posted
I'm struggling with something that seems to be more opinion than rule of law in practice. I'm not really looking for suggestions, just opening this up for debate.
option a) something something, then something else
option b) something something, and then something else
Word's grammar check seems to hate option (a) and insists on (b), where as option (a) seems to be commonly used in practice. Sometimes (a) just seems right.
posted
LDS: whether you need a comma or a semicolon in Option A depends on whether the second clause can stand alone as a complete sentence or not. If it's a fragment, then a semicolon would be misplaced.
Option A: The evil robot monkeys fired their weapons at Clarissa, then ran away.
Option B: The evil robot monkeys fired their weapons at Clarissa, and then ran away.
I think I prefer the version with the "and," but I wouldn't get worked up about it either way, personally. Doc Brown is now forwarned, and welcome to avoid reading my work.
posted
I use option (a) with fragments all the time, even though (b) is more correct grammatically. I think it's perfectly clear without the "and" there, and it seems to flow better most of the time.
[This message has been edited by EricJamesStone (edited May 29, 2005).]
posted
i like the and as well, but i would probably not even notice whether it was included or not in the process of reading, unless it was something that glaringly sounds better with or without the and.
there are times that i would say forget the and... it's a case by case thing for me, whichever seems to fit the narrative flow the best is the best.
posted
I've actually had internal battles over this very question. Sad, in retrospect, but I think it's important to ask yourself these questions. Bad grammar distracts me so much when I'm reading, I don't want my readers to go through the same thing. For example, not using a comma before the 'and' in a list drives me nuts. In this case, it's a situation where the rule itself actually changes over time, so I should be more forgiving (the rule may have even changed back to omitting it for all I know), but I still can't stand it.
As far as I know (which isn't much further than a Word spellcheck), 'and then' is the correct form. However, in speech and when I'm reading, just 'then' seems far more natural. Perhaps Lord Darkstorm is right and a semi-colon is what's needed. Unlike Beth's example, I only use 'then' when the part following it could be its own sentence (in which case the comma before the 'and then' or 'then' is appropriate). For example:
The evil robot monkeys fired their weapons at Clarissa, then they ran away.
vs.
The evil robot monkeys fired their weapons at Clarissa and then ran away.
Both of the above examples are how I'd write it. I don't think the top one is correct, but doesn't it flow more naturally? Maybe a semi-colon is just the ticket to keep grammar-nazis happy.
[This message has been edited by apeiron (edited May 30, 2005).]
posted
You know, it bugs the hell out of me when writers refer to people who insist on correct punctuation as "nazis." Why participate in a punctuation thread if you have so little regard for the subject?
The top one requires a semicolon to be correct in your version.
The semicolon may be correct, but they terrify readers. I try to avoid them whenever possible. I find myself using the m-dash frequently as a substitute.
posted
Speaking as a reader who only recently began writing, semicolons do not scare me. The only time I even notice them is if they are done wrong. I think it is the writers who don't know how to use them, who are terrified of semicolons.
posted
The semicolon is such a wimpy piece of punctuation that I hardly ever use it to join two sentences. I prefer to use an em-dash -- it's more dashing.
[This message has been edited by EricJamesStone (edited May 31, 2005).]
The em-dash takes up two spaces -- and what used to be called an "en-dash" (aka hyphen) takes up one. I believe that is because the letter m (em) is wider than the letter n (en) and in proportional fonts it takes up more space.
quote:Would someone please explain just why an em-dash is called an em-dash? My ignorance apalls me.
It goes back to old type setting methods. There are two (possibly three, but I personally only have experience with two) types of dashes: an em-dash (a longer one) and an en-dash (a shorter one). In type setting, the em-dash was as long as a lowercase "m"; the en-dash was as long as a lowercase "n". I think that is why two en-dashes are sometimes used instead of one em-dash.
posted
Like my dashing friend Eric I use the em-dashes frequently, but I also use semicolons...mostly to be contrary. Posts: 280 | Registered: Jul 2003
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
