I’ll admit straight up: speech and quote punctuation is one of my blind spots. It always has been, from the moment I started retraining as a proofreader and copy editor.
It is one of those things where there seem to be so many equally valid variations, and small ones that either matter or don’t. How are we to know which, from a logical point of view?
This blog attempts to bring some sense to the disorder.
In a December 2017 edition of Style Corner I denounced the so-called comma splice – the practice of using a comma to separate two full sentences – with the simple advice “don’t do it” (at least in business writing).
Then someone kindly reminded me that in July 2016 I’d written another piece which suggested I was actually quite relaxed about the comma splice.
It was true. I had, and (at the time) was. I’ve now changed my mind, at least so far as business writing is concerned. So in case you’re wondering, I have amended that earlier blog and removed the offending, excessively liberal sentiment.
Then, in another valid challenge, I was reminded that some of the finest lines in English literature are actually comma splices. Dickens was not a bad writer, most would agree. “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times” – not a bad start to a novel!
With both challenges in mind, perhaps the proscription shouldn’t have been quite as definitive as I suggested in my December blog.
This blog goes on to talk about some other realms of comma usage, including the serial (Oxford) comma and other uses.
It will be written entirely by voice recognition – with keyboard-based editing at the end – and it will be written in less than an hour.
I don’t know how many words it will be but I am aiming for 1000. Another aim is to achieve a plain English standard based on Flesch readability metrics – without trying too hard.
I have two main objectives: (1) to test the efficiency of writing by voice recognition alone; (2) to see if the ‘sound test’ really does work. I am always telling my City, University of London students to listen out loud to their own work, to hear themselves reading it back. Is the ear really a better judge than the eye? Maybe I will know more by the end of this blog.
I’ll share some of my thoughts on that at the end and I hope you will give me yours too.
There were many reasons to enjoy the annual conference of the Society for Editors and Proofreaders (SfEP) last September.
Hobnobbing with editorial mates and making new ones. Singing with the Linnets editorial choir. The opportunity to see two of my most admired writers on language speak on the same day. Oliver Kamm, “The Pedant” columnist in The Times and scourge of language sticklers everywhere. [“You at the back, Humphrys, concentrate!”] And Geoffrey Pullum, Professor of Linguistics at Edinburgh University, co-author of the best English grammar book there is, and evidence-based language realist and scientist beyond surpass.
At this point I have to make what amounts to a confession, in light of the previous paragraph.
I am one of millions who has enjoyed, been influenced by, read and re-read, quoted, referenced and taken to heart George Orwell’s essay Politics and the English Language. I even wrote my first Prism-Clarity blog on it. The same essay that Oliver and Geoff are on a conscious mission to debunk, rebut and vilify, on grounds of intellectual dishonesty, stylistic inconsistency and – on the linguistics front – naivety at best, incompetence at worst.
Hmmm. How to reconcile these conflicting life forces? Satan and God. Sun and rain. Oliver, Geoff and George.
About Prism-Clarity
Prism-Clarity provides high-quality professional writing, editorial and training services for financial sector and other clients
Recent Comments