When the Grammar Nazi's strike!

[Franklin]

Add to that, the common mistake of still adding two spaces after periods.. While technically it's still accepted, it it no longer standard while creating a document.

I still like that better, whether it's still the standard or not.

When I compose a post for this board, I double space after a sentence out of habit even though I noticed long ago the posts have single spaces between sentences.

For some reason, even in the era of word-processing, double-spaced sentences have a better appearance, and the text reads easier to me. Less crowded. Flows better.

 

[ThankQ]

Yes, the title of this thread as written is ironic.

And nobody ever corrects my grammar, spelling or usage because I’m perfect.

Psst. You're missing commas in both sentences.

Where?

 

[RoJoHen]

Yes, the title of this thread, as written, is ironic.

And nobody ever corrects my grammar, spelling, or usage because I'm perfect.

Also, the second sentence starts with "and."

 

[Mr Awe]

^^^ Starting the 2nd sentence with "And" is ok, but there should be a comma after that as well. The commas you indicate are correct.

Mr Awe

 

[RoJoHen]

I disagree 100% about "And." While I personally don't care if you start a sentence with a "And" or "But," it is technically incorrect, and no, there shouldn't be a comma after it. If anything, there should be a comma before it, along with the first part of the sentence.

 

[Switch]

Y'all realise that the serial comma is an issue of some debate and is thus entirely a matter of personal preference in informal contexts?

 

[Franklin]

Y'all realise that the serial comma is an issue of some debate and is thus entirely a matter of personal preference in informal contexts?

I blame The New York Times for this. More and more, they are shying away from using commas anywhere in a sentence.

 

[Mr Awe]

Y'all realise that the serial comma is an issue of some debate and is thus entirely a matter of personal preference in informal contexts?

My issue with the 2nd sentence was not so much with the serial comma (which is optional) but rather the comma that should've been after the "And."

The commas in the first sentence are required.

Mr Awe

 

[Mr Awe]

I disagree 100% about "And." While I personally don't care if you start a sentence with a "And" or "But," it is technically incorrect, and no, there shouldn't be a comma after it. If anything, there should be a comma before it, along with the first part of the sentence.

I'll point you to this excellent article about non-errors in English. These are things that are often thought of as errors, but are not.

One of the non-errors it discusses is starting the sentence with a conjunction, such as "but" or "and." It's not always the best way to start a sentence but it's not technically incorrect.

It offends those who wish to confine English usage in a logical straitjacket that writers often begin sentences with “and” or “but.” True, one should be aware that many such sentences would be improved by becoming clauses in compound sentences; but there are many effective and traditional uses for beginning sentences thus. One example is the reply to a previous assertion in a dialogue: “But, my dear Watson, the criminal obviously wore expensive boots or he would not have taken such pains to scrape them clean.” Make it a rule to consider whether your conjunction would repose more naturally within the previous sentence or would lose in useful emphasis by being demoted from its position at the head of a new sentence.

 

[RoJoHen]

Well, that's fine. I have no problem with starting a sentence with a conjunction as long as it's the best way to get the point across. But (see?) there is no need for a comma afterward. "And" and "But" are not transitional phrases.

 

[Starbreaker]

^Bingo!

Posting here (in what is my third language) has made me feel somewhat alone in discovering how to actually get a point across, so whenever I do really stupid things I would seriously appreciate comments on my grammatical mistakes!

I've never had trouble reading anything of yours. There are people born in America who still can't speak English after decades. It's sad.

 

[JiNX-01]

*Grammar Nazis

Beat me to it.

 

[RandyS]

If I've made an honest mistake (which is obviously impossible since I'm perfect), then it doesn't bother me. If, however, the person doing the correcting is being an ass about it, then I get pissed and become a smartass about it.

 

[Mr Awe]

Well, that's fine. I have no problem with starting a sentence with a conjunction as long as it's the best way to get the point across. But (see?) there is no need for a comma afterward. "And" and "But" are not transitional phrases.

You most certainly need a comma after one, see the article for an example. You should've written:

But, there is no need for a comma afterward.

It's essentially equivalent to:

However, there is no need for a comma afterward.

Mr Awe

 

[RoJoHen]

I disagree. All I'm doing in this case is replacing the comma with a period. I could write it as one sentence:

I have no problem with starting a sentence with a conjunction as long as it's the best way to get the point across, but there is no need for a comma afterward.

"But" works differently than "However."

If I were to replace "but" with "however" in the compound sentence, I would in fact have a comma before and after the word:

I have no problem with starting a sentence with a conjunction as long as it's the best way to get the point across, however, there is no need for a comma afterward.

I have no problem with starting a sentence with a conjunction as long as it's the best way to get the point across. But there is no need for a comma afterward.

 

[Mr Awe]

^^ Whatever floats your boat. I'm not one to get after people about their grammar. I'm just pointing out what the standard convention is. And, yes, you need the two commas in your compound sentence with "but." But, I don't really care!

 

[RoJoHen]

^^ Whatever floats your boat. I'm not one to get after people about their grammar. I'm just pointing out what the standard convention is. And, yes, you need the two commas in your compound sentence with "but." But, I don't really care!

I don't know what standard convention you learned, but (and I don't need a comma here) it's completely different from what I learned.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ You're right. There's no need of a comma after a leading "and" or "but" (or "if" for that matter ) as there would be with a "however." They are not syntactically equivalent.

 

[scotpens]

. . . If I were to replace "but" with "however" in the compound sentence, I would in fact have a comma before and after the word:

I have no problem with starting a sentence with a conjunction as long as it's the best way to get the point across, however, there is no need for a comma afterward.

Your compound sentence consists of two independent clauses; therefore, across should be followed by a semicolon rather than a comma.

 

[RoJoHen]

. . . If I were to replace "but" with "however" in the compound sentence, I would in fact have a comma before and after the word:

I have no problem with starting a sentence with a conjunction as long as it's the best way to get the point across, however, there is no need for a comma afterward.

Your compound sentence consists of two independent clauses; therefore, across should be followed by a semicolon rather than a comma.

You are correct. Yet more proof that "but" and "however" are not the same!