[OT, grammar and punctuation] Use of commas in US and British style?

[Ferret]

[blatant hijack]
Which is gramatically correct?

a) "None of them is experienced enough to survive such an encounter."

or

b)"None of them are experienced enough to survive such an encounter."

I've always thought it was the former. A friend, who is an English teacher, says I'm incorrect. What were you taught?

[/blatant hijack]

He(singular) is(Verb for singular) alive(Random word).

They(Plural) are(Verb for plural) dead(Random word).

 

[drothgery]

Ooh, that's another one that bugs me! Good call!

How about "irregardless"? That's right folks, it's not actually a word. What you meant was just plain old regardless.

I had a science teacher (A TEACHER!) that mispronounced all of the scientific terms.
Nuclear = nuke-you-ler.
Thylakoid membrane = thakaloid membrane.
And the kicker; Specific = pacific.
I'm sure there were more that I've blocked from my memory.
GAHH!!

Eh. Minor variations in pronunciation are usually just regional dialect, and no more significant than the New England habbit of adding 'r' sounds where my midwestern US-trained ears think they shouldn't be (at the end of 'idea', for example) and removing them from where they should be (at the end of 'car', for example).

As long as someone's not blatantly violating the rules of spelling and grammar, it's not a big deal.

And irregardless is an actual word, it's just one that means the same thing as regardless. English isn't French; it's defined by usage, not some committee in Washington or London.

 

[Maerdwyn]

"He(singular) is(Verb for singular) alive(Random word).

They(Plural) are(Verb for plural) dead(Random word)."


Right - the question is: "Is 'none' singular or plural?"

I always thought "none" to be singular, as in "not one." My friend says that it is plural.

 

[Pielorinho]

"I could care less" is a sarcastic phrase, along the lines of, "As if I could care less!"

"Irregardless" is most certainly a word, although it's nonstandard English. The "Ir-" prefix is an intensifier. Irregardless of whether it appears in your dictionary (go check: if it's a good dictionary, it'll have it), you'll know what I mean when I say it. That makes it a word, whether or not your English teacher thinks it is.

And I learned that this comma was called the "Harvard comma," although it's also apparently called the "Oxford Comma." Here's what the alt-usage-english faq has to say on the subject:

This is known as the "serial comma" dispute. Both styles are
common. The second style was recommended by Fowler, and is Oxford
University Press house style (hence it is also called "the Oxford
comma"; it is also known as "the Harvard comma"); it is more common
in the U.S. than elsewhere. Although either style may cause
ambiguity (in "We considered Miss Roberts for the roles of Marjorie,
David's mother, and Louise", are there two roles or three?), the
style that omits the comma is more likely to do so: "Tom, Peter, and
I went swimming." (Without the comma, one might think that the
sentence was addressed to Tom.) "I ordered sandwiches today. I
ordered turkey, salami, peanut butter and jelly, and roast beef."
Without that last comma, one would have a MIGHTY weird sandwich!
-- Gabe Wiener. James Pierce reports that an author whose custom it
was to omit the comma dedicated a novel: "To my parents, Ayn Rand
and God."

Daniel
Descriptive, rather than prescriptive, grammarian
hi wolfspider!

 

[jmucchiello]

Strunck & White says to omit the final comma in a series unless its exclusion will lead to confusion.

This was what the English teachers whom I ever paid attention to always said. Perhaps in America it's a regional thing too. I'm in the northeast. I prefer to leave it out if the meaning is clear.

 

[brak1]

To quote The Princess Bride: "I do not think that means what you think it means."

An orgy is any kind of revelry or wanton behaviour. It isn't necessarily sexual.

INCONCEIVABLE!

I'm sorry. I couldn't help myself.

 

[Prince Atom]

Well, dictionary.com defines the prefix "in-" as meaning "not, in, into, within." In front of certain consonants the "n" changes.

Thus, for words beginning in "r", "in-" becomes "ir-."

Thus, "irregardless" means "not regardless," which means you're taking whatever it is into consideration. So, regardless of whichever form you use, I will pursue my agenda to wipe "irregardless" off the face of the earth if it is within my power.

As far as the commas go, use whichever you want, but be sure to be consistent. Thus, decide whether you're going to go with the American or English/Australian version, and stick with it.

Just my two cents.

TWK
Must ... restrain ... pedantrism!

 

[Marcolino]

[blatant hijack]
Which is gramatically correct?

a) "None of them is experienced enough to survive such an encounter."

or

b)"None of them are experienced enough to survive such an encounter."

I've always thought it was the former. A friend, who is an English teacher, says I'm incorrect. What were you taught?

[/blatant hijack]

(b) is correct.

None are.
Few are.
Some are.
Several are.
Many are.
All are.

I think they are called "collective nouns." I can't remember for certain.

How's this for another grammar peeve: placing punctuation outside of quotes. Something that always bothered me, along with several other things.

 

[RangerWickett]

I was taught to read your writing and put a comma, when, it, sounds, like it.

Thank you William Shatner.

 

[Storminator]

I was taught to read your writing and put a comma, when, it, sounds, like it.

The most important rule is to avoid adding extra commas as you re-read your work. Suddenly you see the need for them everywhere!

PS