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

[rufio]

That is not an answer to "When is it OK to use a sentence fragment for effect?"

[Liz]

"When is it OK to use a sentence fragment for effect?"

The simplest answer? If you don't know whether it's okay to use a fragment for effect, it's not okay. If you know it's okay, it's okay. That sounds like total smartassery, but it isn't meant to be. Much.

If one is proficient at mechanics and rules, she can effectively proceed to experiment with form. Against a solid, grammatical foundation, embellishments and deviations contrast properly as the stylistic flourishes they are meant to be. But if one fails to lay that foundation, any choices she might wish to explain as stylistic fail to achieve merit, lost as they are among the comma splices, sentence fragments, and other linguistic rubble.

[rufio]

The simplest answer? If you don't know whether it's okay to use a fragment for effect, it's not okay. If you know it's okay, it's okay.

Well I do know - or, I thought I did, and I wanted to know what the rules are according to rohina, who apparently thinks they are different.

If one is proficient at mechanics and rules, she can effectively proceed to experiment with form. Against a solid, grammatical foundation, embellishments and deviations contrast properly as the stylistic flourishes they are meant to be. But if one fails to lay that foundation, any choices she might wish to explain as stylistic fail to achieve merit, lost as they are among the comma splices, sentence fragments, and other linguistic rubble.

Well, the criticism leveled at the person using a sentence fragment for effect was that they were using a sentence fragment.  So, we are back to the same question - at what point does using a sentence fragment for effect not count as an error which precludes one from using sentence fragments for effect?  Or is it possible that there are actual rules about when sentence fragments are erroneous or not?

[Lorelei]

That is not an answer to "When is it OK to use a sentence fragment for effect?"

When it is clear from your output that you have mastered the basic rules and guidelines, you can occasionally deviate for stylistic effect.

A single instance that underscores failure to grasp the basic rules, however, means that your "stylistic" choice to use a fragment (or whatever non-standard deviations you indulge in) will be seen as ignorance of the rules, and not a stylistic flourish.

Example: Grammar Police occasionally insert Catois or Internet memes into posts on MATY. Grammar Police have demonstrated a grasp of the rules and guidelines of grammar. Only the most dense observer assumes that the Grammar Police could not, if they so chose, rephrase the concepts and communication demonstrated by their post contents into sentences appropriate for the most eggheady applications.

Also, the art analogy again holds true: once you know the basic rules and how to properly use the materials traditionally associated with the genre of art you wish to master, you can experiment with both the basic building block rules and substitute different materials or use materials in a new way. You have to learn your basic colour wheel before you start discussing colour theory and the traditionally accepted symbolism associated with certain colour choices and combinations before announcing that your personally-developed non-standard symbolism is completely different but just as easy to "read".

To dumb it down even more, since this seems to be hard to grasp: you must learn to WALK before you RUN.

[rufio]

A single instance that underscores failure to grasp the basic rules, however, means that your "stylistic" choice to use a fragment (or whatever non-standard deviations you indulge in) will be seen as ignorance of the rules, and not a stylistic flourish.

So I take it that rohina and all of the Grammar Police have never once, in their entire lives, made a mistake in spelling or typing, or uttered a speech error.

Just to be clear, here.   

[Lorelei]

A single instance that underscores failure to grasp the basic rules, however, means that your "stylistic" choice to use a fragment (or whatever non-standard deviations you indulge in) will be seen as ignorance of the rules, and not a stylistic flourish.

So I take it that rohina and all of the Grammar Police have never once, in their entire lives, made a mistake in spelling or typing, or uttered a speech error.

Just to be clear, here.   

Again, since you are being thick, there is a difference between an error made due to ignorance, and an error made due to a typographical error, slip of the tongue, or botched edit. It is usually evident which type of error it is. If you find that you're unsure, the next few posts from the same writer generally serve to clarify whether it is stupidity or an atypical blunder.

ETR: A very unkind comment that served no useful purpose and would serve to distract further.

[rufio]

Again, since you are being thick, there is a difference between an error made due to ignorance, and an error made due to a typographical error, slip of the tongue, or botched edit. It is usually evident which type of error it is. If you find that you're unsure, the next few posts from the same writer generally serve to clarify whether it is stupidity or an atypical blunder.

So, going back to the topic at hand, what horrible blunders has Midwing made that her sentence-fragment-for-effect was interpreted as an error?  As far as I can tell (at least on this thread) her only crime was agreeing with rohina about the sad state of the education system.

[Lorelei]

You'll need to waggle your headpeen at the people who corrected Midwing, rufio. I haven't said anything about his / her / its posts.

[rufio]

"The people who corrected Midwing" have decided that they are not going to talk to me because I am not up to date with standard stylistics terminology.  Maybe you could hazard a guess as to their motivations?

[stephyd]

whayay man/hinny, divn't get yer niccas in a twist!

[Jelenedra]

My guess as to when sentence fragments are okay:

If the sentence being in a fragment adds something to the style or the voice of the writing. If it doesn't contribute anything, then it just makes you sound like a tard. In other words, if it doesn't benefit from being a sentence fragment, why do it?

Anyways, the only time you really see sentence fragments as acceptable forms of expression would be during first person narratives. They have no place in essays (except maybe one about personal opinions or a non-English class essay question).

Quotations would be another exception.

(((Of course, I am by no means an expert. No surprise there. Most of it just seems to be common sense.)))


In a forum, you can get away with more sentence fragments than you would in other forms of expression. Considering that you are "talking" on a forum. The only time you see people get jumped on for fragments on a forum is when you get a hamtard that communicates like this:

"lololol totaly broke my game. My sim was bed bath now hall chair lololol do u noe what happeneded?"

or

whayay man/hinny, divn't get yer niccas in a twist!

WTF was that? Seriously, WTF was that?

[rufio]

If the sentence being in a fragment adds something to the style or the voice of the writing. If it doesn't contribute anything, then it just makes you sound like a tard. In other words, if it doesn't benefit from being a sentence fragment, why do it?

This is my intuition also, but apparently there is some kind of hierarchy of Who Is Allowed To Use Fragments and Who Is Not Allowed To Use Fragments here.

exceptable

You mean "acceptable".

In a forum, you can get away with more sentence fragments than you would in other forms of expression. Considering that you are "talking" on a forum. The only time you see people get jumped on for fragments on a forum is when you get a hamtard that communicates like this:

"lololol totaly broke my game. My sim was bed bath now hall chair lololol do u noe what happeneded?"

And that's why I was wondering why Midwing was getting jumped on.

[Jelenedra]

If the sentence being in a fragment adds something to the style or the voice of the writing. If it doesn't contribute anything, then it just makes you sound like a tard. In other words, if it doesn't benefit from being a sentence fragment, why do it?

This is my intuition also, but apparently there is some kind of hierarchy of Who Is Allowed To Use Fragments and Who Is Not Allowed To Use Fragments here.

I think there this an unspoken rule about n00bs blasting out grammar fragments like a grenade went off in their first few posts. It seems to be the difference between standing respectably while the teacher introduces you to a new classroom and jumping up on a school desk and doing the Bartman dance.

exceptable

You mean "acceptable".

Yes, I did. Sorry.   Three edits, and I missed that each time.

In a forum, you can get away with more sentence fragments than you would in other forms of expression. Considering that you are "talking" on a forum. The only time you see people get jumped on for fragments on a forum is when you get a hamtard that communicates like this:

"lololol totaly broke my game. My sim was bed bath now hall chair lololol do u noe what happeneded?"

And that's why I was wondering why Midwing was getting jumped on.

I can't answer that one, I skimmed over Midwing's intro to the thread.

[jolrei]

I think that after 34 pages of this totally interesting go-nowhere argument between rufio and pretty much everyone else (special recognition to rohina for persistence), it behooves us to revisit the original purpose of this thread, just for nostalgia's sake.

Since the tidal wave of sheep shows no sign of letting up, and the most important task is sorting the occasional nugget of wheat from the chaff, Pescado has strongly suggested that grammatical errors and other behaviour demanding the sharp spork be handled by a barrage of PMs, rather than excessive poking in the thread. You may also like to take your guffaws to any relevant thread in RL, such as Miss Sheeple 2009.

I will be taking notice of the naughty and the nice with regard to respecting this decree, for Grammar Day Awards purposes. If warranted, someone can make a thread in RL to post the butthurt responses to the PM barrage.

Thank you for co-operation.

OH, and if you are a SHEEP reading this, then FUCKING LEARN TO SPELL, ASSHOLE.

See?  It wasn't even remotely about rufio.  I find this refreshing and enlightening.

Also, the word "futility" springs to mind.  (Yes, I know one should not start a sentence with "also" - it's non-standard.)

[rohina]

rufio, I answered your question; Lorelei gave you a similar answer in a different way; hell, even Jelly gestured at an answer, although hers is very simplistic. What you want is a set of rules for when it is okay to use a fragment; but there aren't "rules" in the way you want them. The point I was making with the questions I gave you was that if you can explain the stylistic function of a fragment, then it may have "merit" or be arguably effective.

Since you aren't really capable of understanding rhetorical analysis - it isn't about "interpretation" the way you appear to think - it isn't possible to explain the mechanics of it to you in any sophisticated way. I would suggest you take Jelly's simplistic explanation and be satisfied.

Following the rule, then, of "you can use fragments for effect if you have demonstrated you know the difference between a complete sentence and an incomplete sentence," Midwing is fail because its previous attempts at sentences had included gibberish, and the fragment it wrote was dreadful both stylistically and from a "your sentence, do she make any sense" point of view.

[Jelenedra]

(Yes, I know one should not start a sentence with "also" - it's non-standard.)

You're not? Well, shit, no wonder I get a Grammar Boot every year.   What's the reasoning?

[jolrei]

I don't really know specifically.  I learned my grammar a long time ago, and occasionally do an update, but the basic rules are now fully incorporated into the "it does/doesn't sound right" part of functional memory.  I think, a term like "additionally" would be more correct, whereas "also" is a more vernacular "common usage" type of thing, but technically incorrect.  It does appear to have a certain stylistic correctness on the internet, and is certainly used a lot as a sentence starter, so it has some level of common acceptance, depending on the context.  I wouldn't use it as a starter in formal text.

Then again, perhaps I'm just wrong.

[Jelenedra]

I don't really know specifically.  I learned my grammar a long time ago, and occasionally do an update, but the basic rules are now fully incorporated into the "it does/doesn't sound right" part of functional memory.  I think, a term like "additionally" would be more correct, whereas "also" is a more vernacular "common usage" type of thing, but technically incorrect.  It does appear to have a certain stylistic correctness on the internet, and is certainly used a lot as a sentence starter, so it has some level of common acceptance, depending on the context.  I wouldn't use it as a starter in formal text.

Then again, perhaps I'm just wrong.

I want to say that I've used it in essays and never had an odd remark about it. I had some pretty old school Comp teachers too. They didn't believe in using sentence fragments for effect. =p I wouldn't think they would let "also sentences" slide. I could be wrong about that, though. Who knows about the thought processes of teachers I had ages ago might've been.

[rufio]

I think that after 34 pages of this totally interesting go-nowhere argument between rufio and pretty much everyone else (special recognition to rohina for persistence), it behooves us to revisit the original purpose of this thread, just for nostalgia's sake.

Actually, I think you'll find that I did not even post in this thread until page 9, did not post in response to rohina until page 13, and did not post about grammar until page 21.  The issue on page 21 was an unrelated argument; the current one has only been going on for three pages.

Since you aren't really capable of understanding rhetorical analysis - it isn't about "interpretation" the way you appear to think - it isn't possible to explain the mechanics of it to you in any sophisticated way. I would suggest you take Jelly's simplistic explanation and be satisfied.

You are obviously looking for specific terms, and are going to reject any attempts to answer your questions that do not contain those terms.  I used the word "interpretation" only since I knew you were unlikely to accept any answer having to do with tone and pitch, as you claim to have no internal voice while reading.  Generally, when I think of "style" I think of the way something "sounds" while I'm reading it; you obviously mean a more concrete and universal set of literary devices, and since I no longer remember what they are, I will not be able to answer your question to your satisfaction.  It's not a matter of not understanding them, just of not having properly memorized a list.  I answered because I was under the impression that there would be some pearls of wisdom at the end of it, but I obviously forgot it was you I was talking to.

Midwing is fail because its previous attempts at sentences had included gibberish, and the fragment it wrote was dreadful both stylistically and from a "your sentence, do she make any sense" point of view.

Where did this gibberish take place?  Everything she posted in this thread is easy to read and more or less grammatically correct.  You just decided to throw a hissy fit because she used an unfamiliar turn of phrase.

ETA:  Proper quote tags.

[rohina]

Specific terms would have been nice, but that wasn't what I wanted, no.

The fragment made no sense. You are going to refuse to acknowledge that, no matter what I say, so I will not discuss it with you further.

[rufio]

Specific terms would have been nice, but that wasn't what I wanted, no.

What did you want?  I'm curious.

(The fragment made sense to me, because as a fragment it implied a tone of voice to me that has a particular meaning when used IRL.  I can see why you didn't see that, though.)

[rohina]

Well, the implied "tone of voice" you identify isn't really a concept that other people might discern by reading.

[rufio]

Actually, your lack of inner voice is fairly nonstandard.

[rohina]

Actually, your lack of inner voice is fairly nonstandard.

My point, you ridiculous tosspot, is that "this is how it sounds to MY inner voice" is a bullshit statement as far as meaning anything to anyone else is concerned. Because guess why? NO ONE CAN HEAR RUFIO'S INNER VOICE, EXCEPT RUFIO.

Also, "lack of inner voice" is complete misrepresentation. I said I didn't HAVE to hear stuff in my head. No that I couldn't.

[rufio]

The structure (and any number of semantic cues) imply the tone of voice, generally.

In any case, that part was in parentheses because it was not the main part of my post.  What did you want to hear from the little quiz you gave me?