My opinion on the words "dialogue" and "dialog".

[Humodour]

That's right, dialog is proper American spelling, liten up.

 

Is an inability to spell 'lighten' properly also "proper American spelling"?

 

Edit: Since I'm in grammar/spelling/usage pedant mode, I should point out that the period at the end of your title should go inside of the quote.

 

False. There are different styles, and from memory putting the full stop inside the quotation is the American style. Sawyer used the British style. More power to him!

 

If we're going to be pedantic, you should have used the word 'quotation', since in this context 'to quote' is a verb, not a noun.

Forgive me for citing the correct form in American writing when addressing an American writer on an American website. Any copy editor for a US publication would have moved the period inside of the quotation; it's not a choice that every writer gets to make for him/herself. (Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed., sec. 6.8 )

 

So you're arguing for strict adherence to linguistic rules?

 

And, according to Merriam-Webster, "quote" has been used as a noun to mean "quotation" as far back as 1888.

 

So you're arguing for lax adherence to linguistic rules?

Edited December 7, 2008 by Krezack

[J.E. Sawyer]

Edit: "Dialog" is by the way the German word for "dialogue". Kindergarten = Kindergarden. I wonder why they just haven't named it "Child's garden" or "Kids garden" or "Llyr's garden" instead.

America's first kindergarten was imported by Margarethe Meyer Schurz to Watertown, Wisconsin (about twenty miles from where I grew up). That region was dominantly settled by Germans.

 

Edit: Since I'm in grammar/spelling/usage pedant mode, I should point out that the period at the end of your title should go inside of the quote.

I think the American rules for punctuation and quotation marks are inferior to the British rules. If you are quoting a dependent clause or fragment, you should punctuate outside of the quotation marks; after all, you're punctuating the larger independent clause outside of the quotation. If you are quoting an independent clause, punctuate inside the quotation marks.

[Gorgon]

Grammatical and orthographical laxity will inevitably become a serious issue for English in a not too distant future. English will eventually diverge into different languages because of the geographical obstacles between the different speakers. It is plain to see that the only solution lies in pedantic teachers enforcing the conservation of the language in its current form. If we're not strict enough, maybe we'll end up speaking incomprehensible gibberish, like the Danes.

 

 

Like we say in Grammar Nazi land, deteriores omnus sumus licentia.

Or sound like demented faries like the Sweedes

Edited December 7, 2008 by Gorgon

[tarna]

Edit: Since I'm in grammar/spelling/usage pedant mode, I should point out that the period at the end of your title should go inside of the quote.

 

False. There are different styles, and from memory putting the full stop inside the quotation is the American style. Sawyer used the British style. More power to him!

 

If we're going to be pedantic, you should have used the word 'quotation', since in this context 'to quote' is a verb, not a noun.

Forgive me for citing the correct form in American writing when addressing an American writer on an American website. Any copy editor for a US publication would have moved the period inside of the quotation; it's not a choice that every writer gets to make for him/herself. (Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed., sec. 6.8 )

You are quoting lazy sewage with respect to language. Language, like mathematics, has a few rules that are to be followed. One is preference. As with math, anything that sets a portion of the 'equation' off from the rest takes preference. Adding [] for example, trumps all else in an equation ( [] = absolute and MUST be addressed first ). Quoting from those that modify our language simply to cause print to flow more freely on the page of a newspaper column doesn't really support the 'rules' ( few as they are in American English ) of language. And, yes, I am directly stating that the Chicago Manual of Style is little more than toilet paper if it states what you are seeking to support. Maybe you could wrap fish in it though. It could probably proper catch dog droppings ( but only if properly placed ).

[Tigranes]

*shrug* the ways of citation manuals are convoluted and silly, but they have absolute power.

 

I remember when I had to check every ' and " in a 50-page paper to see I was consistent. I *was* consistent, in my own world...

[Morgoth]

Fact is, English has become a global language, so transformations are inevitable. Still, both native speakers and foreigners should try their best to adhere to the linguistic rules.

 

Heck, even in German speaking countries, there are tons of abberations from the standard rules. (not meaning accents)

 

Like we Austrians seldomly use the past tense. Like "Die Katze sa

Edited December 7, 2008 by Morgoth

[Gorgon]

Japanese seems to arbitrarily use past or non past as if they were interchangeable. It takes a bit of getting used to.

[Gorgon]

Also you can insert a non grammatical comma anywhere, stick it right after the subject in a main clause if you like.

[samm]

"Die Katze ist auf dem Tisch gesessen" (i.e. The cat was sitting on the table).

Dito OK, my language is on the level of the dark ages anyway, except for certain more advanced sound shifts, also we don't even have an imperfect past tense...

 

This thread is a fun read

[Aristes]

Well, if tarna and Krezaks defense is right, then J.E.'s point is already lost. After all, then why don't we throw out every strange or alien rule out of both UK and US English? That act of defiance based on

[Rostere]

Or sound like demented fairies like the Swedes

 

LOL, actually that does sound a little bit like Swedish, if he would only cut down a little on the diphtongs (does not apply to certain dialects of Swedish).

[J.E. Sawyer]

This forum has no convention for writing, so I am free to write in whatever manner I please, bullying those who do not follow suit. That's how the practical exchange and adoption of language works. When I write for publications or for games, I follow the conventions established by the client. I made no mistake in the topic's subtitle; I consciously punctuate dependent clauses inside of quotation marks to avoid issues like this:

 

He asked if I wanted to "go inside."

 

In this example, the fragment is logically from an interrogative independent clause. A period inside the quotation marks makes less sense because the proper punctuation for the full interrogative clause would be a question mark. You are punctuating the subject/verb he/asked.

 

He asked if I wanted to "go inside".

 

If you care enough to try to shape someone's use of language, apply pressure to them in whatever manner you see fit. "Dialogue" is simply my pet peeve. Improper use of the subjunctive mood is just below that. Improper use of the objective case of pronouns is next on the list.

[Aristes]

Okay, fair enough J.E., but I submit that either

 

"...to 'go inside'."

 

or

 

"...to 'go inside.'"

 

will convey the meaning with essentially no ambiguity between them. From a logical sense, I understand your point. From a logistical sense, I think it's easy on us poor, lazy Americans to simplify the rule so we do the same thing each time. If I can understand your defense of the logical argument, I'd hope that you can at least give a nod to the logistical one.

 

As far as mistakes go, someone else will have to be the bully here. I don't have any real interest in enforcing my will because I would then be forced to maintain some consistency, which I currently lack. All goofing aside, I'm very lazy. As long as I convey my meaning, I don't care spend a lot of time worrying about any conventions at all.

 

EDIT: Although I guess I really do have to make sure I make the two examples different for the statement to make sense.

Edited December 7, 2008 by Aristes

[Morgoth]

I swear I'll do my best writing correctly from now otherwise Josh will come and stab me death in my deep sleep.

 

Some funny thing: Back then, when people got executed by hanging and official information was shared through telegraphs, proper comma placement by the telegrpaher often decided a man's life. There's a huge difference between "Wartet, nicht h

[Gorgon]

Or sound like demented fairies like the Swedes

 

LOL, actually that does sound a little bit like Swedish, if he would only cut down a little on the diphtongs (does not apply to certain dialects of Swedish).

The sk

[Morgoth]

Dutch can be slighty understood by Germaniacs, but everything from there in the north (yes, I mean those Scandinavians) really sounds nasty and unclean.

[Gorgon]

Just the way we like it

[Rostere]

Dutch can be slighty understood by Germaniacs, but everything from there in the north (yes, I mean those Scandinavians) really sounds nasty and unclean.

 

In my opinion those are languages which are easy to listen to and transcribe to text, with the exception of Danish and southern Swedish dialects (Sk

[Morgoth]

I barely understand the mountain folks we have in western Austria. But with time someone gets used to it. But then again, there are dozens over dozens different accents in the German language. And don't get me started about the old proletarian Viennese. That's quite hefty (but then again only few use it these days). Contrary, the French don't seem to have these varieties. Asking my French colleague, it's mostly streamlined over the whole country, with a slightly difference in the northern parts. He also said Quebec French is ugly gibberish. I can't quite hear the difference, but then again my French skills are very little.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Mmmm. Dognut.

[Darth InSidious]

I'll give a good example of this, mostly to soften my post so my last sentence isn't an indictment. In English (both US and UK if I remember correctly) it is against da rulez to split an infinitive. That is to say, you cannot put any word between the preposition 'to' and the verb. For example, you must write 'to run.' You cannot write 'to quickly run.' You must write something to the effect of 'quickly to run' or 'to run quickly.' Why? Not because it would destroy the meaning to split the infinitive. I seriously doubt most folks would see 'to quickly run' and misunderstand it. It's far less intuitive to say 'quickly to run' and sounds odd, at least to me. There is no 'to boldly go' in proper English. However, most British and American folks I know split infinitives in conversation and informal writing regularly. The rule itself derives from Latin, where it makes a lot more sense as infinitives in Latin and ancient Greek are one comprised of one word. Since some English person, being full of the importance of Latin and thinking of his uncultured countrymen, created the convention, we'd now stuck with it. Sure, you can argue that it makes sense that we don't have whole clauses or extraneous words between the preposition and the verb, however, the rule would make just as much sense if it allowed for adverbs in the midst. ...Or it could be tweaked in any number of ways. That's not the point. The rule is what it is. We accept it.

That's not entirely true.

 

The split infinitive is found in use as far back as the Canterbury Tales, in Shakespeare. The controversy is the result of 19th Century pedants, but has little foundation in fact, it seems.

 

Fowler, now widely considered the work on English (or at least, on English English), declares the prohibition against the split infinitive 'superstition'. He also thinks the question garners far too much attention, and in this is probably correct; by the early 20th Century there had arisen a mania against the split infinitive, it seems. At worst the form is disputed, and in some circumstances ought not to be used.

 

The demise of "whom", "whither", "whence", "hence", etc., however, should gain, perhaps, further attention. The death of the optative, by contrast, ought to both be hastened and encouraged, horrid construction that it is.

[Wrath of Dagon]

That's right, dialog is proper American spelling, liten up.

 

Is an inability to spell 'lighten' properly also "proper American spelling"?

 

That was intentional. Also I had too much lite yoghurt. If non standard spelling was good enough for Shaksper, it's good enough for us stupid Americans.

[Aristes]

That's not entirely true.

 

The split infinitive is found in use as far back as the Canterbury Tales, in Shakespeare. The controversy is the result of 19th Century pedants, but has little foundation in fact, it seems.

 

Fowler, now widely considered the work on English (or at least, on English English), declares the prohibition against the split infinitive 'superstition'. He also thinks the question garners far too much attention, and in this is probably correct; by the early 20th Century there had arisen a mania against the split infinitive, it seems. At worst the form is disputed, and in some circumstances ought not to be used.

 

The demise of "whom", "whither", "whence", "hence", etc., however, should gain, perhaps, further attention. The death of the optative, by contrast, ought to both be hastened and encouraged, horrid construction that it is.

 

Coming from a classical perspective, I see the optative voice as a Greek construct rather than English. Greek and Latin rely more heavily on grammar than English, which relies more on word placement rather than grammar per se. However, the optative in Greek certainly has the power to make a more nuanced statement. Latin doesn't really have an optative, and English use of the optative is really very limited. In Greek, the optative might be the only way to convey an idea in a sentence, but sometimes the writer has the choice of using the subjunctive.

 

In terms of the split infinitive, I see no logical reason why the rule shouldn't change, but it has been a rule. As you state, and I must not have conveyed adequately, it is a relatively recent rule and certainly misguided. However, it's still the basis for reducing the grade on a paper. In fact, so is the use of passive voice, and it's not even against da rulez in either UK or US English. It's just considered (haha) stylistically improper. For my part, I like the passive voice. It allows the writer to bypass standard English word order in placing the actor in a scene behind the recipient of the action. "I was held up at gunpoint by an irate shopper!" Personally, I like having the choice, but... aw well, you can't always get what you want.

 

Another rule I don't like is the prohibition against ending sentences with prepositions. If I recall correctly, that's another rule derived from classical languages. The thing is, Greek and Latin works end clauses with prepositions fairly regualrly. Not all works, but poetry in particular. ...And when we end a sentence with a preposition in English, it's usually because it's part of the verb. "The boy threw up." I usually get by that by substituting a different verb, but why should I? It's a perfectly good verb construction and folks understand it.

 

I actually love talking about languages. It's fun. ...But it also requires me to use the correct terms, which I habitually forget. For that reason, I'll leave it as is. Still, it's cool to know that some poor souls find this all as interesting as I do.

[Darth InSidious]

That's not entirely true.

 

The split infinitive is found in use as far back as the Canterbury Tales, in Shakespeare. The controversy is the result of 19th Century pedants, but has little foundation in fact, it seems.

 

Fowler, now widely considered the work on English (or at least, on English English), declares the prohibition against the split infinitive 'superstition'. He also thinks the question garners far too much attention, and in this is probably correct; by the early 20th Century there had arisen a mania against the split infinitive, it seems. At worst the form is disputed, and in some circumstances ought not to be used.

 

The demise of "whom", "whither", "whence", "hence", etc., however, should gain, perhaps, further attention. The death of the optative, by contrast, ought to both be hastened and encouraged, horrid construction that it is.

 

Coming from a classical perspective, I see the optative voice as a Greek construct rather than English. Greek and Latin rely more heavily on grammar than English, which relies more on word placement rather than grammar per se. However, the optative in Greek certainly has the power to make a more nuanced statement. Latin doesn't really have an optative, and English use of the optative is really very limited. In Greek, the optative might be the only way to convey an idea in a sentence, but sometimes the writer has the choice of using the subjunctive.

Well, the ut + subjunctive can be viewed as a form of optative, and it does exist in other languages - such as Middle Egyptian (the iry=f form) - as well as Greek. It's hardly exclusive.

 

In terms of the split infinitive, I see no logical reason why the rule shouldn't change, but it has been a rule. As you state, and I must not have conveyed adequately, it is a relatively recent rule and certainly misguided. However, it's still the basis for reducing the grade on a paper. In fact, so is the use of passive voice, and it's not even against da rulez in either UK or US English. It's just considered (haha) stylistically improper. For my part, I like the passive voice. It allows the writer to bypass standard English word order in placing the actor in a scene behind the recipient of the action. "I was held up at gunpoint by an irate shopper!" Personally, I like having the choice, but... aw well, you can't always get what you want.

You shouldn't take style rulings for academic work as equating to the rules of formal grammar in English; one shouldn't use the first person in a paper (for the record, to those just discovering the joys of papers and essays, please, for the love of Osiris, don't write the 'I shall take you on a mystical journey' claptrap. You will annoy the marker...), either. To remove the first person from normal English would be a nonsense, however. The rules for formal academic writing are somewhat more restrictive than otherwise. Regardless; the grammarians say it isn't a rule, and they're the ones who have the say on this.

 

Another rule I don't like is the prohibition against ending sentences with prepositions. If I recall correctly, that's another rule derived from classical languages. The thing is, Greek and Latin works end clauses with prepositions fairly regualrly. Not all works, but poetry in particular. ...And when we end a sentence with a preposition in English, it's usually because it's part of the verb. "The boy threw up." I usually get by that by substituting a different verb, but why should I? It's a perfectly good verb construction and folks understand it.

Actually, that's not a rule, either. It's an invention that, as I mentioned, Winston Churchill came up against once; as far as I know, however, this rule has never been in common usage, nor should it. In your sentence, "the boy threw up", there's nowhere else to put the word and retain the sense (you could have "up threw the boy", but there you're missing an object...). The vast majority of grammarians seem to agree it's perfectly acceptable to end a sentence in such a way. Unless it's entirely extraneous (example: "that's where it's at").

 

I actually love talking about languages. It's fun. ...But it also requires me to use the correct terms, which I habitually forget. For that reason, I'll leave it as is. Still, it's cool to know that some poor souls find this all as interesting as I do.

Heh. I gave up on formal grammar once I dropped Latin. Aside from Romance languages, I have managed to survive quite happily while never being entirely sure what a gerundive is. And Classical Greek is a horrible, horrible language. It doesn't help that half the textbooks when I learnt it were last published c. 1950... And the practice sentences tended to be such wonderful exclamations as 'Loose not the general, O vagabonds!', etc.

Edited December 8, 2008 by Darth InSidious

[Aristes]

I love the discussion. I will say, however, that the optative voice, as a defined grammatical construct doesn't really exist in Latin. Hell, it barely exists in English. It does have a place in a variety of languages, but I don't know those and I'm too lazy to look them up. Most of them would be quite unfamiliar to the majority of Americans, I would think. Could be wrong, either about the languages or the majority of Americans. haha

 

The other thing is that we're talking conventions. That's where my language purity fall prey to pragmatism. There are the formal rules of language and then there are the rules we're forced to follow in formal settings, such as writing papers. If your professor or editor requires that you not split infinitives, then dem's da rulez. Not only do most American schools tend to be picky about these things, but my experience with British folks leads me to believe that, whatever the formal rules are, the evective rules in formal writing is the same. That is to say, you don't split infinitives.

 

On the flip side, and this was what I took J.E.'s point to be in the first post, rules change because people change them. For example, using the first person is not always the kiss of death in college/university. It's generally considered less felicitous, but some professors are more accepting. That's where pragmatism comes into play. Use the rules you're given at the time.

 

Well, I'm getting ready to turn into a pumpkin. So, to sleep I must depart, O vagabonds!