| Moderated by: Joe Kelley | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Examples: |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I did not mince words, I did not play the games, I did not blame THINGS for the actions of people, and I did not lose the election. (It was stolen - they are all stolen - with few exceptions.) What is the thinking as to the above compared to the same message without the parenthesis: I did not mince words, I did not play the games, I did not blame THINGS for the actions of people, and I did not lose the election. It was stolen - they are all stolen - with few exceptions. Either way looks good to me, and the parenthesis version adds dimension, or richness, or confusion, depending upon the angle of view I may have, as a reader, at any given moment. Reading intently favors parenthesis, it seems to me, and reading without as much care, which happens often, the parenthesis appear to be superfluous. Does that make sense? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I don't know who the remnant is. I can't, but I know that we exist. If by remnant I can refer to an author named Albert J. Nock, in reference to those who refuse to "join 'em" because we won't claim that we can't "beat 'em," or some other shared lie - perhaps many of us are the silent remnant, not yet ready to stick our necks out very far. Not willing to be counted so overtly, in public, for various reasons, not just for fear, or even concern, or self-preservation. Modified as follows: I don't know who the remnant is, I can't, but I know that we exist - if by remnant, I can refer to author Albert J. Nock in reference to those who refuse to "join 'em" because we won't claim that we can't "beat 'em," or some other shared lie. Perhaps many of us are the silent remnant…not yet ready to stick our necks out very far…not willing to be counted so overtly, in public, for various reasons…not just for fear, or even concern, or self-preservation. Modified as an improvement to me as I see where my early attempts at using punctuation were errors in trial and error, in current writing, and I see how the use of the ... (what is the term?) connects ideas or thoughts that are connected "along these lines," or dots? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Your grandchild may be setting a fine example if it does not get too hot, and if he does not wither, and if he does not become like the pod people. One of them, I mean, without any ambiguity - become a person who shares the lie that THINGS are accountable for the actions of people. modified as follows: Your grandchild may be setting a fine example, if it does not get too hot, if he does not wither, and if he does not become like the pod people - one of them, I mean, without any ambiguity - one of those people who share the lie that THINGS are accountable for the actions of people. There is a use of single, not double dash, and without going back to find double dashes in past sentences, to compare, I am not able to understand the reasoning. Since you are current in this work, and since you appear to have -- in mind -- reasons for going back to single dashes only, then your decision may be based upon specific reasons that lean toward that decision for those reasons. I would not worry about it, at all, and if there is inspiration to go forward, or back, then go forward, or back, as if finding a challenge, meeting that challenge, and then offering a workable competitive solution to that challenge in time and space. Like gardening, I suppose, there are no good things to eat before you met the challenge, and the proof of the validity of your offered solution is, in fact, things to eat. Who is to say those things to eat are good or not? |
|||||||||||
|
bear Guest
|
Joe, I felt the need to copy all of this...and then answer the rationale at the bottom[/] bear: 7/15/13 page 107 bear: Joe, now I really need your help...with the dashes/hyphens or whatever they are called. I think you have used - often in your writing, and then I started with the -- bit. From what I remember ready a style should be chosen and stuck with. I am inclined at this day and hour to change the 18 or so -- to - . Joe: I am not so inclined to step back from something that appeared to add richness to the writing. I can offer a deal where you keep going without stepping back on this one thing, and the next time you feel like double dashes, try to zero in precisely on why you want double dashes. Joe: Your grandchild may be setting a fine example if it does not get too hot, and if he does not wither, and if he does not become like the pod people. One of them, I mean, without any ambiguity - become a person who shares the lie that THINGS are accountable for the actions of people. I only feel the need to be consistent between single dashes (short dashes referred to as "en") or double dashes (long dashes referred to as "em") because the "rules" say to be consistent. I think when I started using double dashes, I didn't remember your use of single dashes...and now of course, I am finding that I am not using em dashes correctly...they are to be used WITHOUT SPACES: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash#Rendering_dashes_on_computers A dash is a punctuation mark, similar to a hyphen or minus sign but differing primarily in length and serving different functions. The most common versions of the dash are the en dash (–) and the em dash (—), named for the length of a typeface's lower-case n and upper-case M respectively. Usage varies both within English and in other languages, but the usual convention in printed English text is:
I think at this time, I will not go back and edit or change what when we used single dashes and when I started using double dashes. I guess because I like the way we have been doing things so far, and if you are not worried about mixed style, then I won't be either. After all, you are the author  ---------------------- ...are called ellipsis |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Thanks |
|||||||||||
