Or the slogans that make me say, "boo(b)!"
Something is wrong with our sentences -- something so common and small that most of us fail to pay it any attention at all. After all, it's surrounded with powerful clusters of players and action. But the more I think of it, the more I see it: it flicks through my students' essays, sneaks into newspapers, and hangs out in slogans. It's a comma, but it's not one we love (at least not at The Society; clearly, things are different in the world). Le voilà:
Something is wrong with our sentences -- something so common and small that most of us fail to pay it any attention at all. After all, it's surrounded with powerful clusters of players and action. But the more I think of it, the more I see it: it flicks through my students' essays, sneaks into newspapers, and hangs out in slogans. It's a comma, but it's not one we love (at least not at The Society; clearly, things are different in the world). Le voilà:
"What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas."
This, is not correct. I, wish this kind of punctuation would stop. Who, wrote this thing? Are you, seeing the pattern?
One basic rule all punctuators need to remember is that we never separate the simple elements of a sentence pattern with internal punctuation. Period. (Calling myself on my own (funny) fragment.) In this case, Vegas has separated the base pair whose combination is essential for a sentence: the subject and the verb. A subject is a subject; it doesn't matter how long it is. It could be a name: Tom Jones needed new pants. It could be a pronoun: He hated replacing a trusty pair. There could be modifiers, relative clauses, and prepositional phrases attached: The calfskin pants that Tom Jones's mom sewed for him while watching her T.V. program fit his legs perfectly. Grammatically speaking, these subjects are all equal; they are all doing the action. Tom is needing; he is hating; the pants are fitting. They are all subjects directly preceding their verbs; they ought not be torn asunder by this errant comma. Thus, in our boobery, the things that happen in Vegas -- that is, "what" happens in Vegas -- are doing the action. They're staying. This sentence represents the simplest pattern: subject + verb. That's it. What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.
I hate to think we would also tolerate slogans such as "He, stays..."; We, stay..."; or even "Drunken idiocy, stays..." So I hazard that we shouldn't tolerate this one either. Anyone for a Vegas boycott?
(I'd also like to boycott the long-taught rule that commas should represent pauses in speech. There is no other rule that has wreaked so much havoc on young punctuators than this one. It's a sometimes-truth touted as an always-reliable one. It's no good. It makes people punctuate like boobs.)
Unfortunately, Vegas is not the only one practicing this "long subjects make us, nervous and sort of make us want, to pause" boobery.
I'm not really bothered by the fragment in Subaru's ad (though a colon would have been much better), but the comma really irks me. "Love. It's what makes a Subaru, a Subaru." This sentence has a slightly more complex patterning than Vegas's ad, but the principle is the same: the simple elements of the sentence are being separated by internal punctuation.
This, is not correct. I, wish this kind of punctuation would stop. Who, wrote this thing? Are you, seeing the pattern?
One basic rule all punctuators need to remember is that we never separate the simple elements of a sentence pattern with internal punctuation. Period. (Calling myself on my own (funny) fragment.) In this case, Vegas has separated the base pair whose combination is essential for a sentence: the subject and the verb. A subject is a subject; it doesn't matter how long it is. It could be a name: Tom Jones needed new pants. It could be a pronoun: He hated replacing a trusty pair. There could be modifiers, relative clauses, and prepositional phrases attached: The calfskin pants that Tom Jones's mom sewed for him while watching her T.V. program fit his legs perfectly. Grammatically speaking, these subjects are all equal; they are all doing the action. Tom is needing; he is hating; the pants are fitting. They are all subjects directly preceding their verbs; they ought not be torn asunder by this errant comma. Thus, in our boobery, the things that happen in Vegas -- that is, "what" happens in Vegas -- are doing the action. They're staying. This sentence represents the simplest pattern: subject + verb. That's it. What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.
I hate to think we would also tolerate slogans such as "He, stays..."; We, stay..."; or even "Drunken idiocy, stays..." So I hazard that we shouldn't tolerate this one either. Anyone for a Vegas boycott?
(I'd also like to boycott the long-taught rule that commas should represent pauses in speech. There is no other rule that has wreaked so much havoc on young punctuators than this one. It's a sometimes-truth touted as an always-reliable one. It's no good. It makes people punctuate like boobs.)
Unfortunately, Vegas is not the only one practicing this "long subjects make us, nervous and sort of make us want, to pause" boobery.
I'm not really bothered by the fragment in Subaru's ad (though a colon would have been much better), but the comma really irks me. "Love. It's what makes a Subaru, a Subaru." This sentence has a slightly more complex patterning than Vegas's ad, but the principle is the same: the simple elements of the sentence are being separated by internal punctuation.
There are actually technically two patterns in this one: It (love) is what (subject + linking verb + predicate noun); and what makes a Subaru a Subaru (subject + verb + object + object complement). But we are primarily interested in the second. 'What' is the subject (doing the making). 'A Subaru' is being made (so it's the object; direct objects are always being verb'd). But the sentence continues to answer what the Subaru is being made into: 'a Subaru.' While the repetition is unwieldy, Subaru is still the complement to Subaru. Here's an easier example: My goats make me frustrated. Subject: My goats (the actors). Verb: make (it's the only possible choice). I am the object. But are they simply making me? That is, are they my creators? Definitely not. They're making me frustrated. Frustrated is the complement to (it completes) me. Let's go back to Tom Jones and his mom's fancy pants -- She makes the pants, simple subject + verb + object. What if she makes the pants beautiful? Beautiful completes the idea of the pants; beautiful is the complement to the object. She doesn't make the pants, beautiful (unless she says to Tom, "I made your pants, beautiful!"). She makes the pants beautiful. Just like love makes a Subaru a Subaru.
Vegas and Subaru, The Society implores you! For the love of grammar, make your slogans correct. Let bad grammar stay in the past. Set a proper example for the kids and remove your unnecessary commas.
Also -- Google, stop correcting my grammar: I'll punctuate when I punctuate...correctly!
Vegas and Subaru, The Society implores you! For the love of grammar, make your slogans correct. Let bad grammar stay in the past. Set a proper example for the kids and remove your unnecessary commas.
Also -- Google, stop correcting my grammar: I'll punctuate when I punctuate...correctly!
RSS Feed