I don't know about you, but I've always feared a semicolon. The only time I'm certain when to use it is before a conjunction, like "however" and "therefore". Other than that, I would never use it to just break apart of sentence. The Oatmeal says differently.
The Oatmeal says the point of semicolon is to connect two independent clauses, two complete thoughts. Semicolons eliminate the pause created by a period without using words such as "and", "but", "nor", or "yet". It is recommended to use a semicolon when you'd like to form a bond between two statements, typically when they are related to or contrast with one another. Or use a semicolon as a super-comma, like if you need to make a list of items that are separated with a comma. This often occurs when listing locations, names, dates, and descriptions.
A good way to think about it is the difference in pauses. A comma creates a brief pause. A semicolon creates a moderate pause. And finally, a period, which creates a complete stop.
For more information, check out the website below for the amusing graphics and entertaining dialogue:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/semicolon
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
The Confederacy
So, our Governor decided to change policy and declare April "Confederate History Month." I thought, since my first foray into this blog was about the politics of Virginia, that it made nice symmetry for my last to do so as well. I think this is also a chance to look at what people do and say in reaction to events such as these, and how the government decides them.
Since we did not have a chance to get to our cultural editing unit, I'm not really sure if this is appropriate, but as someone who grew up with a very Southern family, I'm excited that we are acknowledging this part of American, and Virginian history, and culture. The Proclamation by the Governor is not very long, but it is interesting reading.
I am particularly fond of this section, "WHEREAS, this defining chapter in Virginia’s history should not be forgotten, but instead should be studied, understood and remembered by all Virginians, both in the context of the time in which it took place, but also in the context of the time in which we live," as it seems related to the news items of the day, such as Virginia asserting State's Rights in the suit against the Federal Government over the new Health Care policies. Considering that the previous two administrations did not endorse Confederate History Month, I wonder if our Governor did this for his own beliefs, or as a strategic political move. It is a question with no real answer, but my reading of the words leads me to wonder.
Looking at the Washington Post, I was fairly certain I knew what reader reaction was going to look like, and I was not disappointed. Those who commented at all were overwhelmingly negative about the entire deal, with objections ranging from the fact that the Proclamation did not mention slavery, to just outright calling McDonnell a hillbilly.
"Just exactly which constituency is he playing to, however you look at history, there is no question that the Confederacy stood for treason because they took up arms against the government of The United States. Nice job Virginia, you've really picked a winner with this nut bag!
Since we did not have a chance to get to our cultural editing unit, I'm not really sure if this is appropriate, but as someone who grew up with a very Southern family, I'm excited that we are acknowledging this part of American, and Virginian history, and culture. The Proclamation by the Governor is not very long, but it is interesting reading.
I am particularly fond of this section, "WHEREAS, this defining chapter in Virginia’s history should not be forgotten, but instead should be studied, understood and remembered by all Virginians, both in the context of the time in which it took place, but also in the context of the time in which we live," as it seems related to the news items of the day, such as Virginia asserting State's Rights in the suit against the Federal Government over the new Health Care policies. Considering that the previous two administrations did not endorse Confederate History Month, I wonder if our Governor did this for his own beliefs, or as a strategic political move. It is a question with no real answer, but my reading of the words leads me to wonder.
Looking at the Washington Post, I was fairly certain I knew what reader reaction was going to look like, and I was not disappointed. Those who commented at all were overwhelmingly negative about the entire deal, with objections ranging from the fact that the Proclamation did not mention slavery, to just outright calling McDonnell a hillbilly.
"Just exactly which constituency is he playing to, however you look at history, there is no question that the Confederacy stood for treason because they took up arms against the government of The United States. Nice job Virginia, you've really picked a winner with this nut bag!
Posted by: wsblount | April 6, 2010 1:47 PM"
The above quote was the first comment on the Post's "Political Voices" page, and I was really upset by it. After all, the Declaration of Independence supported the idea of removing, seceding or changing government when it no longer works for the people. If the Confederacy felt this was the appropriate action, then it is odd to see it labeled "treason." But then again, we are preparing to remove Thomas Jefferson from the history books of our high school students, so who's to judge?
Perhaps I've strayed a little bit from the idea of cultural editing, but I mainly wanted to point out the oddity that is American culture. Do we really even feel we have one anymore? I'm hard pressed to believe that we can agree on nearly anything. Even more importantly, I understand the polarizing effect of the Civil War, and the impact it still has on the thinking of our nation, but to see people so brazenly want to disregard it, as with other portions of our history is a strange case to make.
Enjoy the reading. I found it very painful.
Grammar Software: Where there's smoke...
We've been learning and reviewing grammar rules along with context and style considerations, presumably, in order to apply our writing skills to a career in which we are clear, concise, and professional writers, at a minimum. However, there is a software program called "WhiteSmoke" that from first glance appear to negate the need to retain these skills (http://www.whitesmoke.com/) or may possibly result in a reluctance to consistently adhere to good writing practices. I know that, for me, the use of spell check has brought about a diminished aptitude for spelling because I can resort to it if I type a series of letters that even closely resembles the word for which I intend to use.
This software goes well beyond the call of duty of your standard grammar and spell checking functions with an "innovative style checker [that] enhances sentences." Their webpage includes a list of FAQs, which includes inquires such as, "WhiteSmoke missed an error in my sentence. Why?" My answer: Well, because WhiteSmoke's Natural Language Processing (NLP) does not replace something known as the Broca’s area of the human brain. However, if an oversight of the software were to occur, one would be able to report the mistake to the company, and they would consider the information for future revisions. What has society resorted to if one would choose to use their time writing the makers of a software program that is intended to replace human intellect instead of taking that time to educate themselves and eliminate their dependency upon a software program to write well?
I had never heard of this software until I conducted an internet search on grammar this evening. Perhaps, you all are familiar with it and its uses. For all I know, this software could be widely accepted for its use in professional writing. Surely, companies wouldn't elect to use this software in place of editors who are able to access the context, determine the tone, and analyze sentences structure with a much higher level of reasoning. Ideally, this tool would be (as it may be) used to aid in the final revisions of a document and not relayed upon as an authority for writing. Obviously, software companies, such as this benefit from employing people who possess the skills that we are learning – something to keep in mind.
This software goes well beyond the call of duty of your standard grammar and spell checking functions with an "innovative style checker [that] enhances sentences." Their webpage includes a list of FAQs, which includes inquires such as, "WhiteSmoke missed an error in my sentence. Why?" My answer: Well, because WhiteSmoke's Natural Language Processing (NLP) does not replace something known as the Broca’s area of the human brain. However, if an oversight of the software were to occur, one would be able to report the mistake to the company, and they would consider the information for future revisions. What has society resorted to if one would choose to use their time writing the makers of a software program that is intended to replace human intellect instead of taking that time to educate themselves and eliminate their dependency upon a software program to write well?
I had never heard of this software until I conducted an internet search on grammar this evening. Perhaps, you all are familiar with it and its uses. For all I know, this software could be widely accepted for its use in professional writing. Surely, companies wouldn't elect to use this software in place of editors who are able to access the context, determine the tone, and analyze sentences structure with a much higher level of reasoning. Ideally, this tool would be (as it may be) used to aid in the final revisions of a document and not relayed upon as an authority for writing. Obviously, software companies, such as this benefit from employing people who possess the skills that we are learning – something to keep in mind.
Who(m) created this rule?
I learned the "rule" for when to use whom and when to use who when I was in elementary school. The correct word usually comes naturally now, but if I'm unsure, I can quiz myself with a quick question as I encouraged all of us to do in class on Monday:
Is who/whom referring to she, he, we or they? If so, use who.
Is who/whom referring to her, him, us, or them? If so, use whom.
As much as I hate simplifying these terms to masculine terms, its even easier just to remember to match up the "m's" on the end of him and whom or them and whom. For example:
To whom does the car belong? It belongs to him.
To whom do you wish to speak? I wish to speak to them.
Who is your best friend? He is my best friend. (no m's in this one!)
Even though I am comfortable with the who verses whom rule, I know this is a point of frustration for many. I googled "whom verses who" and thousands of responses popped up (obviously - its google) but I found different explanations on ehow.com and ask.com. Its funny to me that people look for quick answers to grammar questions on Wikipedia rather than searching in a legitimate online grammar source.
Even though this rule works like second nature for me, I know that these tricks may not work as easily for some people. I've been thinking about the grammar rules we create to remember the right way to do things, and how some work really well for some people and are ineffective for others. I know that I am an auditory learner. If I can make something rhyme or make sense orally, I'm good. For example, I've never forgotten that FAN BOYS stands for For And Nor But Or Yet So or that i comes before e except after c or when it sounds like "A" as in neighbor or weigh. Still, these rules have their limitations.
I think one reason the whom/who rule is most frustrating because it is almost outdated. Whom has been nearly eliminated from our oral conversations and vocabulary in general. In a way, I think this is a good thing because the English language is far more complicated than it needs to be, and if we can simplify the rules that seem arbitrary or confusing, we might as well. Until its completely gone, though, I say use the she/he/we/they verses her/him/us/them rule.
Is who/whom referring to she, he, we or they? If so, use who.
Is who/whom referring to her, him, us, or them? If so, use whom.
As much as I hate simplifying these terms to masculine terms, its even easier just to remember to match up the "m's" on the end of him and whom or them and whom. For example:
To whom does the car belong? It belongs to him.
To whom do you wish to speak? I wish to speak to them.
Who is your best friend? He is my best friend. (no m's in this one!)
Even though I am comfortable with the who verses whom rule, I know this is a point of frustration for many. I googled "whom verses who" and thousands of responses popped up (obviously - its google) but I found different explanations on ehow.com and ask.com. Its funny to me that people look for quick answers to grammar questions on Wikipedia rather than searching in a legitimate online grammar source.
Even though this rule works like second nature for me, I know that these tricks may not work as easily for some people. I've been thinking about the grammar rules we create to remember the right way to do things, and how some work really well for some people and are ineffective for others. I know that I am an auditory learner. If I can make something rhyme or make sense orally, I'm good. For example, I've never forgotten that FAN BOYS stands for For And Nor But Or Yet So or that i comes before e except after c or when it sounds like "A" as in neighbor or weigh. Still, these rules have their limitations.
I think one reason the whom/who rule is most frustrating because it is almost outdated. Whom has been nearly eliminated from our oral conversations and vocabulary in general. In a way, I think this is a good thing because the English language is far more complicated than it needs to be, and if we can simplify the rules that seem arbitrary or confusing, we might as well. Until its completely gone, though, I say use the she/he/we/they verses her/him/us/them rule.
A Dash of Style and yes I know the title is not mine
Just to a quick follow up on my recent presentation, here is the book I was referring to in the title of my presentation. I recently acquired this book so if you are interested in reading it just let me know. This is more so a guide for creative writing and less about creating an actual rule book. You can find a lot of other neat stuff from Noah Lukeman's website with media and preview actual excerpts from his book at http://www.adashofstyle.com/
Here is a preview from his introduction of his book. I really appreciate that he takes the angle of looking at punctuation as an art or stylization in writing. Certainly, there are some rules that qualify their usage for clear writing but a writer can use punctuation to really infuse a paper with his or her voice!
Excerpt from his into:
"Of all the subjects which engage the attention of the compositor, none proves
a greater stumbling-block, or is so much a matter of uncertainty and doubt . . .
as the Art of Punctuation."
—Henry Beadnell, Spelling and Punctuation, 1880
This is not a book for grammarians. Nor is it one for historians. They
can turn to Lynne Truss’s Eats, Shoots & Leaves or a host of other excellent
punctuation books written for them. This book is for the audience that needs it
the most and yet for whom, ironically, a punctuation book has yet to be written:
creative writers. This means writers of fiction, non-fiction, memoirs, poetry,
and screenplays, and also includes anyone seeking to write well, whether for
business, school, or any other endeavor.
Most writers do not want to know the 17 uses of the comma, or ponder
the 4th-century usage of the semicolon. Most writers simply want to improve
their writing. They want to know how punctuation can serve them—not how
they can serve punctuation. They have turned to books on punctuation, but have
found them painfully mundane. Unfortunately, many of these books tend to
ignore anyone hoping to use punctuation with a bit of style.
This book will offer a fresh look at punctuation: as an art form.
Punctuation is often discussed as a convenience, as a way of facilitating what
you want to say. Rarely is it pondered as a medium for artistic expression, as a
means of impacting on the content—not in a pedantic way, but in the most
profound way, where it achieves symbiosis with the narration, style, viewpoint,
and even the plot itself.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Split Infinitives: To Boldly Go Where No (Wo)Man Has Gone Before
I recognize that the above statement is cheesy, but hopefully you can catch on to the point. Perhaps it should be “To go boldly where no man has gone before,” but really, would it be as memorable? Split infinitives typically crop up in my writing—I am one to lean toward the wordy styles of English majors, and worse, the relaxed style of fiction students. In WRTC, however, it seems that split infinitives get me more often than not.
So, a little history regarding the split infinitive:
According to the American Heritage Book of English Usage on Split Infinitives, the first split infinitive appeared around the Norman conquest of Britain when the English was greatly influenced by the French language. The earliest split infinitives appeared around 1250, but interestingly enough, Shakespeare only used one in his career: “Thy pity may deserve to pitied be” (Sonnet 142)
Of course, in the 1900’s some grammarians chose to demonize split infinitives, though according to Joanne Asala at CompassRose.com, now the taboo can be helpful for clarification. This source also connects the negative viewpoint of split infinitives to the Renaissance writers who focused on Greek and Latin forms of speech. The format of Greek and Latin cannot include split infinitives due to the structure of sentences. It seems that people went back and forth on the subject, though note those famous individuals who used the split infinitives to their advantage: Abraham Lincoln, William Wordsworth, and Willa Cather. More recently, scholars seem to be split on this subject. (No Pun Intended)
This is what OWL says:
Split infinitives
Split infinitives occur when additional words are included between to and the verb in an infinitive. Many readers find a single adverb splitting the infinitive to be acceptable, but this practice should be avoided in formal writing.
Examples:
- I like to on a nice day walk in the woods. * (unacceptable)
On a nice day, I like to walk in the woods. (revised) - I needed to quickly gather my personal possessions. (acceptable in informal contexts)
I needed to gather my personal possessions quickly. (revised for formal contexts)
Above all, here, I think it’s necessary to recognize the flexibility of language. It is an organic concept that moves with culture so that, if we ever do go back to Latin, we can move with the times. The chance of this happening is pretty slim, of course. I suppose we are more likely to talk in Javascript someday. But, there is something to say for style and the comforting nature of literature that is written in the way that we speak. Should we take this relaxed response in every piece we write? Probably not. Should we judge those who split their infinitives? Probably not, though we should probably instruct them to checkout OWL. Regardless of all of the notes on my papers, regardless of the reinforcement of this rule, I can’t help but note the fact that I seem to consistently revert back to what I am accustomed to.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Bridging the Gender Divide
Based on our discussions in class, and our analysis of language, culture, historical gender roles, and even advertisements, it's clearly evident that a gender divide exists. But despite the attempts of most societies to bridge this divide, why have these differences persisted?
I decided to look at "upstream" inputs, or ones that influence the way in which mindsets are formed.
Dr. David Anderson, professor of economics, and Dr. Mykol Hamilton, professor of psychology at Centre College, KY, have documented that gender bias is common today in many children's books in their research published recently in Sex Roles: A Journal of Research titled "Gender Stereotyping and Under-Representation of Female Characters in 200 Popular Children's Picture Books: A 21st Century Update."
They studied 200 top-selling children's books from 2001 and a seven-year sample of Caldecott award-winning books, and discovered a number of examples of gender bias:
- There were nearly twice as many male as female title and main characters
- Male characters appeared in illustrations 53 percent more than female characters
- Female main characters nurtured more than did male main characters, and they were seen in more indoor than outdoor scenes
- Occupations were gender stereotyped, and more women than men appeared to have no paid occupation
(http://www.collegenews.org/x6773.xml)
By the time children are 3 to 4 years old, they have already formed an image of themselves as boy or girl. Children form these images from parents, teachers, societal members, and the toys and games with which they play. Playing with gender-stereotyped toys is considered to be the beginning of sex role development in young children.
An overview of findings at "Toys R Us" helps expose the hidden sexism that occurs through children's toys. Except for Sesame Street and Fisher Price, who manufacture successful gender-neutral toys to children younger than four years of age, "Toys R Us" actually divides toys into a blue and navy "boys" section, and a pink and white "girls" section. Furthermore, toy packaging exhibited significant color differences. The store aisles contained plenty of pinks, the most popular "girl" color by 95%, yellows, whites, lavenders, reds and pastels. Conversely, the boys' aisles had an array of blue the most popular "boys" color by 95% as well as green, red, black, gray, and brown. In addition to color, inventory also reveals sexism. The female section of the toy store was much bigger than the male side possibly feeding into the stereotype that women have more material objects than men.
(http://www.unc.edu/~dcderosa/STUDENTPAPERS/childrenbattles/toysrusdenise.htm)
A child’s earliest years are critical. During the years from 3~8, skills such as language, social competence, the ability to think critically and the capacity to learn, are developed. Because of entrenched gender bias in many regions, young girls fare less well than boys in many aspects of early childhood, including receiving a worse diet and health care. In fact, there are an estimated 60-100 million fewer women alive today than there would be in a world without gender discrimination and without social norms that favor sons.
Some 121 million children are not in school, most of them girls. If a family can afford school fees for only one child, it will likely be a boy who attends. If someone needs to fetch water or do housework instead of going to school, a girl will likely be chosen. Despite this, numerous studies have shown that educating girls is the single most effective policy to raise overall economic productivity, lower infant and maternal mortality, educate the next generation, improve nutrition and promote health. And mothers who have had some education are more than twice as likely to send their own children to school as are mothers with no education.
(Source: Unicef; http://www.unicef.org/mdg/gender.html)
Although Unicef's "Millennium Development Goal" of gender equality consists of outreach programs in developing nations, it's interesting to note that the problems relating to gender differences exist all over the world. Even more interesting is the fact that the result, namely economic progress, is the catalyst that has brought about the concept of equality in the first place. If it boils down to simple economics, then bringing about gender equality could be as simple as introducing tax breaks for stay-at-home moms who want to run a business from home, or other innovations like loans in Bangladesh that are extended to women at very low interest rates. Based on existing data, women in Bangladesh are much less likely to default on loans than men, and the result of this is, better cash-flow for banks in that country. Diversification has very tangible economic benefits, and it's time we include everyone in the game for reasons that extend beyond mere political correctness.
I decided to look at "upstream" inputs, or ones that influence the way in which mindsets are formed.
Dr. David Anderson, professor of economics, and Dr. Mykol Hamilton, professor of psychology at Centre College, KY, have documented that gender bias is common today in many children's books in their research published recently in Sex Roles: A Journal of Research titled "Gender Stereotyping and Under-Representation of Female Characters in 200 Popular Children's Picture Books: A 21st Century Update."
They studied 200 top-selling children's books from 2001 and a seven-year sample of Caldecott award-winning books, and discovered a number of examples of gender bias:
- There were nearly twice as many male as female title and main characters
- Male characters appeared in illustrations 53 percent more than female characters
- Female main characters nurtured more than did male main characters, and they were seen in more indoor than outdoor scenes
- Occupations were gender stereotyped, and more women than men appeared to have no paid occupation
(http://www.collegenews.org/x6773.xml)
By the time children are 3 to 4 years old, they have already formed an image of themselves as boy or girl. Children form these images from parents, teachers, societal members, and the toys and games with which they play. Playing with gender-stereotyped toys is considered to be the beginning of sex role development in young children.
An overview of findings at "Toys R Us" helps expose the hidden sexism that occurs through children's toys. Except for Sesame Street and Fisher Price, who manufacture successful gender-neutral toys to children younger than four years of age, "Toys R Us" actually divides toys into a blue and navy "boys" section, and a pink and white "girls" section. Furthermore, toy packaging exhibited significant color differences. The store aisles contained plenty of pinks, the most popular "girl" color by 95%, yellows, whites, lavenders, reds and pastels. Conversely, the boys' aisles had an array of blue the most popular "boys" color by 95% as well as green, red, black, gray, and brown. In addition to color, inventory also reveals sexism. The female section of the toy store was much bigger than the male side possibly feeding into the stereotype that women have more material objects than men.
(http://www.unc.edu/~dcderosa/STUDENTPAPERS/childrenbattles/toysrusdenise.htm)
A child’s earliest years are critical. During the years from 3~8, skills such as language, social competence, the ability to think critically and the capacity to learn, are developed. Because of entrenched gender bias in many regions, young girls fare less well than boys in many aspects of early childhood, including receiving a worse diet and health care. In fact, there are an estimated 60-100 million fewer women alive today than there would be in a world without gender discrimination and without social norms that favor sons.
Some 121 million children are not in school, most of them girls. If a family can afford school fees for only one child, it will likely be a boy who attends. If someone needs to fetch water or do housework instead of going to school, a girl will likely be chosen. Despite this, numerous studies have shown that educating girls is the single most effective policy to raise overall economic productivity, lower infant and maternal mortality, educate the next generation, improve nutrition and promote health. And mothers who have had some education are more than twice as likely to send their own children to school as are mothers with no education.
(Source: Unicef; http://www.unicef.org/mdg/gender.html)
Although Unicef's "Millennium Development Goal" of gender equality consists of outreach programs in developing nations, it's interesting to note that the problems relating to gender differences exist all over the world. Even more interesting is the fact that the result, namely economic progress, is the catalyst that has brought about the concept of equality in the first place. If it boils down to simple economics, then bringing about gender equality could be as simple as introducing tax breaks for stay-at-home moms who want to run a business from home, or other innovations like loans in Bangladesh that are extended to women at very low interest rates. Based on existing data, women in Bangladesh are much less likely to default on loans than men, and the result of this is, better cash-flow for banks in that country. Diversification has very tangible economic benefits, and it's time we include everyone in the game for reasons that extend beyond mere political correctness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)