| Author |
Message |
rzed
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 9:40 pm
Post subject: Another comma item |
|
|
I stumbled across this sentence yesterday:
"The horrible stiff classicism he had deplored ten years ago as
Arriano Grijalva had not, miraculously, vanished in the intervening
period."
It seems to me that this is punctuated incorrectly. Parenthesizing
"miraculously" nearly reverses the thrust of the sentence. From the
sentence and its context, it's apparent that the intended meaning
is that it was deplorable that "classicism had not vanished".
Expressing it as "classicism had not miraculously vanished" would
not alter that meaning; it would merely emphasize that it would
have been remarkable had it done so.
But "classicism had not, miraculously, vanished" seems to me to be
saying that by some miracle, classicism had not vanished -- that
is, that it was entirely remarkable that it had not done so.
I suppose it could be possible that the commas were placed there to
avoid someone misreading the sentence as "The horrible stiff
classicism he had deplored ten years ago as Arriano Grijalva had[,]
not miraculously[,] vanished in the intervening period." But that
seems a stretch.
Comments?
--
rzed
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 10:17 pm
Post subject: Re: Another comma item |
|
|
rzed wrote:
| Quote: | I stumbled across this sentence yesterday:
"The horrible stiff classicism he had deplored ten years ago as
Arriano Grijalva had not, miraculously, vanished in the intervening
period."
It seems to me that this is punctuated incorrectly. Parenthesizing
"miraculously" nearly reverses the thrust of the sentence. From the
sentence and its context, it's apparent that the intended meaning
is that it was deplorable that "classicism had not vanished".
Expressing it as "classicism had not miraculously vanished" would
not alter that meaning; it would merely emphasize that it would
have been remarkable had it done so.
But "classicism had not, miraculously, vanished" seems to me to be
saying that by some miracle, classicism had not vanished -- that
is, that it was entirely remarkable that it had not done so.
I suppose it could be possible that the commas were placed there to
avoid someone misreading the sentence as "The horrible stiff
classicism he had deplored ten years ago as Arriano Grijalva had[,]
not miraculously[,] vanished in the intervening period." But that
seems a stretch.
Comments?
|
Not to mention "...had miraculously not vanished..." and "...had,
miraculously, not vanished..."
This is why I deprecate sentences which needlessly depend for their
meaning on punctuation. And why I deprecate comma-sprinkling. But I
insist on the serial comma, so there you go.
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donna Richoux
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 11:32 pm
Post subject: Re: Another comma item |
|
|
rzed <jello@comics.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I stumbled across this sentence yesterday:
"The horrible stiff classicism he had deplored ten years ago as
Arriano Grijalva had not, miraculously, vanished in the intervening
period."
It seems to me that this is punctuated incorrectly. Parenthesizing
"miraculously" nearly reverses the thrust of the sentence. From the
sentence and its context, it's apparent that the intended meaning
is that it was deplorable that "classicism had not vanished".
|
Sorry, I got garden-pathed before I could get to the part you ask about.
What about this "Arriano Grijalva"? Was it an old pseudonym of the
speaker? Like:
Ten years ago, writing under the name of Arriano G,
he had deplored horrible classicism. Now he found
that such classicism persisted.
Or was A.G. someone else who had also deplored classicism? Or someone
who, unlike "he," had *not* deplored classicism? In either of those
cases, I think the sentence needs another "had" ("He" had deplored, A.G.
had or had not deplored, classicism had not vanished.)
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rzed
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 11:42 pm
Post subject: Re: Another comma item |
|
|
trio@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote in
news:1gmu8yo.vdkoom14zgyf2N%trio@euronet.nl:
| Quote: | rzed <jello@comics.com> wrote:
I stumbled across this sentence yesterday:
"The horrible stiff classicism he had deplored ten years ago as
Arriano Grijalva had not, miraculously, vanished in the
intervening period."
It seems to me that this is punctuated incorrectly.
Parenthesizing "miraculously" nearly reverses the thrust of the
sentence. From the sentence and its context, it's apparent that
the intended meaning is that it was deplorable that "classicism
had not vanished".
Sorry, I got garden-pathed before I could get to the part you
ask about. What about this "Arriano Grijalva"? Was it an old
pseudonym of the speaker? Like:
Ten years ago, writing under the name of Arriano G,
he had deplored horrible classicism. Now he found
that such classicism persisted.
Or was A.G. someone else who had also deplored classicism? Or
someone who, unlike "he," had *not* deplored classicism? In
either of those cases, I think the sentence needs another "had"
("He" had deplored, A.G. had or had not deplored, classicism had
not vanished.)
|
I debated whether to include that clause. The sentence is from the
book _The Golden Key_ (a collaboration by three authors). The
character is one who is able to assume possession of a succession
of bodies serially. Ten years previously he had occupied a
different body, and hence bore a different name.
--
rzed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in