By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - the grammar debate

burgerstein on 21 January 2010
TruckOSaurus said:
burgerstein said:

The one that annoys me the most is "sales vs sells" which I see very often since this is a sales web site:

Game x still sales good.

What are the sells for this game?


I forgot about that one. I've been thinking of adding to my sig:

Sale = Noun
Sell = Verb



"Now, a fun game should always be easy to understand - you should be able to take one look at it and know what you have to do straight away. It should be so well constructed that you can tell at a glance what your goal is and, even if you don’t succeed, you’ll blame yourself rather than the game. Moreover, the people standing around watching the game have also got to be able to enjoy it." - Shiggy

A Koopa's Revenge II gameplay video

Around the Network
Reasonable on 21 January 2010

In principle yes, in practice not so much.

However the core here is communication, and if you can't communicate properly then that's clearly not ideal.

My view is either keep it short and sweet and grammar isn't such a big deal or use proper grammar for larger comments to avoid confusion and misunderstanding.

In the end, if I can't understand you then your attempt to communicate has failed.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

The Fury on 21 January 2010

I don't like commas before conjuctions. I was taught never to do it and even though many stupid websites list you can, I see no reason to ever do it. Except for the use of a comma to show a part of a sentence which can be ignored or is redundent, the name of which I cannot remember.



Hmm, pie.

pearljammer on 21 January 2010
The Fury said:
I don't like commas before conjuctions. I was taught never to do it and even though many stupid websites list you can, I see no reason to ever do it. Except for the use of a comma to show a part of a sentence which can be ignored or is redundent, the name of which I cannot remember.

The Oxford comma has its usages. Though, like you, I often elect not to use it as it, more often than not, seems to be either useless or confusing. I think a lot of people chaulk it up to be a style preference, essentially.

I pulled this example from wikipedia:

To my parents, Ayn Rand and God.

There is ambiguity about the writer's parentage, because Ayn Rand and God can be read as in apposition to my parents, leading the reader to believe that the writer refers to Ayn Rand and God as his or her parents. A comma before and removes the ambiguity:

To my parents, Ayn Rand, and God.

The Fury on 21 January 2010
pearljammer said:
The Fury said:
I don't like commas before conjuctions. I was taught never to do it and even though many stupid websites list you can, I see no reason to ever do it. Except for the use of a comma to show a part of a sentence which can be ignored or is redundent, the name of which I cannot remember.

The Oxford comma has its usages. Though, like you, I often elect not to use it as it, more often than not, seems to be either useless or confusing. I think a lot of people chaulk it up to be a style preference, essentially.

I pulled this example from wikipedia:

To my parents, Ayn Rand and God.

There is ambiguity about the writer's parentage, because Ayn Rand and God can be read as in apposition to my parents, leading the reader to believe that the writer refers to Ayn Rand and God as his or her parents. A comma before and removes the ambiguity:

To my parents, Ayn Rand, and God.

The ambiguity is not there for me, to me the extra comma adds a different aspect to it. The first sentence is fine as I can see and recognise that it's a list, in that the writer's parents, Ayn Rand and God are 3 parts of that list. The comma makes me read it in a different way so the second comma I read as a list of 2, the writer's parents (who's apparent name is Ayn Rand) and God. This is the way I was taught.

Out of that wikipedia example also, I wouldn't put a comma in front of the 'because' like that example has in the sentence after parentage. I don't understand the need for it.



Hmm, pie.

Around the Network
pearljammer on 21 January 2010
The Fury said:
pearljammer said:
The Fury said:
I don't like commas before conjuctions. I was taught never to do it and even though many stupid websites list you can, I see no reason to ever do it. Except for the use of a comma to show a part of a sentence which can be ignored or is redundent, the name of which I cannot remember.

The Oxford comma has its usages. Though, like you, I often elect not to use it as it, more often than not, seems to be either useless or confusing. I think a lot of people chaulk it up to be a style preference, essentially.

I pulled this example from wikipedia:

To my parents, Ayn Rand and God.

There is ambiguity about the writer's parentage, because Ayn Rand and God can be read as in apposition to my parents, leading the reader to believe that the writer refers to Ayn Rand and God as his or her parents. A comma before and removes the ambiguity:

To my parents, Ayn Rand, and God.

The ambiguity is not there for me, to me the extra comma adds a different aspect to it. The first sentence is fine as I can see and recognise that it's a list, in that the writer's parents, Ayn Rand and God are 3 parts of that list. The comma makes me read it in a different way so the second comma I read as a list of 2, the writer's parents (who's apparent name is Ayn Rand) and God. This is the way I was taught.

Out of that wikipedia example also, I wouldn't put a comma in front of the 'because' like that example has in the sentence after parentage. I don't understand the need for it.

Ah but understand, many people may see it the exact opposite as you do. Though, generally, I do agree with you on this.

As for the second part of your post, the comma is before 'because' and after 'parents'  as a result of it being a clause inserted into the sentence. The sentence would read perfectly without 'because Ayn Rand and God can be read as in apposition to my parents.' The clause was an unnecessary, but useful, addition to the sentence.

This link should be particularly helpful here.