn't some kind of crazed "only what I say goes" nonsense. Essentially, my position is that spelling, punctuation and grammar are craft; stylistics is art. Compare it to painting: any hamtard can throw paint at a canvas, and maybe sometimes even get an aesthetically pleasing result, but a real artist has command of technique and craft, and knows WHY he/she achieved an aesthetically pleasing result.

Now, the reason I am not going to discuss stylistics with you rufio, is that you want some kind of formula, but the only way I have to explain stylistics is through literary theory, which, as you have said several times, is beyond your understanding.

[rufio]

Oh, for fuck's sake. If you would stop for 2 seconds trying to make me into the villain, you would see that my argument isn't some kind of crazed "only what I say goes" nonsense.

That is not what I'm trying to say.  Obviously, you are going to do what you want to do, and criticize people's grammar as you see fit; I'm just trying to find out if there is a method to the madness.

Essentially, my position is that spelling, punctuation and grammar are craft; stylistics is art. Compare it to painting: any hamtard can throw paint at a canvas, and maybe sometimes even get an aesthetically pleasing result, but a real artist has command of technique and craft, and knows WHY he/she achieved an aesthetically pleasing result.

Thank you for the explanation (unless you are still offended by that sort of thing, in which case, feel free to ignore it).  Now, I'm not an artist, but I imagine that a real artist does not need to be perfect at every single technique they know in order to produce art.  They might well produce a few shoddy pieces of art, but that shouldn't affect the perceived quality of their better ones.  Similarly, I don't understand how a person whose ability to spell might be somewhat compromised, or who doesn't have a huge vocabulary, would not be able to use their skills with syntax to use style to convey additional meaning or tone.  Obviously, if they use words they cannot spell/do not know the meaning of it doesn't work, but if their deficiencies do not actually adversely affect what they are writing at a given time, I see no reason why it can't be judged stylistically on its own merits.

Now, the reason I am not going to discuss stylistics with you rufio, is that you want some kind of formula, but the only way I have to explain stylistics is through literary theory, which, as you have said several times, is beyond your understanding.

I don't think I did; I may have said that I didn't know any literary theory, or that I was not interested in devoting large amounts of my time to studying it, but that's different from saying that I cannot learn it.  I am actually interested in the specifics of when you think it is ok to use sentence fragments for effect.  I don't want a formula, but I would appreciate some rules at least.  As you said, an artist will know why their art is aesthetically pleasing, and will probably have an internal set of rules for what times are best to apply certain techniques rather than others.

[rohina]

Yes, an artist will know, because there are theories of aesthetics. Similarly, it is possible to analyse the style of a piece of writing. In my business, we call this rhetorical analysis, and there are lots of different ways to do it. From previous conversations with you, I really don't think it is a skill you are going to be able to acquire; not because you are a moron, but rather because you tend to get really hung up on specific grammatical rules, and then you can't see the forest for the trees.

Here's a beginners' challenge for you. Go read Donne's "For Whom the Bell Tolls" meditation, and come back when you can tell me what the stylistic significance of the semicolon is in that piece.

[rufio]

You know, I think I read that in an English class once, though the only concrete thing that actually stayed with me was a discussion of the etymology of catholic and why he used it as a synonym for universal.  Figures.

Reading over it, it seems like he is using semicolons to draw out and further develop the same idea in greater complexity for a half a paragraph without having to start a new sentence (and thus an entirely new tone contour).  To my inner voice, it makes those sentences sound like a prayer.  Doubtless you see it differently, as you claim not to have an inner voice, and therefore the phonic qualities of written English have no relevance whatsoever.

[rohina]

Fail. This is not about me, or your inner voice. It was a simple instruction. Go and read it and tell me what the semicolons are doing, stylistically. Don't wank about it in a hopeful way because you have no clue.

[rufio]

Well, I gave my interpretation; the semicolons have the effect of changing the tone/pitch of the section into something more lyrical and devout, and thus more appropriate to his subject matter.  What was the correct answer?

[rohina]

This was not about your interpretation. You wanted to know what the "rules" were. I said you aren't intellectually capable, and gave you a test. You failed. Wanking on about music is not any better than your first stab at it.

Here's an easier one. Same piece. Identify 3 types of repetition Donne uses, and explain the rhetorical effect of each.

[rufio]

I'm sure whatever I say is just going to be rejected because I don't know the correct terms, but...

When she baptizes a child, [...]And when she buries a man[...]

A repetition of the sentence structure to emphasize the point, and probably to imply that the life between the birth and the death is similarly interlinked.  I assume this is the same sort of thing that's happening with the "But who....(But) who...But who...?" questions as well, unless, of course, it isn't.   

for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee

The bell doth toll for him, that thinks it doth

There is an attractive syntactic reversal here, though at least in the one case it's really just a side effect of the way relative clauses work; however it looks like a repetition to me.  It's possible that I'm simply being distracted by the oddness of "for whom."

when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book,

"one...one" to equate the man and the chapter.

There, that's three.  I'm not going to go trawling through this trying to figure out what it is that you want me to say anymore.
------

This was not about your interpretation.

And yet you claimed this was an art, and not a science.  Make up your mind already.

You wanted to know what the "rules" were. I said you aren't intellectually capable, and gave you a test. You failed.

Intellectually capable of what?  Understanding something when it is taught to me?  Or magically figuring out everything there is to know about your field from first principles?  I imagine that, as with every field, you have to learn to look at things in a slightly different way in order to really get it.  Randomly asking questions and expecting me to automatically come up with answers you'd expect from English majors is not the way to teach that.  Yes, I am criticizing your teaching, if that is what you are trying to do here.

Wanking on about music is not any better than your first stab at it.

The first stab was the same as the second stab, you were just too busy feeling put upon to notice.  Also, "lyrical" does not necessarily have anything to do with music, but you'd know that, since you're a Lit professor, right?

[rohina]

You, sir, are a moron. I said stylistics was more art than craft, and that the way I would talk about it was by using literary theory. You were  all "I want the rules" and then you give your crap interpretations of stuff. I don't want YOUR crap interpretations. This was a test to see if you were worthy of having further dialogue. You failed. Twice.

[TheQuietOne]

I'm sure whatever I say is just going to be rejected because I don't know the correct terms, but...

Cough(AnaphoraEpistropheEpanalepsisAnadiplosisMesodiplosisDiaphoraDiacopeConduplicatioEpizeuxis)cough.

Google is your friend.

[rohina]

Hur. rufio is pwnt by some 10 poast lurker.

[rufio]

Hur. rufio is pwnt by some 10 poast lurker.

Yes, because the number of posts you have on MATY is such a good indication of how many stylistics classes you have taken.

This is a fascinating argument technique, though.  The next time I'm losing an argument, I'll just challenge my opponent to list the distinctive features of /ð/, or explain the purpose of a syntactic expletive, and refuse to talk to them if they answer incorrectly.

I asked you a very simple, specific question, and you simply refused to answer.

[Lorelei]

No. She said that the mechanics and rules are different from style. She even used a decent analogy.