As someone who was taught punctuation etc, the old fashioned way in English Language, the problem I now find is punctuating longer, more complex, sentences, which I simply did not write as a school-kid, but which I find myself trying to incorporate into the longer descriptive narratives of a novel.
Skunk & White and similar grammar books are fine for the short stuff, but hopeless when you're trying to punctuate a whole paragraph that doesn't have any full stops.

Emma, the em dash is on the same key as the hyphen and en dash.

Hyphen key = - (hyphen)
Alt + hyphen keys = – (en dash, although it looks the same on here)
Shift + alt + hyphen keys = — (em dash)

I have an Mac but I'm sure it works the same on my PC at uni. (What is called the alt key on a Mac is the second one in on the bottom right - I can't remember what it's called on a PC keyboard.)

Lately I've been ridding myself of commas wherever possible. So I would write:

I want to go to the cinema but because I'm short of time, I go home.

Susiex

I use a lot of , which... in place of that (which is not preceeded by a comma)

Naomi - or anyone - what's the differences (preceedng comma apart) between 'which' and 'that'? I've always just used them pretty interchangeably. Is there a rule?

Rosy

Naomi - or anyone - what's the differences (preceedng comma apart) between 'which' and 'that'? I've always just used them pretty interchangeably. Is there a rule?

There is this:

That and which can be used interchangeably in most circumstances... That can even be used as an alternative to who.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv313.shtml

<Added>

That can even be used as an alternative to who.

- I suppose, so one can say: "Who is that?" rather than: "Who is who"

Rosy, I'm not at all an expert so this might be wrong but my understanding on the use of 'that' and 'which' is that 'that' differenciates the object from lots of others and 'which' qualifies the object.
So for example 'The house that they bought was in a bad state of repair.' (this house as opposed to all the other ones they considered)
but 'The house, which was in a bad state of repair, gobbled up all their free time.'

Anyway, I just came back to this thread because I found this para in 'Self-editing for Fiction Writers by Browne and King' and in the interests of discussion I thought I'd throw this in.

A simple departure from conventional comma usage can add also add a modern, sophisticated touch to your fiction-especially your dialogue. All you have to do is string together short sentences with commas instead of separating them with periods, as in these examples 'I tried to tell him, I couldn't get his attention.' 'Don't worry about it, she's only sixteen.' This comma usage, if not overdone, conveys remarkably well the way speech actually falls on the ear. Most of us don't come to a full stop after every sentence when we're talking, nor do your character have to. And this special effect needn't be reserved exclusively for dialogue passages. In Billy Bathgate, E.L. Doctorow often comma-strings sentences of narration: "[He said] 'Hey, young fellow, what 's the younger generation reading these days?' as if it was really important to him. He turned the book up in my hand so he could read the title, I don't know what he had expected, a French novel maybe, but he was genuinely surprised."

sophisticated touch

I'm sorry but,

<Added>

He turned the book up in my hand so he could read the title, I don't know what he had expected, a French novel maybe, but he was genuinely surprised.

Presumably that could also be punctuated:

He turned the book up in my hand so he could read the title. I don't know what he had expected, a French novel maybe, but he was genuinely surprised.

He turned the book up in my hand so he could read the title. I don't know what he had expected - a French novel maybe - but he was genuinely surprised.

Could you also have:

He turned the book up in my hand so he could read the title. I don't know what he had expected - a French novel maybe? - but he was genuinely surprised.

<Added>

Apologies for my previous outburst. I'm all for reading other people's tips about writing technique, but calling it the 'sophisticated' way to write just tickled my funnybone.

I must say I HATE that Browne and King book. It is utter cr*p.

(Or, to follow their modern, sophisticated advice, 'I hate that Browne and King book, it is utter cr*p.'

But mostly, I've hated it not for recommedning breaking grammar rules (as in this instance) but for advocating rigid and simplistic adherence to CW so-called 'rules'.

But still confused about 'which' and 'that'. The BBC World Service seems to say that my using them interchangeably is fine. But Ashlinn's advice is completely different.

My understanding on the use of 'that' and 'which' is that 'that' differenciates the object from lots of others and 'which' qualifies the object. So for example 'The house that they bought was in a bad state of repair.' (this house as opposed to all the other ones they considered) but 'The house, which was in a bad state of repair, gobbled up all their free time.'

In the second example (qualifying the object in a separate subordinate clause) I agree I'd never think to use anything other than 'which'.

It is the first example ('the house that they bought' where I would use either interchangeably - in fact, possibly leaning more towards which in that particular example. I have noticed that American editors (when I've had legal articles in journals based in the US) have tended to correct 'which' to 'that' in these circumstances - but UK editors seem happy with 'which'. Maybe it's a US/UK split? (And this is perhaps supported by the Beeb - that most British of institutions! - saying you can use either...)

Rosy

I find when I'm editng to make a piece more readable and easy-flowing 'that' and 'which' are the words I most often remove.
'The house they bought was in a bad state of repair'

adequately covers the meaning. Possibly:

'The house they finally bought ...'

would suit if you wanted to make it clear that it was a bit of a long drawn-out procedure with some alternatives.

Sheila

rigid and simplistic adherence to CW so-called 'rules'.

Agreed, Rosy. I googled them and came across a chapter of theirs on show & tell, with the emphasis heavily on the show. I would much rather read a balanced discourse showing how tell can be used just as - or even more - effectively under certain circumstances.
Read any good memoir and you'll come across excellent examples of tell.

- NaomiM

Hi Terry,

Very useful info - particularly about small presses.

Thanks for posting,
Andy

PS Terseness. In favour of it.

Sometimes! It must be, said that--an idea. Can. Come. Through. The word 'ideaa' itself can apper with an extra 'a', and the 'a' from 'appear' at that.

One of my favourite books is, The Confederacy of Dunces. No-one could judge it well written under trial by rules. It is unique because of it's rule breaking.


The author of 'Confederacy' committed suicide because he could not get it published. His mother managed to get it published by pure bloodymindedness, and it won the Pullitzer prize.

I am about to send out part of a manuscript. I am developing a split personality. I have sealed all the nearby post boxes to prevent the possibility of rejection. I want the ground to swallow me up. I am turning narcoleptic; closing down, thinking of getting a job counting asbestos splinters.

I need a parachute and a Bren gun, a flask of rum, and a tight fitting balaclava. Or a teddy bear to cuddle and make things better.