Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Telgin]

Well, sure, but English could have consistent syntax and still be very flexible and steal words for an immense vocabulary. 

I keep wondering what a language with a significant design focus on being consistent would end up looking like.  Preferably having only one way to spell a sound, only using punctuation for a single purpose, always conjugating verbs the same way, things like that.

[Machiavelli]

Like an artificially constructed language?

[Telgin]

An artificial language is probably the only way such a thing would ever develop, and if it was uesd in practice for anything remotely approaching a notable amount of time I'm sure it would mutate away from its 'perfect' origins.

The language you linked looks like it tries to model more realistic languages and isn't quite as mechanical as I was thinking however.

[i2amroy]

Let's bring up the case with one of my most hated symbols of punctuation to ever exist. How does one use a semicolon ( properly?

In my opinion semicolons are the most "up to the teacher" type of punctuation out there. They really only have one solid use, which is to separate lists (for when you have a list within a list). Other then that their "connect two clauses" is really just an optional thing since you could easily reword it or use a comma in most cases where you use a semicolon. It always makes me think that of cooking, "Finish writing your paragraph, and then flavor with semicolons to taste!".

Also one thing on the use of apostrophes for plurals, they are also used for single numbers as well as single letters. So it would be 7's, not 7s. (Everything else in the earlier post was correct though).

[Telgin]

Also one thing on the use of apostrophes for plurals, they are also used for single numbers as well as single letters. So it would be 7's, not 7s. (Everything else in the earlier post was correct though).

Apparently this is true.  This helps explain where people get the idea to use it for other plurals I guess.  Once again, English, why must you be so inconsistent?

[fqllve]

Also one thing on the use of apostrophes for plurals, they are also used for single numbers as well as single letters. So it would be 7's, not 7s. (Everything else in the earlier post was correct though).

Apparently this is true.  This helps explain where people get the idea to use it for other plurals I guess.  Once again, English, why must you be so inconsistent?

It really depends on who you ask. The NY Times style guide I quoted up there advises against that, so you will never see that in the NY Times. The Chicago Manual of Style says the same thing. Only the AP Stylebook, as far as I'm aware, recommends apostrophes for single numbers and letters.

It's one of those things that you're going to be called wrong on no matter what you do because basically nobody can agree on it.

[The Darkling Wolf]

Yeah, it's much like the Oxford comma.

[Machiavelli]

Also one thing on the use of apostrophes for plurals, they are also used for single numbers as well as single letters. So it would be 7's, not 7s. (Everything else in the earlier post was correct though).

Though keep in mind you're supposed to spell out words below ten.

[Skyrunner]

I keep wondering what a language with a significant design focus on being consistent would end up looking like.  Preferably having only one way to spell a sound, only using punctuation for a single purpose, always conjugating verbs the same way, things like that.

Do you mean Korean(or Hangul) ? It does have the problem of multiple words for the same characters sometimes, but there's a very definite way to pronounce things, and consistent conjugation.
I think it lacks the 'single spelling for single sound", as it emphasizes original spelling over adherence to how it sounds. All of its consonants have a 'base' sound they boil down to, say ㅂ, ㅍ both sound as ㅂ when as a final sound. Hrrrm.
I guess it isn't /that/ concise.

[Lectorog]

Yeah, it's much like the Oxford comma.

I thought everyone agrees that the Oxford comma should be used but that many people don't care and leave it out.

[fqllve]

Not caring generally means you don't think it should be used, but there are some people who argue that it's ambiguous because it resembles apposition.

I use it because I think it looks better, but really it doesn't matter. I've never been confused because of one or because there wasn't one.

[The Darkling Wolf]

I use it all the time, I just think sentences look really weird without it.

[Machiavelli]

Yeah, it's much like the Oxford comma.

I thought everyone agrees that the Oxford comma should be used but that many people don't care and leave it out.

If you are going to have a comma separating items in a list, then do it.  Eats shoots, leaves and flowers is different than eats shoots, leaves, and flowers.  Think eats {shoots} {leaves and flowers} versus {shoots} {leaves} and {flowers}.  Without the Oxford comma, it implies eating either shoots, or leaves and flowers at the same time (always).

[fqllve]

Except context is going to make that clear every single time. Also, like I said, there's arguments that it creates ambiguity by appearing to be apposition. "Jane, her mother, and her grandmother" could be read as either "Jane and her mother and her grandmother" or "Jane, her mother (Jane is her mother), and her grandmother." Point being, either way can be ambiguous if you spend enough time coming up with sentences.

However, like I said earlier, I've never been confused by what someone meant with or without the serial comma. Context generally clarifies better than punctuation.

[The Darkling Wolf]

In that situation I'd use:
Her mother, Jane, and her grandmother.