Pre-Writing ExerciseReview Chapter 5 and Chapter 7 in Correct Writing
Read More about Sentence Fragments: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/620/01/
Read More about Independent and Dependent Clauses: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/598/01/
In Word, list important words/ideas from your readings (at least 30)
Include a number beside each concept denoting its importance to you (1 least important, 10 most important)
Paste your list into Wordle.net
Add your Wordle to the class blog
Clause Review
A clause is a group of words that contains a subject and a verb.
An independent clause expresses a complete thought and can stand by itself as a complete sentence.
A dependent clause, or subordinate clause, contains a subject and a verb but cannot stand alone as a sentence.
A dependent clause must always be combined with an independent clause.
A dependent clause begins with a subordinating conjunction (before, although, after, while, because, since, etc.)
Adverbial Clause
Adverbial clause: these function as adverbs in a sentence.
Adverbial clauses answer the questions how, why and to what extent.
They are introduced by a relative adverb (when, where, and why).
They function as an adverb, and are not separated from the rest of the sentence with a comma.
Coordinating Conjunctions
Coordinating conjunctions include: and, or, but, for, nor.
These conjunctions connect words, phrases, and clauses of equal value.
Clauses of equal value are called independent clauses and can stand on their own as separate sentences.
Example: John is running in this race and I am carrying his water bottle.
(Each clause can stand alone: John is running in this race. I am carrying his water bottle.)
Subordinating Conjunctions
Subordinating conjunctions introduce dependent clauses. Dependent clauses cannot stand alone as a single sentence. In fact, the clause is dependent on the rest of the sentence for its meaning. Example: Since I will not be home, Tina will answer the phone.
"Since I will not be home" doesn't make sense by itself. It is dependent on the rest of the sentence for its meaning.
Most commonly used subordinating conjunctions include: although, because, as, while, until, whether, since, after, so that, when, before, if.
Answer the Following Questions in the Comments Section here:
Find the conjunctions in the following sentences. Label them coordinating or subordinating.
1. He listened to the man’s story and reported it to the policeman on duty.
2. I haven’t seen my brother since he left for college.
3. Your aunt or your uncle will pick you up from school today.
4. Tom, Jane, Sue, and Tim will be going on the trip.
5. I remember the old school book, for it was once mine.
6. Sarah did not feel well, but she went to class anyway.
7. Although the old man was hungry, he never said a word to anyone.
8. I think I heard that on the television or radio, although I am not sure.
Punctuation Rules
Independent clauses joined by a coordinating conjunction (and, but, for, or, nor, so, yet) are separated by a COMMA
Independent clauses joined without a coordinating conjunction require a SEMICOLON
If the sentence has a lot of commas, then even with a coordinating conjunction use a SEMICOLON
A series of elements (three or more) uses a COMMA
Style Activity: Due 20th October, 5:00pm
- Review “Thx for the IView!” Essay
- Read “2b or not 2b?” by David Crystal: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/jul/05/saturdayreviewsfeatres.guardianreview
- Write a short paragraph response on some of the differences between standard and non-standard (txt) English usage. Please post this to the blog as a comment on Lecture 5.
- Choose a news report from the front page of any Canadian newspaper: http://broadcast-live.com/newspapers/canadian.html
- Rewrite the article in txt spk. If the article is long, choose a page (250-300 word) extract to rewrite.
- Post both a link to the original article AND your txt spk version in your own blog post.
- Include a comment on the differences between the two styles.
NB: Image from Writing Resources.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteConjunctions Practice
ReplyDelete1. “And” is coordinating.
2. “Since” is subordinating.
3. “Or” is coordinating.
4. “And” is coordinating.
5. “For” is coordinating.
6. “But” is coordinating.
7. “Although” is subordinating.
8. “Although” is subordinating.
I just realized I did mine completely wrong, so here is the correct version...
ReplyDeleteCoordinating or Subordinating?
1. "and" - coordinating
2. "since" -subordinating
3. "or" - coordinating
4. "and" - coordinating
5. "for" - coordinating
6. "but" - coordinating
7. "although" - subordinating
8. "although" - subordinating
Coordinating or Subordinating?
ReplyDelete1) Coordinating (and)
2) Subordinating (since)
3) Coordinating (or)
4) Coordinating (and)
5) Coordinating (for)
6) Coordinating (but)
7) Subordinating (although)
8) Subordinating (although)
David Crystal's honest glorification of "txt spk" bothers me to a great extent. I vehemently disagree with his assertion that the upcoming generation of adults will be no less linguistically incompetent than the previous one. Although we have functions on word processors to correct our spelling and grammar, the thought process and creativity in language is suffering as a result of the condensed, more primitive style of communication. Compulsive text message users are confined to a blank medium of only a couple hundred words to expresses their thoughts, hardly sufficient to handle the task of any detailed message. One might be able to text, "how r u?" to a friend, but I doubt that this kind of forced restriction can in any way serve us well in the future for longer, more precise communication.
ReplyDeleteCoordinating or Subordinating
ReplyDelete1. Coordinating (and)
2. Subordinating (since)
3. Coordinating (or)
4. Coordinating (and)
5. Coordinating (for)
6. Coordinating (but)
7. Subordinating (although)
8. Subordinating (although)
Being enrolled in the Professional Writing program pre-disposes me to frequent cases of moderate anxiety when people screw around with “my language”. I get especially antsy when a two-letter word is shortened to a one-letter word; please, save me the pain and just omit the word completely. Nevertheless, I can appreciate the time and effort it mustn't have took to cut down words to only the most valuable of syllables and vowels. However, it may become more appealing when I desire (or am in emergency need of) speedy communication. It makes me wonder if it’s worth sacrificing detail and ignoring everything I’ve learned about proper grammar in order to benefit. In his article ‘2b or not 2b’, David Crystal reminds us, “English has had abbreviated words ever since it began to be written down. Words such as exam, vet, fridge, cox and bus are so familiar that they have effectively become new words. When some of these abbreviated forms first came into use, they also attracted criticism.” At the end of the day, who’s it going to hurt if I let a “lol” or a “ttfn” slip out in texts every once in a while; just as long as I keep them from slipping into conversations at the water cooler.
ReplyDeleteTxt speak is the Shizz.
No?
Wait, you don’t know what “Shizz” is?
“The Shizz” is an all-encompassing greatness; spread the word. Comes in handy when sending a text, as adding “all-encompassing greatness” almost maxes out my character limit.
1. Coordinating (and)
ReplyDelete2. Subordinating (since)
3. Coordinating (or)
4. Coordinating (and)
5. Coordinating (for)
6. Coordinating (but)
7. Subordinating (although)
8. Subordinating (although)
It is refreshing, in a sense, to read an article in favour of txt spk when so many essays appear to be the opposite. Although "lol" is really the only abbreviation I use while texting, I can understand the lure of these now commonly abbreviated words. While I do feel that the overuse of txt spk (as in using it for every single word) is extremely painful to read, the occasional "b" in place of "be" or "4" in place of "for" has it's obvious conveniences and isn't too bad. David Crystal provides many examples in favour of txt spk in his article, "2b or not 2b", and many of which are very thought provoking. For example, he argues that abbreviations are not new and are not limited to being used by the young. The published Dictionary of Abbreviations from 1942, a time long before texting, included many text-like examples like "mth" for month and "agn" for again. In the end, really, if txt spk is strictly kept to texting (and occasionally for very informal emails, etc.) it is not particularly going to "pillag[e] our punctuation; savag[e] our sentences; [or] rap[e] our vocabulary." Let's just especially try to keep it away from notes to potential future employers.
ReplyDelete1. "and" is coordinating
ReplyDelete2. "since" is subordinating
3. "or" is coordinating
4. "and" is coordinating
5. "for" is coordinating
6. "but" is coordinating
7. "although" is subordinating
8. "although" is subordinating
"Txt spk" is something that used to bother me a lot. I fear I may have been suffering from delusions of grandeur as far as my English skills went, but regardless I felt I was above "lol" and "ttfn". I painstakingly typed out all of my text messages with not a single "omg" or "c u l8r" ever being seen. As time went on I texted more and more, and eventually got over myself. Now I happily shorten just about anything to get my message across. The point of all this is that I agree with the point made by David Crystal in his article ‘2b or not 2b’that "txt speak" is not just a bastardization of language but simply an answer to a problem. Phones, disregarding newer full-keyboard models, are simply not meant for typing, and sacrifices had to be made somewhere. I don't think that "txt spk" is meant for face-to-face conversations or formal situations, but I feel it has it's place in texting communication. As long as people are aware of the situations in which "txt spk" is appropriate and those in which it is not, there should be no problem with it's use. After all I might text a friend "lol" but I'm certainly not going to tell them I'm laughing out loud.
ReplyDeleteConjunctions Practice
ReplyDelete1. “And” coordinating.
2. “Since” subordinating.
3. “Or” coordinating.
4. “And” coordinating.
5. “For” coordinating.
6. “But” coordinating.
7. "Although" subordinating.
8. "Although" subordinating.
The use of txt spk has become commonplace in our society. David Crystal argues that this is not a major concern, and rather that txt spk is actually beneficial to children. I on the other hand would have to say that while the rise of txt spk is certainly not the plague on society that many so called "experts" feel it is, to suggest that the intentional disregard of grammar is helpful to the populace (especially children) is rather ridiculous. Txt spk is short and to the point, but often at the expense of any form of grammar, punctuation, correct spelling, or context. The English language thrives on these attributes, and therefore the avoidance of them that txt spk encourages can not possibly be beneficial to the growth of the English language.
ReplyDeleteIn David Crystal’s article, “2b or not 2b,” he encourages the use of “txt spk” as opposed to those that find it offensive to the English language. While I am not one to drown my e-mails and text messages with short abbreviations and smart slang, I do use the occasional “lol” which I don’t believe to be harmful at all. I do agree with Crystal’s argument against the claim that a student submitted an entire essay using just text abbreviations, and the general idea that kids these days only use “txt spk” is a laughable assumption at best. However, I do believe that the in-formalities of text language should be kept with close friends and family, and not to be seen on letters or educational essays. Also, work with complete and wholesome thoughts show much more intimacy and respect to the reader, whereas using shortcuts for words such as u “you” or b “be” convey a more casual message. I strongly believe that the power of a well-written piece of work is important and should not be compromised with short-forms or slang.
ReplyDeleteIt is easy to see where text speak comes in handy when we worry about things like “wasting time” and “time management”, and we use phrases such as “time is of the essence” . Short and to the point, text speak offers a quick alternative to the traditional English language. Though is seems much more convenient to shorten words and limit characters, the meaning behind the text message is also being condensed. This is fine when the message is simple and the conversation is to the point, but when it is more complex I find that text speak seems to leave a gap where the emotion should be. I feel that if you have something important to say there’s nothing like the traditional English language to convey it. For example, holiday greetings are great regardless if they are composed in text speak or not, but there seems to be something a little more genuine behind “Merry Christmas and a happy new year to you and yours!” than “Merry xmas & happy new yrs to u and urs!”. While both messages deliver the same idea, one expresses a different emotion than the other. Though text speak offers a wide variety of abbreviated words and phrases created to make communication faster, it lacks the personable feel that we can find in our traditional language. That said, I don’t believe that text speak it totally detrimental to our language; its users, however, must be painfully aware of its appropriateness within their conversations.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLike everything, txt spk has its place, and I’m fine with that. My problem with it is not the abbreviations, but the words that only omit one or two letters. On my cell phone, it is much easier to write “at” as opposed to “@” and it takes less than a second to go from “wat” to “what”. It is also aggravating to see people talking using txt spk because it feels lazy and does not sound natural. Sarah Needleman brings up a good point regarding using txt spk in the workplace. Txt spk was not made for formal circumstances and unless your employers are fine with it, I do not see why people would txt spk at work. While David Crystal’s view on the subject is refreshingly different, he goes a little far in his evaluation. The children using txt spk may know alternate spellings, but they ignore proper grammar and sentence structure of its standard English, which is not helpful to them in the long term. Standard English also allow for a more fluid, professional read. In short, keep txt spk for electronic devices and only use it when necessary.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed David Crystals essay “2b or not 2b,’ and I thought he brought up many sound points in support of txt spk. By reminding those who are opposed to its use that the execution of this form has been in use for centuries, he demonstrates it validity in our language. And after all his examples of its use in the modern world, from poetry contests to its presence in the dictionary, we can assume it is here to stay. However txt spk users must be able to differentiate between when it is appropriate and when it is not. Standard language usage dominates the business world. Contracts, memos, resumes, press releases, any writing done under the umbrella of professionalism is done with proper spelling and punctuation. Everyone understands what they are reading and are able to communicate correctly without having to decipher what they are seeing. This is not the same for txt spk. Non-standard language flourishes in informal surroundings. Txt Spk is meant to make how we communicate with each other easier and faster. Sending a quick “k c u ” to your friend through text is considered normal and is quicker than typing “okay, I’ll see you later.” Both forms of writing are effective in their respective mediums. However, I’ve noticed these worlds have been crossing in my own life. I have a friend who actually says out loud “B R B” (be right back). I have another friend who when he emails me, uses so much txt spk that I have actually had to ask him to stop it because I can’t understand what he is trying to say. Though Crystal is in support of this ‘evolution’ in our language, I am beginning to see its negative effects. I believe each form should be kept far away from each other and they should not intermingle in any medium.
ReplyDeleteConjunction exercise
1. and = coordinating
2. since = subordinating
3. or = coordinating
4. and= coordinating
5. for = coordinating
6. but = coordinating
7. although = subordinating
8. although= subordinating
1. Coordinating (and)
ReplyDelete2. Subordinating (since)
3. Coordinating (or)
4. Coordinating (or)
5. Subordinating (for)
6. Coordinating (but)
7. Subordinating (although)
8. Subordinating (although)
1. and- coordinating
ReplyDelete2. since- subordinating
3. or- coordinating
4. and- coordinating
5. for-subordinating
6. but- coordinating
7. although-subordinating
8. although-subordinating
David Crystal makes some fairly valid points in his article "2b or not 2b". He points out that abbreviations have been in place for centuries, and that so far, none of them have encouraged illiteracy or a lesser understanding of the English language. He also mentions that text messaging accounts for only a small portion of the total amount of writing that most individuals do in a day.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that these statements are true now, and that so far we haven't seen a significant impact on spelling and grammar where it matters, we have to remember that text messaging (and the high amounts of time we devote to engaging in it) is new. Crystal's argument in favour of it does not address the fact that abbreviations and intentional misspells in texting are used far more often than any other abbreviated forms of years past, so it is really of no use to even make the comparison.
Also, when discussing the history of abbreviations in the English language, he spoke only of adults using these forms-people who had already mastered the proper spelling of these words and phrases. The problem we face today is that many of the people employing txt spk are adolescents, and may not have a full developed mastery of language. As with anything, if you break the rules before you've learned to follow them correctly, you run the risk of never fully understanding them. Only time will tell if txt spk has a lasting effect on English language and whether future generations will employ it beyond their personal use, and into academic, formal and professional contexts. One can only hope that it does not come to this, and that people like David Crystal are selective as to how praise these lazy forms of speech.
1. He listened to the man’s story and reported it to the policeman on duty.
ReplyDelete"and" is coordinating
2. I haven’t seen my brother since he left for college.
"since" is subordinating
3. Your aunt or your uncle will pick you up from school today.
"or" is coordinating
4. Tom, Jane, Sue, and Tim will be going on the trip.
"and" is coordinating
5. I remember the old school book, for it was once mine.
"for" is coordinating
6. Sarah did not feel well, but she went to class anyway.
"but" is coordinating
7. Although the old man was hungry, he never said a word to anyone.
"although" is subordinating
8. I think I heard that on the television or radio, although I am not sure.
"although" is subordinating
David Crystal brings up some excellent points in his article "2b or not 2b" regarding "txt spk". For example, Crystal explains how this form of writing may seem like a new demonstration of the declining intelligence in our youth, but it has really been around since the 1600s. This isn't the only great point he proposes either, but all his great examples still leaves me, the reader, asking why people have to write in such a manner? It takes more time to translate "txt spk" than it does to write the sentences properly. I appreciate that it is a creative form of our English language; nevertheless, there needs to be a proper time for such art forms. Text messaging would be an appropriate time. Emailing a personal friend would be an appropriate time. Passing a note while it is not acceptable to speak out loud would be an appropriate time. Writing a formal paper for a school project is not the appropriate time, as Crystal did mention in his article. Whether it is right or wrong, our society has given into the reality that we get what we want when we want it. I too have fallen prey to this mindset and since "txt spk" makes this even more difficult, I'm afraid I won't be using it any time soon.
ReplyDeleteDavid Crystal's article made points both valid and ridiculous, I think. While I certainly agree that texting has its uses and that abbreviations are hardly a new invention, the proliferation of texting seems to be the problem. It breeds bad habits that can and will creep into a person's writing and communications at highly inappropriate times.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the rapid evolution of text speak makes an analysis of it somewhat pointless at this time. It has yet to reach a truly stable state and it is perhaps doubtful that it ever will. Thus, making distinctions between standard alternate spellings and indecipherable abbreviations feels like splitting hairs. It only takes one incomprehensible word to completely ruin or alter the meaning of a text message (or any other communication).
Language is supposed to foster communication and allow for clarity. The desire for such clear communication has created the standard English language and all its related rules. Shunning standard English in favour of a sometimes imprecise and confusing alternative to save a few seconds of typing time is a risky trade-off. And lastly, with the proliferation of Blackberrys and other smartphones that use QWERTY keyboards, the argument that a phone's keypad is not designed for typing and thus text speak makes sense is quickly losing validity.
I am writing in response to David Crystal's online article "2b or not 2b" and Sarah E. Needlemans article "Thx for the IView!"; both individuals write about the recent phenomenon of text-messaging from different perspectives. It is clear that Crystal is a very serious texter and even argues that texting improves the literacy levels of children. He goes on to name one obscure University where one study has been done; this can hardly be counted as reliable evidence considering the short time that texting has been around. I think that there were probably other variables that affected the results of this study. In a few years I would like to see the studies that examine the negative implications that the texting phenomenon has had on youth.
ReplyDeleteThe main differences between traditional writing and texting is that the first strives to follow the grammatical rules and spelling of the English Language while the latter makes up rules as it goes along--as long as the text can be understood or deciphered by the reader then it is acceptable. I think that there is a time and a place for texting but that it has been taken to an extreme by many.
1. "and" is coordinating
ReplyDelete2. "since" is subordinating
3. "or" is coordinating
4. "and" is coordinating
5. "for" is coordinating
6. "but" is coordinating
7. "although" is subordinating
8. "although" is subordinating
1.coordinating
ReplyDelete2.subordinating
3.coordinating
4.coordinating
5.coordinating
6.coordinating
7.subordinating
8.subordinating
Standard English and non-standard English serve different purposes within our culture. Seeing as we are brought up through our public education system reading standard English, we can quickly understand what the author is trying to elucidate; there are no hindrances that get in the way of what the author wants to tell us. Texting was initially created because of the awkwardness of the modern mobile phone pin pad, and is used for the ease of the writer, not the reader. If one is not already familiar with many words written in text-speak, it is incredibly jarring to read, and can require twice the time to understand rather than if it was written in standard English. If the pin-pad of modern cell phones had been created for the ease of writing proper spelling, it is doubtful whether texting would have ever been created at all.
Exercise
ReplyDelete1. And-coordinating.
2. Since-subordinating.
3. Or-coordinating.
4. And-coordinating.
5. For-coordinating.
6. But-coordinating.
7. Although-subordinating.
8. Although-subordinating.
David Crystal makes very proficient points. The world is always changing, so the English language may follow suit with it. Standard English and non-standard English are very different, yet they convey the same meaning. As a writer, I am inclined to say that text-speak has no place in the world; however, that would be hypocritical. Text speak is used by many technologically advanced people as well as myself. Non-standard English is easy and fast to use, so it has become very common. I agree with Crystal when he says that generations to come will still have the standard English skills that are taught today and that non-standard English will not become a replacement for standard English.
1. and: coordinating
ReplyDelete2. since: subordinating
3. or: coordinating
4. and: coordinating
5. for: coordinating
6. but: subordinating
7. although: subordinating
8. or, although: subordinating
"Txt" is used when trying to convey a quick message i.e. texting over cell phones, although some people still opt to use standard English when texting. "Txt" uses numbers to replace certain words or letters i.e. to becomes 2. Standard English spells out the entire word with the exception of contractions.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I perfer to use standard English but it makes sense to use "txt" when texting over a cell phone. It does not make sense to use "txt" when speaking with someone professionally and its beyond me that anyone would think that is okay; maybe it's a sign that "txt" is being used to much.
Subordinating and Coordinating Conjunctions
ReplyDelete1. to, subordinating
2. since, subordinating
3. from, subordinating
4. on, subordinating
5. for, coordinating
6. but, coordinating
7. although, subordinating
8. although, subordinating