Logical Punctuation Rules II

Last week we looked at the use of ending punctuation with respect to quotes in a sentence. Here's where I nerd-out in full with respect to a hierarchy of grammatical rules based on programming logic. i.e. XML::Punctuation and XML::Grammar. My knowledge of grammar is nowhere close to being thorough, so I might have a number of things wrong here. Please bear with. Instead of remembering rules for punctuation, it should be thought of in terms of the functions of punctuation. Commas are essentially just short pauses, but there are a number of rules for where and how they go. I just think of them as the equivalent of parentheses in mathematics - they section off sub-phrases that are part of the whole equation/statement. Like in (x+13)/12 = 7, you calculate the (x+13) first. The same goes for a sentence like:

The bike you were looking at, it has no banana seat.

You compute the first phrase to define the object, and the pronoun holds the place like a variable. There's no need to have a beginning comma, just an ending comma, since there is always a preceding punctuation mark to denote the beginning like a period from the previous sentence. Maybe it would be better if there was something that told you a phrase was about to start. Like so:

[The bike you were looking at] it has no banana seat.

It's a bit excessive, but it's just an idea. A more useful idea would be to replace using periods to separate out acronyms with middle-dots (N.A.S.A. would become N·A·S·A). This way if you have one at the end of a sentence, you can tell that it's the end of the sentence and not just an acronym in the middle of a convoluted phrase.

Joe is going to work at N.A.S.A. Greenbelt is a city in Maryland.

vs.

Joe is going to work at N·A·S·A. Greenbelt is a city in Maryland.

—March 16th, 2005

• » Logical Punctuation Rules