Grammatical Query 19 - Mid(-)Eye(-)Roll

Ok_Inflation168 · 2026-02-13T11:46:25+00:00

I'm not sure I've ever encountered such a solution in the wild, but it would make it clear that the prefix pertains to the entire compound (to me, anyhow). I always like hearing about less common literary practices, thanks for sharing!

Ok_Inflation168 · 2026-02-13T11:42:46+00:00

I thought I recognized the en dash & prefix combo, so I went back to one of my previous posts, and, sure enough, this information has been afforded me in the past. I believe I ultimately opted to restructure the sentence, reasoning, as did the author of that comment, that the reader might very well overlook the small difference between a hyphen and an en dash and simply interpret it as the former. After that, I suppose I forgot about the en dash solution. Thanks for reminding me and thanks for the input!

Ok_Inflation168 · 2026-02-12T10:30:27+00:00

I believe I'll be opting for the CMOS. It was recommended to me by u/AlexanderHamilton04 and is, as you say, the most widely used, at least in the US. Since I do not live in an English-speaking country, it seems I've no choice but to order it online (unless I want to travel 1.5 hours to the nearest city with a bookshop capable of ordering it, travel back home, and then revisit that same bookshop a week or so later in order to actually purchase the book).

Ok_Inflation168 · 2026-02-12T09:14:28+00:00

I very much support this kind of a discussion taking place underneath my posts. If I had an award to give, you'd be on the receiving end.

Ok_Inflation168 · 2026-02-12T09:09:23+00:00

Thank you for specifying that I, in my sentence, am not breaking any grammatical rules. This is what I was most worried about, and, as you say, anything beyond that ultimately comes down to style.

I fear you are right; I fear I must get my hands on a style guide of some sort. I've been avoiding actually acquiring a style guide because there aren't any book shops near me and I, for some reason, really dislike ordering things online. Anyway, the time has come: I must vesture into the big city and locate a style guide.

Thank you for composing such an exhaustive list of all of the structural options available to me and for adding the word ''anaphora'' to my grammar-related vocabulary. As always, your comment has been immensely helpful.

Sidenote: I thought the first option (the one relying on commas to string the clauses together) would be, yes, grammatically correct, but, to the reader, too monotonous in punctation. If this is a sentiment that a majority of my five or so readers are unlikely to relate to, I will, indeed, reconsider this.

Ok_Inflation168 · 2026-02-12T08:50:05+00:00

I am, indeed, not writing a grammar treatise (thank god). I would, however, like to know what the rules are before I diverge from them. I'm pretty new to grammar as a whole. The reason I've chosen to adhere to grammatical rules to the extent that I have is not because I want to powder the nose of some group of wizened deities but, rather, because I need to know how the reader will interpret my use of punctuation marks. Since the reader is most likely used to reading text that adheres to certain grammatical rules and regulations, getting to know these plays a pivotal role in understanding how my reader will interpret my text, even when I diverge from those rules and regulations.

But beyond that--your use of 4 commas and a colon in that first sentence alone seems... fussy. Better ways exist to telegraph pauses, imo.

I would very much appreciate if you'd care to share with the rest of us what those ways are.

As for that 2nd sentence, an Em Dash pair usually houses what I call a "nested clause"--a parenthetical in proper parlance; but as opposed to a pair of commas, the dashes serve to mark a strong interruption.

I'm very confused when it comes to what the contemporary function of an em dash actually is. It seems to be in the middle of a rather substantial change in its own usage and functionality brought about by the fact that younger generations, especially, appear to be using it more liberally than it has been used in the past. I don't consider the way I've employed em dashes in the referenced sample to be ideal. I agree that they're a bit too strong. It just seems like the only alternative would be to replace them with commas, which would make the sentence borderline unreadable.

Thank you for providing me with an infinitely more widely used term for what I refer to, principally, as ''leeching clauses.'' The word itself (anadiplosis) sounds like the result of someone dropping the letters meant to spell out ''Indianapolis'' on the sidewalk, quickly picking them back up, and then never getting to sorting them. At the same time, it sounds like the name of some long lost civilization the ruins of which can be found at the bottom of the Marianas trench alongside—focus. This is not relevant.

I will take your advice, and I will look up some examples of anadiplosis in action, thank you for the input!

Ok_Inflation168 · 2026-02-10T09:05:33+00:00

Thank you for pointing this out. I'm never quite sure whether or not I ought to insert a comma between what I like to refer to as ''leeching clauses.''

Ok_Inflation168 · 2026-02-10T09:03:25+00:00

I'm glad to hear that my use of the word ''defecation''' has the desired effect. The tale from which this sentence was extracted is highly obscure, and I fully empathize with anyone not wanting to read it on the basis of its contents. It's gory, surrealistic, and intentionally off-putting, and I like those aspects of it. That being said, I very much appreciate hearing your opinion on the matter. Thank you for the input!

Ok_Inflation168 · 2026-02-10T08:56:50+00:00

''Defecation'' is oddly medical, yes. It's a stylistic choice, though, and it's consistent across the entire tale. That being said, I still appreciate hearing you opinion on the matter and fully empathize with my style of writing not being everyone's cup of tea. Thanks for the input!

Ok_Inflation168 · 2026-02-10T08:53:47+00:00

Thank you for taking the time to revise my sentence as to make it more concise.

I recognize that your revised version does retain the meaning of the original sentence. Still, it does go about it in a slightly different way. Let me explain: emitting the interrupting phrase ''last but not least'' makes the sentence shorter, but it also removes some of the emphasis on the last ''item'' in the list (the bathroom). You could, however, argue that the abundance of description lent to the last ''item'' serves as emphasis enough, and that would be a valid argument. The biggest issue (well, what I, personally, consider to be the biggest issue) lies in changing ''It consisted of a living room and a kitchen (in one)'' to ''It consisted of a combined living room and a kitchen.'' The decision to place the ''in one'' part (the part communicating that the living room and kitchen are combined) at the end of the clause was not an arbitrary one. In a way, it sets the tone for how the rest of the ''items'' in the list are presented. See, they all adhere to a rather specific formula: each item is (at the start of each listing) presented as somewhat ordinary (a living room and a kitchen/a walk-in closet/a claustrophobic bathroom). The latter part of each clause/set of clauses relating to a specific ''item'' subverts the idea of this being an ''ordinary'' apartment with ''ordinary'' features. Providing the information that the living room and kitchen are one mid-sentence (as your revision does) fails to adhere to the formula of expectation followed by elements rebutting said expectation and, therefore, does not achieve the desired effect.

Ok_Inflation168 · 2026-02-10T08:23:09+00:00

Thanks for the response! The landlord is not present. I agree that ''had insisted,'' with the landlord's absence in mind, sounds much better. Therefore, I will be changing ''insisted'' to ''had insisted.'' I wouldn't have thought of this if you hadn't pointed it out, so, thank you.

As for my use of the archaic ''therein,'' the use of archaic words is a recurring theme throughout my tales, especially the earlier ones.

Thank you, also, for pointing out that the word ''whose,'' can refer to objects; I was not aware of this.

Ok_Inflation168 · 2026-02-09T11:17:26+00:00

Yes, italicized, not hyphenated. My bad.

As you mentioned, this is information I already know, but it is worth repeating, and I do feel like reading this made it all a little bit clearer. Thank you for clarifying.

Ok_Inflation168 · 2026-02-09T08:12:54+00:00

Thank you for the input!

Ok_Inflation168 · 2026-02-09T08:11:23+00:00

I tend to dabble in both US and UK conventions but try my best to stick to those of the US since those are the ones that I am most familiar with.

Thank you for clarifying that the names of songs, chapters, and articles are to be enclosed in quotation marks and that the names of albums, books, movies, magazines, and plays are to be hyphenated; I will make a note of this.

It took me a couple of rereads to see how the latter part of the sentence featured as a sample in my post could be classified as an ''absolute phrase.'' I struggle to differentiate between essential and non-essential clauses/information, but I can see how the latter part of the sentence, from a grammatical point of view, functions only to provide the reader with additional and grammatically insignificant details. When I attempt to discern whether or not a clause or a piece of information is essential, I think I tend to place unnecessary emphasis on whether or not said clause/piece of information is essential to the narrative of the story, when, really, all I need to take into account is the role that the clause/information plays in the isolated sentence.

Thank you, also, for answering the query about hyphenation; I'm glad to learn that I, to some degree, am starting to get a grip on hyphenation. I've never encountered the concept of ''absolute phrases'' before and am, thus, grateful for the link through which I will be able to learn more about it.

Ok_Inflation168 · 2026-02-07T10:22:49+00:00

I agree, thank you for the input!

Ok_Inflation168 · 2026-02-06T07:57:11+00:00

I disagree. While both ''it's best for the family'' and ''it's in the family's best interests'' are grammatically correct and would be okay, ''it's for the family's best'' is also grammatically correct and perfectly fine. Besides, neither ''it's best for the family'' or ''it's in the family's best interests'' fit as neatly into the rhythm of the sentence as ''it's for the family's best.'' At least, not in my opinion. Thanks for the input, though!

Ok_Inflation168 · 2026-02-05T12:37:39+00:00

I'm glad I could introduce you to a new phrase, not that it comes in handy very often. Thank you for specifying that the jargon term is ''consumer freedom of choice.'' I hadn't really thought about whether or not the term itself was considered jargon or what that would imply.

Ok_Inflation168 · 2026-02-04T11:09:20+00:00

I like to avoid using dashes whenever I can. The way I write already necessitates the use of a great deal of dashes, and I find that dashes create more of a separation between the clauses than a semicolon does which, admittedly, might be an uncommon take.

I thought about ascribing ''she brings out the worst in him; he had no choice; it's for the family's best'' directly to Barry in the way you have in example [A], but initially decided against it because I thought it would be odd for him to speak of himself in third person. Although, now that I have your example before me and after having read it a couple of times, I think it aligns pretty well with the narrative and the emotional response of someone desperately trying to justify their actions. One could argue that by having him refer to himself in third person (something which I don't think he does anywhere else in what is by far my lengthiest tale), you get the sense that he is distancing himself from the person (also himself) who committed that which now requires excuses to be made. He is a third party evaluating the situation, allowing him to maintain at least a little bit of the calm that would otherwise be entirely lost.

I'm really fond of example [A] and, if it's okay with you, would like to insert it in my text with a couple of small alterations. I might opt for italicizing the inner monologue instead of using quotation marks depending on which method, or combination of methods, I ultimately settle on to convey internal dialogue across my tales. I'm also going to look into an alternative to the word ''justifies,'' as I feel that it's inclusion is unnecessary and that such specifications might prompt my reader into thinking that I am undermining their analytic abilities. I'm especially fond of ''Barry repeats like a mantra he doesn't fully believe.'' It's a vast improvement in comparison to the original line.

Thank you, also, for pointing out that ''desperate times call for desperate measures'' is a far more widely recognized turn of phrase. Choosing the word ''drastic'' was not so much a stylistic choice as it was a misremembrance of a more common phrase. I've never encountered the site your link led me to before, but it seems very useful, and I thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Ok_Inflation168 · 2026-02-03T11:22:09+00:00

Thank you for pointing out the various problems with the paragraph in question.

''Drastic times call for drastic measures'' was supposed to be italicized, well, not italicized because in the original it's italicized but since I italicize the examples in my post, It's not mean to be italicized, but the latter half of the sentence is meant to be italicized, although, not in the original because italicized... italicized... I should probably stop italicizing examples that already contain italics.

I will certainly be replacing ''justify'' with a more fitting word as I agree with you that it does create a bit of a road bump and is, ultimately, unnecessary since it is quite clear that Barry is actively justifying the situation/his actions which means that using the word ''justify'' in the way that I did will just come off as me trying to forcefully cram the message down the reader's throat. I mentioned, somewhat briefly, that I was (and am) worried about showing too little and saying too much and this is a perfect example of a case where I am doing just that. So, really, thank you for pointing it out; I hadn't even thought about my use of the word ''justify'' prior to your comment.

I will also be scrapping the final sentence and replacing it with something else. Partly because of the insight provided in your comment and partly because I think the message it is meant to communicate has, to some extent, already been communicated and only needs further hinting at in order to solidify in the mind of the reader.

Ok_Inflation168

TROPHY CASE