ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

Stuff that requires CONTEXT. My typing is bad today.

Rule of thumb is that "this" most likely refers backwards to the last noun used OR (by usage) the dominant noun in the last clause containing nouns. The (poor) writer may know what this dominant noun is, but doesn't spot that an unhipped reader won't.

I think it's got way worse -- as have related probs like dangling modifiers -- since word processing enabled instant redrafting and word-order shift on an industrial scale.

it's = the general situation in this regard, dear unhipped reader

why does "It held little interest to me" sound so wrong when "It was of little interest to me" is fine? just the Preposition Factor? I should change it to "for me," right?

for me, i think?

R.E.M. Breaks Up: Michael Stipe, Bandmates Release Ends Run

Can someone diagram this bullshit for me? Is "release" a noun or a verb in this headline?

it's a noun, there should be an apostrophe after "bandmates"?

yep

One last little dig at Mike Mills before they went.

At first I thought it meant they were releasing one final album called "Ends Run".

Ends Run In My Family

seems needless to enforce correct apostrophe laws when you're playing word-jenga for max compression: "this michael stipe and bandmates release ends the run"

ie "michael stipe and bandmates" is being deployed as an adjective there

without the apostrophe its too easy to read "release" as a verb, though, especially since its used so frequently in a musical context

Some bands I'd like to namecheck/
and one of them is Michael Stipe, Bandmates

Ends Run In My Family

― Pleasant Plains, Wednesday, September 21, 2011 2:31 PM (41 minutes ago)

I lol'd btw

it's not jenga if the structure isn't dicey

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/293991_781121081135_120400092_39501134_353160453_n.jpg

sticklers for the oxford comma but not for capitalization huh

^^one to talk

sarcastrophe

this exists. it's currently our IT department's thing

that oxford comma cartoon is shite

besides which, caption for the second picture s/b: "we invited the strippers jfk and stalin" viz no comma at all

(unless it's also attempting to claim that jfk and stalin are the only two strippers in all history, and here are their names) (which is silly, because there have in fact been other strippers)

There was Theodore Roosevelt that time at Spearmint Rhino, for example.

caption for the second picture s/b: "we invited the strippers jfk and stalin" viz no comma at all

not in my view, the sentence contains a natural pause there which should be marked by a comma

its a restrictive apposition and it needs a comma

or restrictive appositive i guess

oh sorry--i guess its the non-restrictives appositives that require the commas. this one could go either way

unless it's also attempting to claim that jfk and stalin are the only two strippers in all history, and here are their names

the gag does seem to work better where the examples exhaust the set, e.g. "i'd like to thank my parents, god and ayn rand", or merle haggard's ex wives:

http://problogservice.com/images/Merle-Haggard-ex-wives-kris-kristofferson-robert-duval.jpg

it's only a restrictive appositive if jfk and stalin are the only two strippers ever

in which case it doesnt require a comma

but the comma is what makes it sound like a restrictive apposition, instead of a list?

appositive w/evah

the natural pause argument is the "rossian comma", i guess, after the new yorker's harold ross, who was mad for the little monsters -- in this kind of instance it falls, because it's "misleading" in the restrictive/non-restrictive dimension (further problematised by having to choose with of two deliberately silly counterfactual situations the cartoonists are intending to conjure with)

"we invited the strippers jfk and stalin" <-- there are other strippers but we didn't invite em
"we invited the strippers, jfk and stalin" <-- there are no other strippers

as always clarity can be achieved otherwise we invited jfk, stalin and the strippers unless that confuses things by suggesting jfk is a collective comprising stalin and the strippers imagine if that were the case we could do a cartoon of it

(ps i am v.crap and muddly at proper actual technical grammatical parsing when it comes to naming the names of parts of speech what they're doing, so just blerg through any clause where i deploy these)

i think youve got it backwards mark--a restrictive appositive, which would limit the prior noun, has no comma, while a nonrestrictive appositive, which just modifies the noun parenthetically, does have a comma

or wait

never mind

i give up

intricate subtlety can always be achieved in english: unambiguous clarity much more rarely

max, i think the definitive rules are more complex than that: i'm going to check fowler when i get home (as i say, i'm hopeless with the technical terms)

I don't think the commas imply that JFK and Stalin are the only two strippers in human history, just that they are the strippers being discussed. (I inferred a context in which "the strippers" were already part of the story.)

(Where were you guys when I posted this cartoon on the "comma roundtable" thread last week?)

"the only two strippers in human history" <-- this is funnier tho, hence by implication must be what a cartoon is striving for

mark's first post was right

I agree with mark s the editor

The editor mark s, rather.

(but if were talking about a publication where mark s was the editor, I'd say "the editor, mark s")

p sure it should be "We invited the strippers, which JFK and Stalin."

"The festival featured Emerson, Lake and Palmer, The Captain and Tennile and Hall and Oates"