Showing posts with label grammar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label grammar. Show all posts

Sunday, June 3, 2012

Issue: To single space or double space after the full-stop or period

Dear All,

The writer of this article dwelt on the issue of whether to single space or double space after the full-stop / period.  He makes a passionate plea that the correct method is to single space.

What do you think? Personally, I would tab a single space because it'll save me one less action and the result in terms of appearance would be minimal.

Rodney Tan
--------------------------------

 

Two spaces after a period: Why you should never, ever do it.

By Farhad Manjoo | Posted Thursday, Jan. 13, 2011, at 6:20 PM ET
| Posted Thursday, Jan. 13, 2011, at 6:20 PM ET
Space Invaders
Why you should never, ever use two spaces after a period.
Can I let you in on a secret? Typing two spaces after a period is totally, completely, utterly, and inarguably wrong.
And yet people who use two spaces are everywhere, their ugly error crossing every social boundary of class, education, and taste. * You'd expect, for instance, that anyone savvy enough to read Slate would know the proper rules of typing, but you'd be wrong; every third e-mail I get from readers includes the two-space error. (In editing letters for "Dear Farhad," my occasional tech-advice column, I've removed enough extra spaces to fill my forthcoming volume of melancholy epic poetry, The Emptiness Within.) The public relations profession is similarly ignorant; I've received press releases and correspondence from the biggest companies in the world that are riddled with extra spaces. Some of my best friends are irredeemable two spacers, too, and even my wife has been known to use an unnecessary extra space every now and then (though she points out that she does so only when writing to other two-spacers, just to make them happy).
What galls me about two-spacers isn't just their numbers. It's their certainty that they're right. Over Thanksgiving dinner last year, I asked people what they considered to be the "correct" number of spaces between sentences. The diners included doctors, computer programmers, and other highly accomplished professionals. Everyone—everyone!—said it was proper to use two spaces. Some people admitted to slipping sometimes and using a single space—but when writing something formal, they were always careful to use two. Others explained they mostly used a single space but felt guilty for violating the two-space "rule." Still others said they used two spaces all the time, and they were thrilled to be so proper. When I pointed out that they were doing it wrong—that, in fact, the correct way to end a sentence is with a period followed by a single, proud, beautiful space—the table balked. "Who says two spaces is wrong?" they wanted to know.
Typographers, that's who. The people who study and design the typewritten word decided long ago that we should use one space, not two, between sentences. That convention was not arrived at casually. James Felici, author of the The Complete Manual of Typography, points out that the early history of type is one of inconsistent spacing. Hundreds of years ago some typesetters would end sentences with a double space, others would use a single space, and a few renegades would use three or four spaces. Inconsistency reigned in all facets of written communication; there were few conventions regarding spelling, punctuation, character design, and ways to add emphasis to type. But as typesetting became more widespread, its practitioners began to adopt best practices. Felici writes that typesetters in Europe began to settle on a single space around the early 20th century. America followed soon after.
Every modern typographer agrees on the one-space rule. It's one of the canonical rules of the profession, in the same way that waiters know that the salad fork goes to the left of the dinner fork and fashion designers know to put men's shirt buttons on the right and women's on the left. Every major style guide—including the Modern Language Association Style Manual and the Chicago Manual of Style—prescribes a single space after a period. (The Publications Manual of the American Psychological Association, used widely in the social sciences, allows for two spaces in draft manuscripts but recommends one space in published work.) Most ordinary people would know the one-space rule, too, if it weren't for a quirk of history. In the middle of the last century, a now-outmoded technology—the manual typewriter—invaded the American workplace. To accommodate that machine's shortcomings, everyone began to type wrong. And even though we no longer use typewriters, we all still type like we do. (Also see the persistence of the dreaded Caps Lock key.)
The problem with typewriters was that they used monospaced type—that is, every character occupied an equal amount of horizontal space. This bucked a long tradition of proportional typesetting, in which skinny characters (like I or 1) were given less space than fat ones (like W or M). Monospaced type gives you text that looks "loose" and uneven; there's a lot of white space between characters and words, so it's more difficult to spot the spaces between sentences immediately. Hence the adoption of the two-space rule—on a typewriter, an extra space after a sentence makes text easier to read. Here's the thing, though: Monospaced fonts went out in the 1970s. First electric typewriters and then computers began to offer people ways to create text using proportional fonts. Today nearly every font on your PC is proportional. (Courier is the one major exception.) Because we've all switched to modern fonts, adding two spaces after a period no longer enhances readability, typographers say. It diminishes it.
Type professionals can get amusingly—if justifiably—overworked about spaces. "Forget about tolerating differences of opinion: typographically speaking, typing two spaces before the start of a new sentence is absolutely, unequivocally wrong," Ilene Strizver, who runs a typographic consulting firm The Type Studio, once wrote. "When I see two spaces I shake my head and I go, Aye yay yay," she told me. "I talk about 'type crimes' often, and in terms of what you can do wrong, this one deserves life imprisonment. It's a pure sign of amateur typography." "A space signals a pause," says David Jury, the author of About Face: Reviving The Rules of Typography. "If you get a really big pause—a big hole—in the middle of a line, the reader pauses. And you don't want people to pause all the time. You want the text to flow."
This readability argument is debatable. Typographers can point to no studies or any other evidence proving that single spaces improve readability. When you press them on it, they tend to cite their aesthetic sensibilities. As Jury says, "It's so bloody ugly."
But I actually think aesthetics are the best argument in favor of one space over two. One space is simpler, cleaner, and more visually pleasing (it also requires less work, which isn't nothing). A page of text with two spaces between every sentence looks riddled with holes; a page of text with an ordinary space looks just as it should.
Is this arbitrary? Sure it is. But so are a lot of our conventions for writing. It's arbitrary that we write shop instead of shoppe, or phone instead of fone, or that we use ! to emphasize a sentence rather than %. We adopted these standards because practitioners of publishing—writers, editors, typographers, and others—settled on them after decades of experience. Among their rules was that we should use one space after a period instead of two—so that's how we should do it.
Besides, the argument in favor of two spaces isn't any less arbitrary. Samantha Jacobs, a reading and journalism teacher at Norwood High School in Norwood, Col., told me that she requires her students to use two spaces after a period instead of one, even though she acknowledges that style manuals no longer favor that approach. Why? Because that's what she's used to. "Primarily, I base the spacing on the way I learned," she wrote me in an e-mail glutted with extra spaces.
Several other teachers gave me the same explanation for pushing two spaces on their students. But if you think about, that's a pretty backward approach: The only reason today's teachers learned to use two spaces is because their teachers were in the grip of old-school technology. We would never accept teachers pushing other outmoded ideas on kids because that's what was popular back when they were in school. The same should go for typing. So, kids, if your teachers force you to use two spaces, send them a link to this article. Use this as your subject line: "If you type two spaces after a period, you're doing it wrong."
Correction, Jan. 18, 2011: This article originally asserted that—in a series of e-mails described as "overwrought, self-important, and dorky"—WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange used two spaces after every period. Assange actually used a monospace font, which made the text of his e-mails appear loose and uneven. (Return to the corrected sentence.)

Sunday, September 25, 2011

Website & Contest: 10 Websites and Blogs of Punctuation Protectors

10 Websites and Blogs of Punctuation Protectors




Posted: 23 Sep 2011 09:58 PM PDT



In honor of National Punctuation Day, commemorated on September 24 (you didn’t forget, did you?), here’s a directory of Web sites documenting, usually with photographs, egregious punctuation errors.



First, by the way, note that the founder of National Punctuation Day, a freelance business-newsletter writer named Jeff Rubin, sponsors a Punctuation Paragraph Contest. The only rule is that you must write one paragraph, maximum of three sentences, using these punctuation marks:



apostrophe, brackets, colon, comma, dash, ellipsis, exclamation point, hyphen, parentheses, period, question mark, quotation mark, and semicolon.



(You may use a punctuation mark more than once.) Send your entry to the email address at Rubin’s Web site  http://www.nationalpunctuationday.com/  by September 30, 2011.



*1.* Apostrophe Abuse  http://www.apostropheabuse.com/

Tagline: Links and visuals illustrating an orthographic pet peeve.



*2.* Apostrophe Catastrophes  http://www.apostrophecatastrophes.com/

Tagline: The Worlds’ Worst. Punctuation;



*3.* The Apostrophe Protection Society  http://www.apostrophe.org.uk/examples

Tagline: Examples of misuse of the apostrophe as seen by you!



*4.* The “Blog” of “Unnecessary” Quotation Marks http://www.unnecessaryquotes.com/

Tagline: none



*5.* English Fail Blog  http://www.englishfailblog.com/

Tagline: Public Butcherings of the English Language



*6.* The Gallery Of “Misused” Quotation Marks http://www.juvalamu.com/qmarks

Tagline: none



*7.* GrammarBlog  http://www.grammarblog.co.uk/

Tagline: Mocking poor grammar since 2007



*8.* The Grammar Vandal  http://thegrammarvandal.wordpress.com/

Tagline: Taking it to the streets and correcting America, one comma at a time.



*9.* The Great Typo Hunt  http://greattypohunt.com/?page_idX

Tagline: none



*10.* Wordsplosion  http://www.wordsplosion.com/

Tagline: Showcasing the best of the worst of the wide world of words



------------------------------

*Original Post: *10 Websites and Blogs of Punctuation Protectors http://www.dailywritingtips.com/10-websites-and-blogs-of-punctuation-protectors/



*Your eBook*: Click here to download the Basic English Grammar ebook. http://www.dailywritingtips.com/download/Basic-English-Grammar.zip



 


Sunday, September 4, 2011

Book Review: THE GLAMOUR OF GRAMMAR

Dear Readers,

I've taken this grammar book review from a Filipino online business news portal.

After reading the interesting review, I've learned a number of new things about grammar.

For example, glamour and grammar are related words. Next, the actual origins and meaning of the F-word and the difference between an acronym and an intialism.

English is also gifted with short words compared with many other languages and the word "ënthusiasm" has God in it.

Do note that the author of  this book: Roy Peter Clark is the mentor of many Pulitzer Prize winners as well! This speaks volume about the calibre of the author.

After reading this engaging review, I just can't wait to get a hold of this grammar book which is definately different than many of the normal textbook style grammar manuals!

Rodney Tan Chai Whatt
---------------------------------------------

Discover the magic power of language




Everytime I pass the South Luzon Expressway, northbound, I read this billboard of a finishing agency, John Robert Powers, which reads: “Don’t let bad grammar come between you.” It is catchy for two reasons.

One, it’s good to know that an organization wants to propagate the correct use of grammar in spoken and written English (or, maybe, in another language like Filipino), even among those whose business is to be “socially correct.”

Two, “bad grammar” – I prefer “wrong grammar” – focuses on the need to properly use the language with the right principles and rules. I said, here’s an agency pre-occupied with form, which is also concerned with something of substance that, yes, makes for good form.

Here’s a book, “The Glamour of Grammar,” that invades not only the classrooms, but the spheres of chic and sophistication, that presents itself as a “Guide to the Magic and Mystery of Practical English.”

To the classroom English teacher, it is a complete guide to animate discussion and to make grammar teaching exciting once again, because the book brings you to the thrilling experience of looking at words, sentences, and punctuation marks as your tools for writing superb English, and for telling a story, painting story with words and harnessing the wonder and might of wordplay.

To the professional – in the arts and sciences, even in the ritzy world of fashion and showbiz, learning from the author – who, by the way, is the mentor of many Pulitzer Prize winners, aspiring or accomplished.

Quoting “The Word Detective,” the Roy Peter Clark tells us that “glamour” and “grammar” are essentially the same word. In classical Greek and Latin, “grammar (from the Greek “grammatikos,” meaning “of letters”) covered the whole of arts and letters, i.e., high knowledge in general.

In every page, you will note that Roy Clark has fallen hopelessly in love with the English language. And when you begin to read his 294-page book, you will start falling in love to with the still generally undiscovered magic and mystery of the written and spoken word in English.

A master of the language, Roy Clark even gives us interesting facts about words and how they become acronyms. Scuba, he reveals, is the acronym of “self-contained underwater breathing apparatus. Radar is the shorthand for “radio detecting and ranging,” and “laser” is the abbreviated “light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation.” Pardon, dear readers, but the F-word, comes from a log book in a police precinct, which is the acronym of “for unlawful carnal knowledge.”

The author asks the reader to distinguish between an acronym and an “initialism.” AIDS is an acronym, while HIV is an initialism. This rule was already taught me by professor of Journalism, Jun Icban, who said an acronym is a set of initials that are pronounced as a word. An initialism must be spoken still as initials like IBM.

That’s just for the tail-enders in this book, which is rich in a master’s guide to using the English language. The author also volunteers that English, an Anglo-Saxon language, is gifted with short words – compared to Latin, French (and even Filipino), which use long words to express the same meaning. Roy cites many cases of the “short word economy of English.”

This example from an airplane’s instruction says it all: “… y mientras la luz de abrocharse el cinturon esta encendida,” is translated in English as “…and while fasten seatbelt light is on.” He observes, “It takes ten Spanish words and forty-nine letters to convey what we can say in English in seven words and thirty-one letters.”

Even up to this point, you will know that, through this book, you are having a conversation with the most interesting mentor on the mightier use of the language. This is not only for journalists who must enrich their style from the “inverted triangle” formula to the magical mix of “particularity and abstraction” in telling a story. This must also be true for magistrates who must surround their legal points with the necessary truths about human strength and frailty, about moral anchors and ethical frailties.

He offers only four parts in this book: Words, Points, Standards, and Meaning. In every part, however, is a treasure of themes and topics that instantly brings out new ways of using words where he counsels: “Enjoy, rather than fear, words that sound alike.” He deals with punctuations as if they are human, with this advice: “Embrace the three amigos: colon, dash, and parentheses.” On standards, “Be certain about the uncertain subjunctive and other ’moody’ subjects.”

“Switch tenses, but only for strategic reasons,” he counsels us on how to convey meaning. The examples presented are long paragraphs, so I will leave the reader to take note of the “strategic switch.” He invites masters of the language do “learn how expert writers break the rules in run-on sentences.”

I noted two suggestions that should remind us to be free to mix the abstract and the concrete. It’s really about “showing and telling,” he says—and we know “show and tell” since kindergarten, right? He cites the “ladder of abstraction” popularized by linguistic professor S. I. Hayakawa. At the low end should be concrete language like “grass, fruit, littered bottles,” and at the higher end could be “abundance, abandonment,” etc.

A chapter, titled “Harness the power of particularity,” focuses on why some prose are unforgettable, while other compositions are, well, easily forgotten. Get details, first, and make abstraction later. Get the name of the dog, the plate number, the car’s description, the bag’s contents—to reveal a character.

Roy Clark, the mentor of many Pulitzer Prize winners, says at the start, that he identifies of lovers of language like Bryan A. Garner, editor of A Dictionary of Modern American Usage. The one who Clark calls the apostle of grammar is quoted: “The reality I care about is that some people will want to use the language well… They want their language to be graceful at times and powerful at times… They want good grammar, but they want more: they want rhetoric. They want to use the language deftly so that it’s fit for their purposes.”

After reading this book, I intend to keep, not only to consult it every time I need it – and that would be frequent – but also to share the enthusiasm of a few like Roy Clark, who defines “enthusiasm” as “to have God in you.”

(Send comments to dmv.communications@gmail.com )