Having read all the above, I’m still not clear on the prescriptivist view when writing a letter to a Reverend. Surely the correct form of address is “Dear Rev. Jackson”, not “Dear The Reverend Jackson”, or anything else?
Kids, kids…let me step in here. This notion of Strunk’s and White’s about putting the quote marks after the period at the end of the sentence (for instance) is one of the worst crimes ever committed against clear usage. That bonehead notion alone should have diminished their entire work into oblivion.
Don Quixote and I are on a mission: Change usage so that quotes go around what was quoted. Unless you follow this simple rule–well, it will be a rule when CP rules the usage world–meaning is obfuscated, and there is no excuse for that. It’s also just plain stupid to put a quote mark where it doesn’t belong (after the period at the end of a sentence, for example) even though putting it inside the period opens oneself up to the petty tyrants quoting Strunk and White.
Notice, please:
She said, “I am going home. Period.”.
She said, “I am going home. Period!”.
She said, “I am going home. Period!”!
She said, “I am going home. Period.”!
She said, “I am going home. Period.”?
There is only ONE way to make clear what was communicated–what was said and how it was said–and that is to put everything that is being quoted inside of quote marks and everything else where it otherwise belongs. This also neatly solves the secondary usage problem of making exceptions for where to put the quotes when an exclamation or question mark is used. The only reason for those exceptions is the sheer stupidity of the usage rule requiring quotes be outside the closing sentence mark in the first place…
The Reverand and the wife both support me in this endeavor.
I believe the correct syntax for that is “We be!”.
:D:D
My understanding is that the envelope would be addressed to “The Reverend Mr. Jesse Jackson,” and the salutation on the letter inside would simply be “Dear Mr. Jackson.”
:rolleyes:
Note the question that started this sidetrack:
It was (generally) incorrectly answered by Olentzero. Friedo gave the ostensibly correct answer, albeit being a bit cutesy. Olentzero fired back, attempting to be witty, but failed miserably – Friedo was actually correct. Now Chief Pedant, being anything but, decides to make up rules and forget that there are commonly used references for these sorts of things.
Per Chicago:
and
and
Yes, there are other style guides (see my first comment in the thread). But that doesn’t stop me from asking you to turn in your pedant’s license. 
IMHO, while this is fine, if I was requesting anything from Mr. Jackson, I would err on the side of including honorifics rather than dispensing with them, therefore “Dear Reverend Jackson”. Not meant as an evaluation of Mr. Jackson’s work, just noting that it requires some element of attention-seeking, so I’d guess that buttering him up with honorifics is going to be more effective than using a plain “Mr.”.
Well, you are of course welcome to call him whatever you like, but the question was, if “Reverend Jackson” is considered to be an incorrect form of address, what would the correct salutation be?
According to Wkipedia, Jackson has an honorary theological doctorate. If you want to butter the man up and still conform the traditional, educated use of “Reverend,” you can address the envelope to “The Reverend Dr. Jesse Jackson,” and begin your letter “Dear Dr. Jackson.”
Or perhaps, in your rush to quote more sources, you forgot to read my post.
I am, indeed, making up a new Rule, and I said so in my post. Me 'n Don Quixote, remember? Because changing the behaviour of pedants whose significance comes from being pedantic is an impossible task, I realize.
I am not arguing that style and usage guides don’t recommend we place quote marks after periods and commas–they do. I am arguing that this particular rule diminishes clarity, and that the primary rule should be clarity. I have given you some examples to show you how much more clearly meaning can be conveyed by simply putting quotes around what was quoted. There is a secondary benefit that the rule can be made more consistent–it doesn’t have to make exceptions for the problem it created in the first place.
Style and usage guides feed off one another. They (as do you) use antecedent sources as prima facie arguments for doing things a certain way.
But–and read carefully here–they are wrong about this particular usage being appropriate to follow, promote or enforce, because this particular rule diminishes clarity.
There is a reason I am the Chief Pedant.* That reason is so that when underling pedants get carried away trying to base their pedantry on “rules” which are actually detrimental to clear communication, I can correct them. When I have time. And even when they drag out Elements of Style.
*The other reason is that I thought of it first, much to the dismay of the other pedants here, most of whom can read but many of whom cannot think for themselves while they are racing to Mama in the hope of finding Authorities to quote vapid Rules…whoops; forgot we aren’t in the Pit anymore…
You poor thing. I’m sure you were a pedant at one time, I’m sure you were a very good pedant. But it seems time has worn on, the world has moved passed you, and your once-tight grip on definitions and books has turned arthritically soft. It’s OK, you’re still very special, in your own special way.
And it’s OK because a lot of us who know what ‘pedant’ means have long shunned it with regards to grammar and usage. Though we do tend to follow conventions and match particular style to particular clients and contexts, we welcome you and your new-found free spirit. Have some cocoa.
This is definitely not the appropriate way to address him. This is: Get the fuck out of my way, you fucking fuck.
Or …
Scalia, get your honorable ass the fuck out of my way, you fucking fuck!
“In my humble opinion” I am sure you meant to say, since we have left the Pit.
Which is why I’m letting you off the hook for now on your other pouty response to my excellent and insightful post without mocking you for not even trying to mount an actual defense of any kind for the usage you are defending. It’s good you are trying to break free of pedantry but as long as you persist in defending quotes after periods and comments your behaviour will belie your words. That particular rule is a pedant’s dream, often implemented as a pedantic “gotcha” but never successfully defended when challenged that it is one of the usage rules that actually obfuscates communication.
I’m pretty sure that in the kind of church that Mr. Jackson belongs to, people would address him as “Reverend Jackson” in much the same way I would call my pastor “Pastor So-and-so” or a Roman Catholic would call their priest “Father Ted.”
Me am do good at grammor.
As an amateur pedant, I am horrified that anyone would dredge out Elements of Style as a source for anything other than obfuscation, inaccuracy, and linguistic turpitude.
Amateur grammarian (aren’t we all?) and American. I will on principle refuse to put anything insice quotation marks unless part of the original or in brackets. Perhaps you prefer, “Here is a quote[.]”
That may well be, but it has nothing to do with the question I was answering.
The assertion was made that Reverend is not properly, or at least not traditionally, used as a form of direct address. One may speak or write about The Reverend John Smith, or The Reverend Mr. (John) Smith, or The Reverend Dr. (John) Smith, if Dr. is appropriate, but using Reverend or Rev. in place of Mister or Mr. (or in place of Doctor or Dr.) Is Not Done by educated speakers/writers.
Dead Cat asked, according to this prescriptivist point of view, what is the correct way to address a minister directly? The answer is to use Mr. (or Miss, Mrs., or Ms.) or Dr., as appropriate.
I will add that this usage is a formal one. Depending upon how well the speaker knows the minister, it may be appropriate to address him as Pastor (or some similar title), John, or Jack.
The part in bold should be either: “…the world has passed you,” or “…the world has moved past you.”
Yip. It’s quite similar to the Southern practice of referring to your doctor as Dr. Firstname or just Doc. You wouldn’t do it in formal writing, though. Or, at least, the vast majority of educated people wouldn’t.
In my haste to nitpick above, I forgot to mention that my pastor’s son-in-law is also pastors a church, and his getting his doctorate in theology was a big deal to him (as he has learning disabilities). Thus, Pastor always introduces him as “Pastor The Reverend Doctor Ronald Smith”. We, on the other hand, just call him Brother Ronnie.
Among Americans, moving punctuation such as commas and periods outside of quotation marks is a practice generally reserved for (a) those who don’t even know what a style guide is, let alone how to follow one, and (b) nauseously grating Anglophiles who also insist on referring to elevators as lifts, trunks as boots, and potato chips as crisps. They shall be the first up against the wall etc. etc.