On 11/04/2011 09:09, Don wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 04/10/2011 06:29 PM, Don wrote:
>>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>> On 04/09/2011 09:27 PM, dsimcha wrote:
>>>>> On 4/9/2011 10:22 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/09/2011 08:31 PM, dsimcha wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/9/2011 7:56 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>>>>>> I think the article's title is missing a comma btw.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Andrei
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where could it ever be? After "parallelism".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andrei
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, I specifically remember learning about this grammar rule in
>>>>> middle school. When listing stuff, the comma before the "and" is
>>>>> optional. Putting it and not putting it are both correct.
>>>>
>>>> I see. I go by "Bugs in Writing" (awesome book)
>>>
>>> Ugh. I have a profound hatred for that book. Rule of thumb: if any style
>>> guide warns agains split infinitives, burn it.
>>
>> You may want to reconsider. This is one book that most everybody who
>> is in the writing business in any capacity agrees with: my editor,
>> heavyweight technical writers, my advisor and a few other professors...
>
> My experience is quite different. Maybe it's different in the US (I
> encountered the book from an American colleague, I've never seen it used
> by anyone else).
>
>
>> Besides you can't discount the book on account of one item you
>> disagree with. The book has hundreds of items, and it is near
>> inevitable one will find an issue a couple of them.
>>
>> Andrei
>
> For sure, but it was not the only item. The recommendation is use 'that'
> vs 'which' was an even more offensive item. There were several
> recommendations in that book which I thought were dreadful. I also read
> a couple of scathing criticisms of that book. (I think one was in Bill
> Bryson's excellent 'Mother Tongue').
> In fairness, it had a few good examples, but in general I could not
> stomach the snobbish pedantry in that book. I've read too much
> functional grammar to take arbitrary normative rules seriously, when
> they are not backed up by an extensive corpus. (Which is why I recommend
> 'split infinitives' as a good litmus test -- if they say "don't do it",
> they haven't used a corpus).
>

I have to agree with Don, burn the book, it is wholly responsible for the decline in creativity in English writing (imho).

A...

On 04/11/2011 03:09 AM, Don wrote:
> For sure, but it was not the only item. The recommendation is use 'that'
> vs 'which' was an even more offensive item.

I found that rule to be very helpful to my writing.

Andrei

On 04/11/2011 03:26 AM, Alix Pexton wrote:
> I have to agree with Don, burn the book, it is wholly responsible for
> the decline in creativity in English writing (imho).

The book is for technical writing, and I didn't find absorbing it has hurt in any way whatever creativity I may have.

Andrei

On 11/04/2011 12:56, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 04/11/2011 03:26 AM, Alix Pexton wrote:
>> I have to agree with Don, burn the book, it is wholly responsible for
>> the decline in creativity in English writing (imho).
>
> The book is for technical writing, and I didn't find absorbing it has
> hurt in any way whatever creativity I may have.
>
> Andrei

Actually, I meant Strunk/White ><

A...

On 04/11/2011 07:31 AM, Alix Pexton wrote:
> On 11/04/2011 12:56, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 04/11/2011 03:26 AM, Alix Pexton wrote:
>>> I have to agree with Don, burn the book, it is wholly responsible for
>>> the decline in creativity in English writing (imho).
>>
>> The book is for technical writing, and I didn't find absorbing it has
>> hurt in any way whatever creativity I may have.
>>
>> Andrei
>
> Actually, I meant Strunk/White ><

That I'd agree with. For what it's worth S/W is considered dated and not-necessarily recommended in technical publishing circles.

Andrei

On 04/11/2011 03:09 AM, Don wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 04/10/2011 06:29 PM, Don wrote:
>>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>> On 04/09/2011 09:27 PM, dsimcha wrote:
>>>>> On 4/9/2011 10:22 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/09/2011 08:31 PM, dsimcha wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/9/2011 7:56 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>>>>>> I think the article's title is missing a comma btw.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Andrei
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where could it ever be? After "parallelism".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andrei
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, I specifically remember learning about this grammar rule in
>>>>> middle school. When listing stuff, the comma before the "and" is
>>>>> optional. Putting it and not putting it are both correct.
>>>>
>>>> I see. I go by "Bugs in Writing" (awesome book)
>>>
>>> Ugh. I have a profound hatred for that book. Rule of thumb: if any style
>>> guide warns agains split infinitives, burn it.
>>
>> You may want to reconsider. This is one book that most everybody who
>> is in the writing business in any capacity agrees with: my editor,
>> heavyweight technical writers, my advisor and a few other professors...
>
> My experience is quite different. Maybe it's different in the US (I
> encountered the book from an American colleague, I've never seen it used
> by anyone else).
>
>
>> Besides you can't discount the book on account of one item you
>> disagree with. The book has hundreds of items, and it is near
>> inevitable one will find an issue a couple of them.
>>
>> Andrei
>
> For sure, but it was not the only item. The recommendation is use 'that'
> vs 'which' was an even more offensive item. There were several
> recommendations in that book which I thought were dreadful. I also read
> a couple of scathing criticisms of that book. (I think one was in Bill
> Bryson's excellent 'Mother Tongue').
> In fairness, it had a few good examples, but in general I could not
> stomach the snobbish pedantry in that book. I've read too much
> functional grammar to take arbitrary normative rules seriously, when
> they are not backed up by an extensive corpus. (Which is why I recommend
> 'split infinitives' as a good litmus test -- if they say "don't do it",
> they haven't used a corpus).

I have "Mother Tongue" as well, haven't read it yet. You recommendation bumped it up a notch.

One thought - since you enjoy this kind of stuff, I think you'd find great reward in writing. Since you have so much stuff to say about D, I highly recommend you try your pen more often. A lot of good things are happening in D lately, and in no small part due to you. It is worth sharing all that good stuff with the larger community.


Andrei

On 4/10/11 1:23 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-04-09 at 21:37 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> [ . . . ]
>> I see. I go by "Bugs in Writing" (awesome book) and Strunk/White. They
>> both recommend the comma, no ifs and buts (hard for me to get used to
>> because in Romanian that comma is _never_ correct).
>
> The "bibles" in this situation are "The Oxford Style Manual" and "The
> Chicago Manual of Style", everything else is mere commentary. :-)
>
> Romanian is not English, rules do not transfer ;-)
>
>> Just googled it now, it's quite a story. Found among other things a
>> Wikipedia page dedicated entirely to the topic!
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma
>
> Since when has the "Oxford Comma" been known as the "Harvard Comma".
> Never.  Pah.
>
>> Above all, it's your article, and one great thing about that is you get
>> to decide everything about it. A great feeling!
>
> Except when the sub-editors impose the publisher's choices.  Of course
> they always work to either "The Oxford Style Manual" or "The Chicago
> Manual of Style", so the moral is to buy one of them and work to it.
>
> http://www.suite101.com/content/the-chicago-manual-of-style-vs-the-oxford-style-manual-a267432
>
> Also "The Oxford Style Manual" is smaller and cheaper as well as being
> better.  And of course English, whereas "The Chicago Manual of Style" is
> just American English.
>
> I shall now duck to avoid the spamming that this troll will invoke. :-)

In fact let me extend the same suggestion to you too: write! You are a seasoned writer who has recently worked a lot in and on D, so I'm sure you have a lot to share. And you stand to gain an iPad, too.

Andrei

On Apr 9, 2011, at 7:37 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> On 04/09/2011 09:27 PM, dsimcha wrote:
>> On 4/9/2011 10:22 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> On 04/09/2011 08:31 PM, dsimcha wrote:
>>>> On 4/9/2011 7:56 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>>> I think the article's title is missing a comma btw.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Andrei
>>>> 
>>>> Where?
>>> 
>>> Where could it ever be? After "parallelism".
>>> 
>>> Andrei
>> 
>> Actually, I specifically remember learning about this grammar rule in middle school. When listing stuff, the comma before the "and" is optional. Putting it and not putting it are both correct.
> 
> I see. I go by "Bugs in Writing" (awesome book) and Strunk/White. They both recommend the comma, no ifs and buts (hard for me to get used to because in Romanian that comma is _never_ correct).
> 
> Just googled it now, it's quite a story. Found among other things a Wikipedia page dedicated entirely to the topic! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma

This issue has a lot of history.  In fact, there's been at least one book written about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eats,_Shoots_%26_Leaves