My thoughts are disconnected today.
I have been thinking about grammar lately. I am always second guessing my writing, especially when it comes to commas. I need a refresher in this area. Commas allow for clauses in a sentence which are not vital to the meaning of the sentence but allow for some extra information. So when we write, "I, Erick Villagran, will work on my grammar", the commas in that sentence help set up the subject. But what about the comma I put in after the closing quotation, is that one necessary? I like to think of grammar as the rules of writing which allow it to be precise. Like the rules of math, grammar clears up ambiguities. Consider the following math problem 2 + 5 X 3 = . If a student was to answer that problem as 21 (the product of the sum of 2+5 and 3) he/she would be wrong. In math there is a rule called the order of operations which says that multiplication is performed before addition and subtraction. The correct way to approach the equation is to multiply 5 and 3 then add 2; the answer is 17. My point is this knowing grammar can help one communicate more effectively. Does effective need a quantifier?
Another thought: You see so many things being invented nowadays. I would love to see someone invent this: Eye glasses that would allow one to see where flatulence has been emmited. Maybe more people would think twice about relieving themselves in public. The idea comes from a warning from a childhood's friend mother. When we would swim in their pool his mom would tell us that if we urinated while swimming a chemical in the pool would cause the ammonia in our urine to turn red. So anyone who peed in the pool would be identified by the red water around them. I could really use the Flatulence Glasses. So many times at the gym someone lets one rip and I can't blame anyone. I WANT TO BLAME SOMEONE FOR THIS.
One last thought: The other day they were doing a story on the Channel 9 news about the first set of triplets turning 50. I thought, "Really? Triplets have only been around for 50 years?" Anyway I let that go. But then the reporter when on to say that it was a natural childbirth cause cesarians weren't available in 1956. Wasn't the Cesearian Birth named after Julius Ceasar? Why would it be named after him if it wasn't around at the time he was born? Was it just called a Breach Birth then?
I won't take up anymore of your time.
No comments:
Post a Comment