Language desk
< July 12	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 14 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 13

comma and following space

Is there any evolved convention, a rule of thumb, that a comma should be followed by a space? Or, is it just a typographical convention? 59.91.253.119 (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, commas directly follow words and there is a space between words; so naturally, there is a space after a comma.--omnipotence407 (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Readability makes a good argument. eg Typography#Readability_and_legibility 87.102.86.73 (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Include in" or "include on"?

If you're posting on an Internet forum, which of the following phrases is more grammatically correct?

1) I'd like to include in this thread...
2) I'd like to include on this thread...

Thanks in advance. --XxCutexXxGirlxX (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "in". You are essentially including your comments within (that is, "in" ) the discussion ... not on top of (that is, "on") the discussion. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Neither one is correct. Include "what" in? Corvus cornix_talk 20:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever is mentioned in the ellipsis. The phrases weren't intended to be complete sentences. —An gr 20:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Why is neither correct? The OP was implicitly stating (via the question itself, the reference to his posting, and the use of ellipses) that the OP wants to include his posting (i.e., comments) in the internet forum / discussion thread. That is, the ellipsis in Option #1 above essentially means: "I'd like to include in this thread my opinion about the latest Supreme Court ruling" (or some such). (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

In would be more standard, but it's not something that's been around for a long time. If you thought of it as a physical thread, it would be more accurate to say on this thread, as it's a stream of comments, and yours would be added on the end, but in reality, most threads are considered containers. However, now that I think of it, I can't remember what it's called, but many of the old BBS systems that would show all threads on one page, with the threads expanding potentially on the same page, "on" would be more correct, and was probably used more often then, since they really were a thread of comments strung together, adjacent others, in a given order. In reality though, someone posting on one of those systems today would still more likely use the term "in" because the distinction is tiny and honestly, not terribly important.200.42.217.61 (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misunderstood the question. I though the examples were meant to be complete in themselves. Corvus cornix_talk 18:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Singular or plural verb

I ran across this sentence and am somewhat confused. I am not sure if the sentence is correct or incorrect and, if the latter, how to fix it. The sentence is: The screaming woman sound used as a doorbell is Fay Wray's screams from King Kong. Thus, removing all of the descriptive adjectives and adverbs, this sentence boils down to "Sound is screams." (I am not sure, but I think this is called an appositive?) Anyway ... clearly, "sound" is singular and "screams" is plural and "is" is singular. Is this correct and why? Or incorrect and why? And how does one correct it? I am not asking to rewrite / reconstruct the sentence. Rather, I want to understand the sentence as it is currently constructed. This can happen quite often, and I am only presenting this one example. Another example might be something like: "That sound you hear is the screams of frightened children." Again, "Sound is screams." I am confused. It does not make sense to use a singular verb ("is"). It also does not make sense to use a plural verb ("are"). It does not make sense to change the first noun to a plural ("sounds") to accomodate a plural verb "are". It also does not make sense to change the second noun to a singular ("scream") to accomodate a singular verb "is". What is the rule in these cases? Help? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

While the difference between one scream and multiple screams is clear, the difference between one sound and many sounds is not as certain. Does that refer to sounds coming from different sources, sounds seperated by moments of silence, or some other definition ? Since "sound" seems to be the flexible term, I'd suggest altering it to make the sentences better:

"The screaming woman sounds used as a doorbell are Fay Wray's screams from King Kong."

"The sounds you hear are the screams of frightened children."

I'd say it was technically correct before, but looked bad, so why not fix it ? StuRat (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, StuRat. I am not looking to re-write the sentence, just to understand it. (It was someone else's sentence, to begin with.) I understand that any sentence can be re-written to sweep the problem under the carpet. I am seeking to understand the grammar and construction of the sentences as written, however. So, then you are saying that "Sound is screams" is a technically correct sentence (singular noun / singular verb / plural noun) ...? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, it's grammatically correct; the singular verb agrees with the singular subject, and the number of the complement is immaterial. There's nothing wrong with either "One problem is inattentive motorists" or "Inattentive motorists are one problem," for example. Deor (talk) 01:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both. This was very helpful to me. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

What sort of sentence is this?

Wouldn't the sentence 'I want to put a hyphen between the words Fish and And and And and Chips in my Fish-And-Chip sign' have been clearer if quotation marks had been placed before Fish and between Fish and and and and and And and And and and and and and And and And and and and and and Chips as well as after Chips?

Is that-- both the whole sentence and the embedded "I want to put a hyphen..." clause -- any kind of linguistic example sequence, and if so what is it called? I can see how it's related to the use-mention distinction, though. 69.106.4.120 (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! What sort of sentence is this, you ask? The sentence from hell? ... I'm guessing ... (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

It is just a normal "use vs. mention" example, somewhat complicated by it being a double-barrelled self referential statement, containing use, mention of use and mention of use of mention of use. Certainly, quotation marks before Fish and between Fish and and and and and And and And and and and and and And and And and and and and and Chips and after Chips would have turned this into the rather trivial example of "Fish" and "And" and "And" and "Chips" unless you are afflicted with stututututering and and or or and or or echolalalilia. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article on list of linguistic example sentences calls our Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo article an "example of lexical ambiguity". I just think it's a bit repetitive.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]