XP: Written Word/English Language&Reading Material

At least I got your attention.

But, you didn't answer the question as to your opinion on this -- "Why is having to add words(s) better than simply using a single punctuation (comma)?"

. . . . . . Pete
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
Pete, I've jeebused with Jonathan and he does, indeed, tell stories about his parents, the president and vice-president.
Click to expand...

What, his parents took home classified documents?
 
It's a clear category confusion to compare semantic with semiological elements in a sentence. One can create ambiguous sentences that an Oxford comma can clarify all day long. One can also, as a very cursory internet search will show, create sentences that an Oxford comma will make ambiguous. The conclusion one should draw, is the one most publishing houses and stylistic manuals seem to reach, which is that it should be used when necessary, but is otherwise optional. The question of verbosity is an entirely different one. On the other hand, I love linguistic hobby horses more than the next guy, so I encourage all of you to keep on riding this one.
 
One can also, as a very cursory internet search will show, create sentences that an Oxford comma will make ambiguous."

please embrace our collective laziness and provide an example yourself.
 
originally posted by robert ames:
One can also, as a very cursory internet search will show, create sentences that an Oxford comma will make ambiguous."

please embrace our collective laziness and provide an example yourself.
Click to expand...

IF you google Oxford comma creates ambiguity, you will find:

The downside of the Oxford Comma is that it can sometimes introduce ambiguity because commas can be used as parenthetical punctuation, i.e., like parentheses (i.e., round brackets). Look at these two sentences: Jack left the pub with John (a policeman) and Simon. Jack left the pub with John, a policeman, and Simon.

This took me ten seconds. I imagine a deep dive of, oh, say thirty seconds could come up with more.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg: Jack left the pub with John (a policeman) and Simon. Jack left the pub with John, a policeman, and Simon.
Click to expand...

This seems to be more a case of the writer carelessly using commas instead of parentheses in the second sentence. It doesn't seem right to blame the commas in this case.

. . . . . Pete
 
originally posted by Peter Creasey:

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg: Jack left the pub with John (a policeman) and Simon. Jack left the pub with John, a policeman, and Simon.
Click to expand...

This seems to be more a case of the writer carelessly using commas instead of parentheses in the second sentence. It doesn't seem right to blame the commas in this case.

. . . . . Pete
Click to expand...

To put it another way, is the ambiguity attributable to the Oxford Comma or to the (mis?)use of commas as parentheses?
 
originally posted by Peter Creasey:

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg: Jack left the pub with John (a policeman) and Simon. Jack left the pub with John, a policeman, and Simon.
Click to expand...

This seems to be more a case of the writer carelessly using commas instead of parentheses in the second sentence. It doesn't seem right to blame the commas in this case.

. . . . . Pete
Click to expand...
Under any normal circumstances, setting of an appositive with commas is considered normal use and parentheses would be otiose. They are only used in this example to show off the ambiguity created. In fact, the best solution to clarifying the sentence would be to remove the Oxford comma.
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
Is there no advocate for simply adding "who is a" to the appositive? That would obviate any ambiguity about punctuation.
Click to expand...

Such solutions are always available both for ambiguities created by the absence of an Oxford comma and by the presence of one. Indeed one should note that, in either case, the problem is caused by a need to know whether the word in question is part of a series or an appositive. Espousing the use of one form or serial comma over another because that form will eliminate all possible ambiguities of this sort is a snare and a delusion.
 
Difference between hieratic and demotic...

Hieroglyphics are an original form of writing out of which all other forms have evolved. Two of the newer forms were called hieratic and demotic. Hieratic was a simplified form of hieroglyphics used for administrative and business purposes, as well as for literary, scientific and religious texts. Demotic, a Greek word meaning "popular script", was in general use for the daily requirements of the society.
Click to expand...

Canadian Museum of History,,

. . . . . . Pete
 
Per google...

The following list contains adjectives that are noncomparable because of their respective meanings.

Unique: Either something is unique or it is not unique. The meaning implies that something is one of a kind. Something cannot be more unique or most unique.
Absolute: Degrees of absolute do not exist. Something cannot be more absolute or most absolute.
Essential: Something is either essential or not essential. It is not possible for something to be more essential or most essential.
Immortal: Meaning to live forever. Something either lives forever or it does not.
Universal: Meaning present everywhere. Something is either universal, or it is not. Things cannot be more universal or most universal.
Click to expand...

Noncomparable => cannot be modified e.g. more unique.

This calls into question words like "infinite". Can something be twice as infinite?

. . . . . . Pete
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
This question is so easy even I know the answer: no. There is no such thing as 2infinity. Twice infinity is infinity.
Click to expand...

But there are different infinities; see here

Loading…

en.wikipedia.org

for Cantor's Aleph-zero and Aleph-one. As I understand it, the number of integers or rational numbers is the same and can be represented by Aleph-zero. Aleph-one (as I learned it in high school calculus) is the set of rational and irrational numbers, also infinite but greater in size than Aleph-zero.
 
originally posted by Cole Kendall:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
This question is so easy even I know the answer: no. There is no such thing as 2infinity. Twice infinity is infinity.
Click to expand...

But there are different infinities; see here

Loading…

en.wikipedia.org

for Cantor's Aleph-zero and Aleph-one. As I understand it, the number of integers or rational numbers is the same and can be represented by Aleph-zero. Aleph-one (as I learned it in high school calculus) is the set of rational and irrational numbers, also infinite but greater in size than Aleph-zero.
Click to expand...

Yup, pretty much. Aleph-null is the count of integers, an infinite number. Aleph-one is the count of reals, also an infinite number, but demonstrably larger than Aleph-null.

Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by MLipton:
originally posted by Cole Kendall:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
This question is so easy even I know the answer: no. There is no such thing as 2infinity. Twice infinity is infinity.
Click to expand...

But there are different infinities; see here

Loading…

en.wikipedia.org

for Cantor's Aleph-zero and Aleph-one. As I understand it, the number of integers or rational numbers is the same and can be represented by Aleph-zero. Aleph-one (as I learned it in high school calculus) is the set of rational and irrational numbers, also infinite but greater in size than Aleph-zero.
Click to expand...

Yup, pretty much. Aleph-null is the count of integers, an infinite number. Aleph-one is the count of reals, also an infinite number, but demonstrably larger than Aleph-null.

Mark Lipton
Click to expand...

This may be like dark holes, and I will understand the theory without really comprehending it, but how can one infinity be larger than another, since both are infinite.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by MLipton:
originally posted by Cole Kendall:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
This question is so easy even I know the answer: no. There is no such thing as 2infinity. Twice infinity is infinity.
Click to expand...

But there are different infinities; see here

Loading…

en.wikipedia.org

for Cantor's Aleph-zero and Aleph-one. As I understand it, the number of integers or rational numbers is the same and can be represented by Aleph-zero. Aleph-one (as I learned it in high school calculus) is the set of rational and irrational numbers, also infinite but greater in size than Aleph-zero.
Click to expand...

Yup, pretty much. Aleph-null is the count of integers, an infinite number. Aleph-one is the count of reals, also an infinite number, but demonstrably larger than Aleph-null.

Mark Lipton
Click to expand...

This may be like dark holes, and I will understand the theory without really comprehending it, but how can one infinity be larger than another, since both are infinite.
Click to expand...

This gets to the heart of Georg Cantor’s work. We all agree that a plot of the integers on a number line would extend to infinity because there are an infinite number of integers. But now let’s look at the space between 1 and 2 on that number line, There are an infinite number of real numbers between 1 and 2. And that holds true for the space between every pair of adjoining integers. Thus the number of real numbers must be greater than the number of integers, which itself is infinite.

Mark Lipton
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top