Jump to content
IGNORED

stupid first world problems you're dealing with


Guest KY

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, dingformung said:

English tends to be much less strict than German when it comes to comma placement. Rule of thumb is you can do whatever the fuck you want as long as it reads well. But you are still right.

Using an exclamation mark for all imperatives is also a German thing and not necessarily done in English. And even in German nobody does it.

I'm aware of all that, and yet I'm exclusively talking about English grammar here. The direct address comma is a beautiful thing and helps clarify the meaning of this specific clause which, foregoing the comma, could be read as either "Fuck, you google", or "Fuck you, google". Either qualifies as an exclamation, btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IDEM said:

It's called a "direct address comma", you can look it up. It's the same as in "Yes, sir", "Sean, pls" or "Fuck me, IDEM, you're actually right".

You’re not setting google aside from “fuck you” though. Also, he’s not addressing google directly (he’s not speaking to google but expressing a thought) as google isn’t standing in front of him.  
It could be acceptable, but it’s not needed. 
I spend too much time writing policy documents, so I almost never use direct speech, which is why I interpret that particular clause that way. 

  • Confused 1
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, IDEM said:

I'm aware of all that, and yet I'm exclusively talking about English grammar here. The direct address comma is a beautiful thing and helps clarify the meaning of this specific clause which, foregoing the comma, could be read as either "Fuck, you google", or "Fuck you, google". Either qualifies as an exclamation, btw.

It’s impossible to read it as the former because of the second clause where google is the (implied) subject in an imperative clause. It’s also why I’d say the direct address comma is unnecessary since a noun of direct address can never be a subject. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

You’re not setting google aside from “fuck you” though. Also, he’s not addressing google directly (he’s not speaking to google but expressing a thought) as google isn’t standing in front of him.  
It could be acceptable, but it’s not needed. 
I spend too much time writing policy documents, so I almost never use direct speech, which is why I interpret that particular clause that way. 

 

15 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

It’s impossible to read it as the former because of the second clause where google is the (implied) subject in an imperative clause. It’s also why I’d say the direct address comma is unnecessary since a noun of direct address can never be a subject. 

This is puzzling. Are you completely sure you know what a grammatical subject is?

2 minutes ago, Zephyr_Nova said:

SFWP: my drunken belligerence post caused a grammar ruckus.

Your right sorry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, IDEM said:

 

This is puzzling. Are you completely sure you know what a grammatical subject is?

Your right sorry

How is it puzzling?

Also “you’re”. 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

Also, he’s not addressing google directly (he’s not speaking to google but expressing a thought) as google isn’t standing in front of him.  

Grammatically that doesn't matter. It's normal to leave out the comma but technically, "Google" should be separated by a comma because vocative expressions are treated as their own sub clauses. Where IDEM is wrong is that it's a rule. It's more a suggestion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, dingformung said:

Grammatically that doesn't matter. It's normal to leave out the comma but technically, "Google" should be separated by a comma because vocative expressions are treated as their own sub clauses. Where IDEM is wrong is that it's a rule. It's more a suggestion.

Technically, the direct address comma is used when you know, directly addressing the subject. He’s not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dingformung said:

Rule of thumb is you can do whatever the fuck you want as long as it reads well; but you are still right.

The thing that bothers me is that in recent years, in the English language, the question mark and exclamation mark have somehow become placed exclusively at the end of sentences.  What happened to people asking questions inside sentences ?  because I find it happens pretty often in my personal dialogue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

Technically, the direct address comma is used when you know, directly addressing the subject. He’s not.

If English still had a case system, "Google" would probably be in the vocative case here, which in modern English is expressed by separating the expression with a comma. Often the comma disturbs the flow of reading, so it's left out. With the imperative "fuck you", he addressed "Google". Even if he didn't mean to literally address Google, in the grammatical sense he did.

2 minutes ago, drillkicker said:

The thing that bothers me is that in recent years, in the English language, the question mark and exclamation mark have somehow become placed exclusively at the end of sentences.  What happened to people asking questions inside sentences ?  because I find it happens pretty often in my personal dialogue.

What happened to people asking questions inside sentences? Because I find it happens pretty often in my personal dialogue.

You don't really need it mid-sentence, but I've seen it done in literature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

How is it puzzling?

Also “you’re”. 

It is puzzling in that it seems incoherent. See @dingformung's post for an explanation.

Also, the comma between right and sorry was missing too. Please tell me the irony did register.

38 minutes ago, dingformung said:

Grammatically that doesn't matter. It's normal to leave out the comma but technically, "Google" should be separated by a comma because vocative expressions are treated as their own sub clauses. Where IDEM is wrong is that it's a rule. It's more a suggestion.

No, it's not a suggestion, it is a bonafide rule. I didn"t make it though, I'm just the messenger.

23 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

Technically, the direct address comma is used when you know, directly addressing the subject. He’s not.

Of course he is.

Edited by IDEM
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dingformung said:

What happened to people asking questions inside sentences? Because I find it happens pretty often in my personal dialogue.

See, the problem with that is you're starting a sentence with a conjunction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWP: Tried to open one of those little vacuum-packed bags of peanuts with a sharp knife, punctuated my left forefinger, then found the tear-open flap.

Bit my inner cheek while chewing.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, IDEM said:

FWP: Tried to open, one of those little vacuum-packed bags, of peanuts with a sharp knife; punctuated my left forefinger! then found the tear-open flap.

Bit my inner cheek, while, chewing.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, dingformung said:

If English still had a case system, "Google" would probably be in the vocative case here, which in modern English is expressed by separating the expression with a comma. Often the comma disturbs the flow of reading, so it's left out. With the imperative "fuck you", he addressed "Google". Even if he didn't mean to literally address Google, in the grammatical sense he did.

 

Fuck you is not an imperative. Fuck yourself would be the imperative form. The second clause “suck my dick” is the imperative. 

8 minutes ago, IDEM said:

It is puzzling in that it seems incoherent. See @dingformung's post for an explanation.

Also, the comma between right and sorry was missing too. Please tell me the irony did register.

Of course he is.

Ding’s post is also incorrect, because as he correctly pointed out, English doesn’t have a vocative case anymore. 

It was also missing a period, so really hard to interpret any irony in there.  

Of course he’s not. Was google in the room with him? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, drillkicker said:

See, the problem with that is you're starting a sentence with a conjunction.

So what? View it as an ellipsis more than as a sentence if that makes you feel better. ?

4 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

Ding’s post is also incorrect, because as he correctly pointed out, English doesn’t have a vocative case anymore. 

It doesn't have a vocative as a grammatical form but it has vocative expressions, which just don't have their own ending anymore.

8 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

Fuck you is not an imperative. Fuck yourself would be the imperative form. The second clause “suck my dick” is the imperative. 

While it is true that "fuck you" doesn't necessarily have to be interpreted as an imperative, your explanation is wrong. Both "fuck you" and "fuck yourself" can be interpreted as imperatives. "Fuck you" can also be interpreted as an interjection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

Of course he’s not. Was google in the room with him? 

No disrespect, but at this point it is a bit hard to tell if you're being wilfully obtuse or winding me up. Grammatically speaking, that doesn't matter in the least.

Anyway, off to bed, have fun(,) guise!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can “fuck you” be an imperative? Imperatives are commands. 

2 minutes ago, IDEM said:

No disrespect, but at this point it is a bit hard to tell if you're being wilfully obtuse or winding me up. Grammatically speaking, that doesn't matter in the least.

Anyway, off to bed, have fun(,) guise!

Context matters. Have, a,  good night!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, dingformung said:

It doesn't actually matter whether it's in imperative form or any other form, "google" is still addressed.

Clearly not. Context matters in language and grammar, and the word direct in means exactly that in a noun of direct address. 
A noun of direct address is the person directly being spoken to or written to. 
 

Clearly this is not the case in this sentence. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.