Teacher Discussion Forums

What's your opinion on what is and isn't punctuation in text? See poll.

And how about these?

Font changes in a text are a part of the system of punctuation.

Paragragh indentations are a part of the system of punctuation.

I like to look in dictionaries for definitions - it makes talking to other people less confusing. Generally, and in the OED I possess, it seems there is something about "the marks we use in writing", so I would say not.

woodcutter wrote:I like to look in dictionaries for definitions - it makes talking to other people less confusing. Generally, and in the OED I possess, it seems there is something about "the marks we use in writing", so I would say not.

OK. Thanks for your input.

What do you think of these definitions from Webster's:

1 : the act of punctuating : the state of being punctuated
2 : the act or practice of inserting standardized marks or signs in written matter to clarify the meaning and separate structural units; also : a system of punctuation
3 : something that contrasts or accentuates

Hey all!

I've just made this poll like the elections in the states, neck in neck.

I had not considered this before and had to make a decision on the spot.

I would have considered the little marks we make (.,;:-!¡?¿etc....) punctuation, but considering the revolution that computers have made in writing, perhaps such things as using bold type or italics should be included with underlining as part of the group of "norms" that can be considered punctuation. Perhaps the definitions of punctuation in the dictionaries need to be brought up to date. Perhaps a name should be given to seemingly "stylistic" norms such as indentation vs block text with blank lines, or italics vs between quotes, etc. For simplicity's sake, I would say punctuation on all fronts and then sub-divide it, but maybe that's like the infinitive (be) and the infinitive with to (to be) that I rail about in another thread.

Curious thought, there, metal, and such a simple question that it is sure to generate a lot of debate here !

peace,
revel.

revel wrote: Curious thought, there, metal, and such a simple question that it is sure to generate a lot of debate here !

peace,
revel.

Yes. One would hope. Many linguists see intended space an indents as punctuation.

What are "signs" I wonder? Otherwise the definition seems much the same, 1 and 3 are different senses of the word.

"Look at this student's work! He's used italics willy-nilly all over the place, and hasn't indented a thing. What rotten punctuation!"

Sounds pretty odd to me.

woodcutter wrote:What are "signs" I wonder? Otherwise the definition seems much the same, 1 and 3 are different senses of the word.

"Look at this student's work! He's used italics willy-nilly all over the place, and hasn't indented a thing. What rotten punctuation!"

Sounds pretty odd to me.

To me, no.

It's one of these questions you don't think about but proves annoyingly complicated when you do.

Indenting a paragraph is part of punctuation. OK. But what about leaving a line between paragraphs? As one of the ways of setting out a business letter involves not indenting, but leaving a space between the paragraphs instead, then the answer must be at least sometimes.

And aren't the talics in

Jesus Christ Superstar is my favourite musical.

an integral part of the punctuation?

Stephen Jones wrote:
Indenting a paragraph is part of punctuation. OK. But what about leaving a line between paragraphs?

I think that is covered by this:

Space and lineation are a part of the system of punctuation.

But when you decide to write with one and a half or double line spacing it is not normally considered part of punctuation. Equally, if for aesthetic reasons, I decide to leave four lines between one paragraph and the next one.

Stephen Jones wrote:But when you decide to write with one and a half or double line spacing it is not normally considered part of punctuation. Equally, if for aesthetic reasons, I decide to leave four lines between one paragraph and the next one.

And what do you think happens to the reader during that gap? Do you think they spend time admiring the aesthetic of space?

Since they haven't set up that nice English Academy yet, I have done the spade work of looking "punctuation" up in a "basket of dictionaries", and asked one or two unsuspecting folk about the issue. Marks, always marks, never spaces, and now and then "signs".

Therefore if linguists are in the habit of using the word to talk about space, form and italics they have created a new and jargonized meaning for a common word. They like nothing better than to do such horrible things, so I don't doubt it.

woodcutter wrote:Since they haven't set up that nice English Academy yet, I have done the spade work of looking "punctuation" up in a "basket of dictionaries", and asked one or two unsuspecting folk about the issue. Marks, always marks, never spaces, and now and then "signs".

Therefore if linguists are in the habit of using the word to talk about space, form and italics they have created a new and jargonized meaning for a common word. They like nothing better than to do such horrible things, so I don't doubt it.

Spacing and punctuation are both vital - one doesn't want to confuse man's laughter with manslaughter, and no Psychotherapist would wish to be known in written form as Psycho the rapist.

Attila wrote:Spacing and punctuation are both vital - one doesn't want to confuse man's laughter with manslaughter, and no Psychotherapist would wish to be known in written form as Psycho the rapist.

Blissfully funny answer, Attila.

Thanks