Grammar error.

Message

MuzlakOofmay · #1 Post by **MuzlakOofmay** » Sun Apr 06, 2003 9:23 pm

when you try to push the dresser without getting the hair you get the message "You could push the dresser but you get..." There should be a comma after could. <img src="http://www.nancycarterdesign.com/bryce/pimpbot.gif" style="border:0;"/> ---------- <a href="http://www.nancycarterdesign.com/spongefactory/" target="top">Sponge Factory</a>

Vildern · #2 Post by **Vildern** » Sun Apr 06, 2003 9:49 pm

Are you sure? Oh well, you know English way better than I do. <img src="http://navynuke.netfirms.com/ezboard/vildern.jpg" style="border:0;"/> "Sopor på marken" <img src="http://www.groovycartoons.com/webpics/fatcat.jpg " style="border:0;"/>

Wolfgang Abenteuer · #3 Post by **Wolfgang Abenteuer** » Mon Apr 07, 2003 12:06 am

Using a comma to separate two sentences joined by a coordinating conjunction ("but" in this case) is entirely optional and, therefore, not incorrect. ~Wolfgang

MuzlakOofmay · #4 Post by **MuzlakOofmay** » Mon Apr 07, 2003 7:41 am

I'm pretty sure that it's at least recommended that you do; it doesn't flow correctly if you don't. <img src="http://www.nancycarterdesign.com/bryce/pimpbot.gif" style="border:0;"/> ---------- <a href="http://www.nancycarterdesign.com/spongefactory/" target="top">Sponge Factory</a>

Wolfgang Abenteuer · #5 Post by **Wolfgang Abenteuer** » Mon Apr 07, 2003 8:14 am

Only if the writer was intending to emphasise a pause in the sentence. It could be written either way, but generally a comma indicates a pause in speech. If anything, the lack of a comma (where optional, of course) would not prevent the sentence from flowing properly, it would make the sentence flow less smoothly. ~Wolfgang

majitekunaito · #6 Post by **majitekunaito** » Wed Apr 09, 2003 3:16 am

I was under the impression that it wasn't optional. Sentences that omit commas in such cases never sound right to me--having a partial stop between conjoined clauses seems natural. (see, this is where it's useful to have a good education systems (ie. something other than Ontario's, like QuÃ©bec's). Not so much to learn the rules of English grammar, but to know the terminology. It's funny how I learned more about the English language in a year and a half of education in a French highschool than five years in an English one.

Wolfgang Abenteuer · #7 Post by **Wolfgang Abenteuer** » Wed Apr 09, 2003 4:09 am

According to the Chicago Manual of Style it is optional. It could really go either way, so if the AGDs had put it in, then it wouldn't be incorrect, same as if they left it out. Punctuation rules are a bit more obscure than grammar rules, so you're much more likely to find these such ambiguities debating commas and hyphens rather than auxiliary verbs or participles. Such is the wonder of the English language... <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/im ... tongue.gif ALT=":p"> I really pity those who learn English as a second language. It's hard enough for those who grow up with it as their primary language to learn it correctly (most people don't know how/don't speak it completely correctly). Growing up in the USA, grammar and punctuation wasn't taught past sixth grade, so it's no wonder there is such a lack of knowledge of the structure of the language among its speakers. After that it was mostly literature analysis and such, which is fine, but I don't think teaching proper grammar usage, etc. should be halted so early. That's just me, though. That's why I loved world language classes in high school, since that's all they taught was sentence structures, verb conjugations, grammar, etc. which was always my favourite parts of English classes. ~Wolfgang

Grammar error.

Grammar error.

Re: Grammar error.

Nope.

Re: Nope.

Only...

Re: Only...

Well...