Punctuation rules have changed?

Factual Questions
61

[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
As they become our writers and readers, we can be certain that the carefully built-up “rules” we have learned so carefully (usually the result of our teachers pounding them into us) will go by the wayside, offal tossed away as useless. Since these younger members of our society seem to be able to communicate quite handily without worrying about “serial commas” or “two spaces after the period,” I doubt the rules will be missed that much, except by the few who will long for the days when written English was vibrant and clear. <sigh>
[/QUOTE]

How does a lack of two spaces after a period make English any less vibrant and clear? It’s already been explained why two spaces were preferred in a monospaced font (like typewriters) and it’s been explained why they are no longer necessary. Even in those rosy olden days, typesetters would remove the double space when setting type, because proportional fonts looked wrong with them. The “correct” spacing is somewhere between a double space and a single space, but single spaces are preferred these days.

But I guess you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.

62

[QUOTE=pulykamell]
How does a lack of two spaces after a period make English any less vibrant and clear? It’s already been explained why two spaces were preferred in a monospaced font (like typewriters) and it’s been explained why they are no longer necessary. Even in those rosy olden days, typesetters would remove the double space when setting type, because proportional fonts looked wrong with them. The “correct” spacing is somewhere between a double space and a single space, but single spaces are preferred these days.

But I guess you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.
[/QUOTE]

This thread, and your response, remind me that trees often obscure a forest. :stuck_out_tongue:

The rule about spacing doesn’t make English anything except easier to read in certain printed circumstances. It is the whole concept of prescriptive rules of grammar and spelling that makes English more “vibrant and clear.” :slight_smile:

63

[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
In all seriousness, we are in the process of witnessing a not-so-slow degeneration of the concept of English by prescriptive rule. All the younger generation communicate through IM’s and text messages, and they disdain and eschew punctuation and grammar rules by the boatload in their quest for novel and/or compact ways to express themselves. As they become our writers and readers, we can be certain that the carefully built-up “rules” we have learned so carefully (usually the result of our teachers pounding them into us) will go by the wayside, offal tossed away as useless. Since these younger members of our society seem to be able to communicate quite handily without worrying about “serial commas” or “two spaces after the period,” I doubt the rules will be missed that much, except by the few who will long for the days when written English was vibrant and clear. <sigh>
[/QUOTE]

You know, it is possible for “young people” who text and IM to use leetspeak and other convenient word-shortenings when they are IMing and texting, but to use proper grammar and punctuation outside of those media. Further, it is even possible that they may feel strongly enough against leetspeek and its ilk that they eschew its use even in IM and text messages.

Kind of a wide brush you’re using, don’t you think? Especially since perfect spelling, grammar, and punctuation – if we could even agree on what “perfect” means here – are not always exhibited among “older people.”

64

[QUOTE=Balthisar]
Year of Our Lord, ano domini. (sp?)
[/QUOTE]

“Anno”, as has been pointed out. Wouldn’t “ano domini” mean “Bunghole of our Lord”?

Re: quotation marks and punctuation, the British way is not, as has been stated, always to put the closing quote mark before the punctuation. It depends on whether the quoted material is a whole sentence or not. For example:

He described the play as “rubbish”.

His views on the play were clear: “It’s a load of rubbish.”

Both of the above are correct.

Similarly:

“That play was rubbish,” he said.

Having told me that the play was “rubbish”, he suggested we leave.

65

Actually, ano domini would be in the bunghold of the lord. I’m sure this is a useful phrase in some contexts. Some contexts I don’t particularly want to explore…

66

[QUOTE=stargazer]
You know, it is possible for “young people” who text and IM to use leetspeak and other convenient word-shortenings when they are IMing and texting, but to use proper grammar and punctuation outside of those media. Further, it is even possible that they may feel strongly enough against leetspeek and its ilk that they eschew its use even in IM and text messages.

Kind of a wide brush you’re using, don’t you think? Especially since perfect spelling, grammar, and punctuation – if we could even agree on what “perfect” means here – are not always exhibited among “older people.”
[/QUOTE]

Um, I speak from the experience of teaching high school students and having to read what they write, as well as reading what college students write and attempt to pass off as correct formal English.

Trust me when I say that the young in general (not EVERY young person, but a great many of them, probably, nay, even certainly, most of them) do not have as much dedication to the concepts of “correct” grammar and spelling as even was the case in my day in high school, 30 years ago, to say nothing of the people in my grandparent’s generation.

Nor would it be surprising to be the case. After all, if one can effectively communicate without “proper” spelling or grammar, why would one bother with formal rules, unless shown exactly how it can be a benefit? In our society, the value of reading diminishes every day. News is obtained through listening and watching, not through reading (most young persons don’t bother with newspapers, for example). Websites increasingly become visual and auditory experiences. I’m not saying this is a good thing, just that it is true.

Finally, for the record, I’m not talking about "leet"speak, which, by the way, is totally on the way out among the mainstream youth. But they did discover something interesting: u don’t need 2 spel proprly 2 get ur msg acros. :wink:

67

[QUOTE=Shayna]
For me it’s got nothing to do with intentional resistance—I had no idea the two space convention had even changed until I read this thread! Not to mention the fact that it’s so deeply ingrained in how I type, that it would take twice as long for me to finish a document if I had to consciously try to make my hands not type, ‘period space space’ at the end of a sentence. And since I’m not making you do it that way, and I don’t work in your office, I don’t understand why you care whether I put one space or two between each sentence.
[/QUOTE]

Well, it’s true enough that you don’t work in my office. I’m just trying to get the word out to people (like you) who have never heard that the two-space convention is no longer necessary. And even I had to get used to typing ‘period space’ instead of ‘period space space’ at the end of sentences. One gets used to it soon enough, in my experience.

In my office, however, I work on various reports that involve people making sequential edits to a given document. It’s bad enough when I get a report that someone else has written, and I have to remove all the double spaces, but it drives me to distraction when someone makes a point of actually inserting double spaces into a document that I wrote. Those people get an e-mail from me with a link to this.

When I work on a document started by someone else, I now routinely do a global search-and-replace to replace all of the double spaces with single spaces. (God forbid I get a document where someone is using strings of spaces instead of tabs.)

With the people I routinely work with, most have now adopted single spaces. The ones who have refused to change don’t bother me–(I don’t belabor the point after having brought it up exactly once)–but any document that goes through me will lose all of the double spaces as a matter of course.