Subject: There was one that I found funny...
Author:
Posted on: 2013-09-10 03:19:00 UTC
...on the wall of my seventh grade humanities classroom --
"Let's eat, Grandpa!"
could become
"Let's eat Grandpa!"
if the comma is left out.
-Aila
I remembered reading this in one of the 'how to write' books I own, and looked it up again because I want to try and do something similar in a forthcoming mission. It's amazing how much a bit of punctuation can change the meaning of a sentence (well, I say that - I guess in many ways, that's actually what punctuation is there for).
Anyway, I thought this was brilliant, so figured I'd share it.
Take the following examples. They both use identical wordings, but the sentiments expressed are... somewhat different.
Version the first:
Dear John,
I want a man who knows what love is all about. You are kind, generous, and thoughtful. People who are not like you admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me for other men. I yearn for you. I have no feelings whatsoever when we’re apart. I can be forever happy.
Will you let me be yours?
Gloria
Version the second:
Dear John,
I want a man who knows what love is. All about you are kind, generous and thoughtful people, who are not like you. Admit to being useless and inferior. You have ruined me. For other men, I yearn. For you, I have no feelings whatsoever. When we’re apart, I can be forever happy.
Will you let me be?
Yours,
Gloria
Anyone else got any examples of this kind of thing they want to share? I figure there must be plenty of times in badfic where the meaning of a sentence gets unintentionally changed.
...on the wall of my seventh grade humanities classroom --
"Let's eat, Grandpa!"
could become
"Let's eat Grandpa!"
if the comma is left out.
-Aila
In case anyone's not aware, the Oxford comma (or serial comma) is the one that goes before the final "and" in a list, such as "Spam, eggs, sausage, and spam." It's preferred in most (though not all) American usage because it can prevent the kind of ambiguity under discussion in this thread. For instance, there's a huge difference in meaning between the following lines:
* This book is dedicated to my roommates, Nicole Kidman, and God.
* This book is dedicated to my roommates, Nicole Kidman and God.
Without the Oxford comma, it seems this author had some very interesting roommates!
Here's a MILDLY NSFW illustrated example I've seen floating around:
[Save yourself if you're somewhere you could be embarrassed!]
[Are you sure you want to scroll down?]
[Really really sure?]
[Okay, go on then.]
So basically, my feeling is this: if you're making a list, using the Oxford comma can't damage your meaning, but leaving it out can. The Oxford comma: better safe than sorry!
~Neshomeh
I've never honestly understood why anyone argues against the Oxford comma. It's so useful! There's no reason I can see to get rid of it.
But, unfortunately... Associated Press Style doesn't use it. Or at least, the copy-editing class I took last quarter took points off for using it, and cited the AP Stylebook. Which means that I am going to develop a nasty twitch while editing articles this quarter.
No, all right, sorry, I'll be serious.
...
...
...
... no I won't.
Erm, right. The Oxford Comma is useful in the event of a list where the latter items look like they could be a description of the former - so 'I went to work for two ducks, Roderick and Clement' is unclear as to whether those are the names of the ducks, whereas 'two ducks, Roderick, and Clement' indicates clearly that your place of employment has a very strange management system. Of course, in this case, you could simply restructure the sentence - 'Roderick, Clement, and two ducks' - which resolves the ambiguity just as well. It also works around the problem that if I discuss 'two ducks, Roderick and Clement', you don't know if I'm simply failing to use the Oxford Comma, or actually discussing the named waterfowl. Abandoning the OC in favour of restructuring removes that ambiguity.
(Actually the best thing is to use either 'Roderick, Clement[,] and two ducks' or 'two ducks named Roderick and Clement' to remove all possible ambiguity)
There are other cases where the OC does absolutely nothing, because the ambiguity never existed. 'My parents were a hamster, an elderberry bush, and a giant wooden rabbit' works either way, unless you assume that a hamster can be 'an elderberry bush and a giant wooden rabbit', in which case, head down to FicPsych immediately.
Then, as Wikipedia is telling me, there are cases where the OC fails to resolve ambiguity. 'In the lands far to the north dwell Noggin the Nog, a cormorant and a knave'. Well, we know Noggin isn't a knave (he's a king), so let's put that Oxford Comma back! '...Noggin the Nog, a cormorant, and a knave'. Great! So, er, is Noggin a cormorant? (Answer: No, that's Graculus).
Again, in this case restructuring is the answer. We can't say 'a cormorant, Noggin the Nog, and a knave', because that could still imply poor Noggin is a bird. 'a cormorant, Noggin the Nog and a knave' is actually clearer in this instance, because you'd never use that structure to discuss the knavish cormorant Noggin. But in the end, the best structure is probably 'a cormorant, a knave, and Noggin the Nog' - which works exactly the same with or without the OC.
(And the final variant, with two names and one possible descriptor - 'I rode into Chippenham with Count Dracula, Marie Curie and the King of England'. Again, the OC is irrelevant - but put His Majesty anywhere else in that sentence, and you're making an... interesting political statement)
(And England doesn't have a king right now. Honestly, what are you like?)
hS
"In the lands of the North, where the Black Rocks stand guard against the cold sea, in the dark night that is very long, the Men of the Northlands sit by their great log fires, and they tell a tale..."
Sophie walked on her head a little higher than usual.
Beware teachers when parking.
Also, this sort of thing doesn't really work if you don't provide the alternate punctuation yourself. There are exceptions if punctuation error is apparent, like in the example with the talking panda a little earlier, but those two fit neither case, and so are just confusing.
Was there supposed to be a colon somewhere? Commas? A little more detail will be required for these to make sense.
Sophie walked on, her head a little higher than usual.
This is what the author probably intended to say, although I’m not sure whether it is good grammar.
Sophie walked on her head, a little higher than usual.
I’m pretty sure that the agents would see this, but I cannot quite imagine how it looks like.
I don’t know what to do with
Beware
teachers
when
parking
Is it a sign on a schoolyard, telling me that I shouldn’t knock over teachers when I park my car? Do you use punctuation on traffic signs? Where should the punctuation go and what should it be?
The only one I could figure out was "Beware: teachers when parking." but that makes no sense. People don't just become teachers as they park. How would that change them from what they were before they became teachers? Would the people parking suddenly start coming up with lesson plans, and then forget about them as they get out of the car? Or will the teacher-effects become permanent, and they would suddenly get a job teaching a tenth-grade geometry class, apropos of nothing? That sounds like the plot for an episode of a particularly desperate sitcom more than something that would be printed on a sign, or wherever that sentence would be showing up.
I'm not very good with word puzzles, though, so the answer will probably be obvious in retrospect. Then again, most things are.
I was just thinking that perhaps there could be 3 ways to interpret "Beware teachers when parking," though I may have messed up the grammar…
Beware, teachers, when parking. (Telling the teachers to be careful)
Beware teachers when [you are] parking. (Telling the drivers not to hit teachers)
Beware teachers when [they are] parking. (Perhaps the teachers are bad at parking and tend to crash into things.)
I think that sentence just needs more detail or to be in context.
Grammar is a wondrous thing.
Was that what was going on all this time? It makes a little more sense, but the way the sentences were presented in the original post seems to indicate that all that was needed was the provided text, and everything else was punctuation. Perhaps I'm thinking about this in the wrong direction.
Well, at least that sentence was a good proponent of the "grammar is important" lesson the thread was created for, so points to that.
I think you were supposed to just add punctuation. I was just looking at how it could sort of make sense with no punctuation and added the words in brackets to show what I meant. On the other hand, that did ignore the point of the thread.
That was a very confusing sentence, and I'm not sure if grammar was its only problem, or if it was aimed at the teachers and it should have simply had the commas.
I don't think there's such thing as wrong direction of thought.
I remember a story about punctuation that I saw when I was in Law Review:
A teacher wrote these words on the board
Woman without her man is nothing
and asked her class to punctuate the sentence.
All the males punctuated it thus: Woman, without her man, is nothing.
All the females punctuated it thus: Woman: without her, man is nothing.
Punctuation matters!
For one, I can think of:
Woman without - her man is nothing
Or in other words:
A woman is outside - her boyfriend/husband is insignificant
And, of course, using that version we can render the whole sentence algebraically in far fewer words, without making a statement about which of the two original versions is 'correct':
♀ [♀'s ♂] = 0
hS, fun with fake maths!
I've heard of a rather amusing one where a panda walks into a restaurant, gets dinner, pulls out a gun and shoots the ceiling, then walks out. He returns the next day and the waitress asks him why he did it.
He holds up a book about pandas and says: "Well, this book says we eat, shoots, and leaves."