I disagreed with a couple of the answers in the comma section. One isolated sentence, presented without taking into account the context and emphasis the writer may be trying to convey? Context and emphasis can change the semantics of a sentence, therefore requiring a corresponding change in the syntax.
For example:
Pretend you're writing a story about ten people who want to go to a play. One guy goes out and buys tickets for everyone. When the night of the play arrives, the ten people meet in front of the theatre as planned. The guy sees that three extra people have shown up, totally out of the blue. None of them have tickets, but they all want to go to the play, too. He says, "I'm sorry, but I only got ten tickets." It's sold out, so there's nothing else they can do about it. The three newbies go home.
The original ten people go to the play, and sometime during the evening, the guy finds out that one of the others is angry at him. She starts questioning why there weren't enough tickets to go round. The guy says, "Well, duh! When I bought them, only ten people wanted to go--and then thirteen showed up tonight! Of course there weren't enough tickets to go round! How was I supposed to know the others would show up and want to go? Do you think I'm psychic?" She gets huffy, he tries to explain why ten is less than thirteen no matter how many fingers you use, and when an usher finally tells them to shut up or leave, the guy grabs a cab and goes home with a migraine.
So. Would it still be grammatically correct to put a comma after of course in that sentence, considering the context of your dialogue and the emphasis you want to convey? According to the quiz, it's incorrect if you don't put a comma there, no matter what. In this case, I say the quiz is wrong. I think you have to know how the sentence is meant to be expressed before you can decide if of course is an introductory clause.
And just as an add-on - I find it interesting that the quiz is so intolerant of variations in semantics when the title on the cover is playing with that same idea. It's asking the reader to determine what exactly the panda is doing, depending entirely on where the comma is (or isn't) placed.
Is the panda eating the bamboo shoots, and then leaving? ie, "[The panda] Eats shoots and leaves."
Or does the panda eat, then shoot the gun, then leave? "[The panda] Eats, shoots and leaves."
If the panda has different options depending on where the comma is, why can't the dude with the tickets? I guess I just have a problem with the idea of "zero tolerance." Language is a flexible, changing medium. You can't say that something like punctuation rules are absolutes - "ALWAYS put a comma after "of course" when it comes at the beginning of a sentence!" - not when you're talking about a medium of personal expression that's subject to things like context and interpretation.
I hadn't thought about the similarity between that sentence and the title of the book. Hmmm. Silly quiz-makers. And how much do I love that there's a grammar debate going on in my LiveJournal? Hee.
The "of course" one gave me pause as well. But, after fourteen years of standardized testing, I've learned that the "none of the above" option is practically never used, and that testmakers always forget about emphasis. ;)
Yeah, it's certainly not the best quiz around. But it had pandas, so I forgive it. ;)
I was in Barnes & Noble today, and Mom pointed out the actual book to me. I told her about your/our issues with the zero tolerance approach, and after about thirty seconds she just gave up on trying to understand. Hee.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Hmmm...
Date: 2004-07-22 07:50 am (UTC)For example:
Pretend you're writing a story about ten people who want to go to a play. One guy goes out and buys tickets for everyone. When the night of the play arrives, the ten people meet in front of the theatre as planned. The guy sees that three extra people have shown up, totally out of the blue. None of them have tickets, but they all want to go to the play, too. He says, "I'm sorry, but I only got ten tickets." It's sold out, so there's nothing else they can do about it. The three newbies go home.
The original ten people go to the play, and sometime during the evening, the guy finds out that one of the others is angry at him. She starts questioning why there weren't enough tickets to go round. The guy says, "Well, duh! When I bought them, only ten people wanted to go--and then thirteen showed up tonight! Of course there weren't enough tickets to go round! How was I supposed to know the others would show up and want to go? Do you think I'm psychic?" She gets huffy, he tries to explain why ten is less than thirteen no matter how many fingers you use, and when an usher finally tells them to shut up or leave, the guy grabs a cab and goes home with a migraine.
So. Would it still be grammatically correct to put a comma after of course in that sentence, considering the context of your dialogue and the emphasis you want to convey? According to the quiz, it's incorrect if you don't put a comma there, no matter what. In this case, I say the quiz is wrong. I think you have to know how the sentence is meant to be expressed before you can decide if of course is an introductory clause.
< /nitpick >
Re: Hmmm...
Date: 2004-07-22 08:06 am (UTC)Is the panda eating the bamboo shoots, and then leaving? ie, "[The panda] Eats shoots and leaves."
Or does the panda eat, then shoot the gun, then leave? "[The panda] Eats, shoots and leaves."
If the panda has different options depending on where the comma is, why can't the dude with the tickets? I guess I just have a problem with the idea of "zero tolerance." Language is a flexible, changing medium. You can't say that something like punctuation rules are absolutes - "ALWAYS put a comma after "of course" when it comes at the beginning of a sentence!" - not when you're talking about a medium of personal expression that's subject to things like context and interpretation.
Re: Hmmm...
Date: 2004-07-22 04:54 pm (UTC)Re: Hmmm...
Date: 2004-07-22 04:53 pm (UTC)Yeah, it's certainly not the best quiz around. But it had pandas, so I forgive it. ;)
Re: Hmmm...
Date: 2004-07-22 05:54 pm (UTC)Re: Hmmm...
Date: 2004-07-24 04:48 am (UTC)I was in Barnes & Noble today, and Mom pointed out the actual book to me. I told her about your/our issues with the zero tolerance approach, and after about thirty seconds she just gave up on trying to understand. Hee.