Search results for 'tag:Exclamation marks tag:Clauses' matching tags 'Exclamation marks' and 'Clauses'

Re: colon dash

richard_s — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 03:13:17 GMT

Well traditional punctuation rules state that two independent clauses need to be separated either by a full stop /Â exclamationÂ mark, or by a semicolon.

Thus the following is quite proper:

I hate him so much; he killed my dog.

Now if you go back a bit a hundred to a hundred and fifty years, you will find that the colon itself used to have the same function. Â This use is still occasionally seen in modern writing. Â Thus, the colon use is not wrong, just old fashioned. Â

You certainly shouldn't put an exclamation mark before a colon.

Re: passive voice

Cool Breeze — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:51:51 GMT

Huevos
Goodman
football is a popular sport played almost in all Asain and European countries. There is no direct agent here but it's still a passive structure.
That sentence is not in the passive voice.

Football is a popular sport [which/that is] played in almost all Asian and European countries.

The sentence consists of a main clause and a relative clause, which has been reduced by omitting the relative pronoun and the passive auxiliary (is). I call such structures clause equivalents, but terminology is unimportant here. The relative clause - or its equivalent - is in the passive voice.

A sentence ends with a full stop / period, an exclamation mark or a question mark. A clause need not have any punctuation after it, which is the case after the main clause in this sentence.

Re: How is the grammar on this?

Lil' Ruby Rose — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 08:39:23 GMT

I believe that the ghost that has appeared before me truly is my fatherâs spirit, and that everything it has said is true. The ghost did not flee before Horatioâs âcross,â [no quotation marks needed here] and it shows Christian forbearance towards my âcommonâ [not quite the right word here, and why have you used quotation marks?] mother. Thus, I have no choice but to believe that this spirit truly is my fatherâs and not a devil trying to imitate him. I have little choice, then: I must avenge his spirit, and kill my uncle, Claudius! My fatherâs spirit calls to me, and I must avenge his foul murder!

This is not a selfish act of revenge, but an act of justice. Claudius is a tyrant: he killed a king, and worse, he killed his own brother, all to satisfy his own [repetition of own - redundant here, all your private ambitions are your own] private ambitions. He is guilty of a sacrilegious attack upon the hierarchy and order instituted by natural law; by killing my father, Claudius destroyed this natural order, and it is my responsibility to right this wrong!

The killing of my uncle must be done quickly, and discretely. Claudius is no fool, and I am certain that the blood upon his hands will cause him to become paranoid; he will undoubtedly reach a stage where he deems it necessary to eliminate all threats in order to secure [consolidate?] his power and I am certain that I would be [will be or am going to be] his first target. So I must act [strike?] first! [no exclamation mark here] I cannot poison my uncle or assassinate him in public. Such acts are [respectively?] too cowardly and too dangerous; a public murder could result in me being tried for treason. [the two parts of this sentence don't follow each other. I would use a colon after public, then full stop after dangerous and make the second clause a separate sentence]

The most discrete and most practical method of killing my uncle would be to stab him as he is sleeping with my âincestuousâ [why quotation marks?] mother. Being the prince means I can walk around the castle freely and carry my sword without arousing suspicion. At night, I could simply slip in, cover Claudiusâ mouth to suppress his screams, and stab at his heart! [stab him in/through the heart - no exclamation mark] Then, I can wake my mother and explain to her the reason for the assassination. This would fully comply with my fatherâs wishes, as not only would my uncle be dead, but my mother would not be harmed directly. All would soon be well.

The next [following] day, I will deal with the court and the public. The latter would be easy to deal with [repetition of deal with - appease/placate?], as I am loved by the people, and they will quickly accept me over Claudius. Further, the common people would not dare interfere in the affairs of kings; they will not make too much commotion, I am sure. The court, however, will be harder to convince and silence. Questions will be asked, and I will have to answer [them or which I will have to answer]. Nevermind! [Never mind is two words, it's not quite the right choice of phrase here, and no exclamation point] I am the heir to the throne and the court could not, in reality, do anything. I could silence any who oppose my power [I would either say anyone who opposes or all who oppose]; I am, after all, the rightful Prince [at this point, surely Hamlet is the rightful King rather than just the Prince?]of Denmark! I will soon be elected [by definition, kings are not elected] king and [will] rule over my people justly; just as my father did, and just as he expects me to do.

Looks pretty good to me. You have a lot of long and rather complex sentence constructions here (heavy on the semicolons!), but the declamatory tone seems quite appropriate.

Re: need help with grammar.

nona the brit — Sun, 10 Sep 2006 17:52:46 GMT

Hi Huxley,

Welcome to the forum.

Yes, you are correct. Question marks (?) and exclamation marks (!) always show that the sentence (not clause) has ended, in the same way as a full stop. Therefore, you need to start the next word, which is the first word of a new sentence, with a capital letter.

If you are working on capitals then it might be a good idea to start using them correctly in all parts of your writing, to get into good habits, and not just in theoretical examples. So don't forget that all sentences must start with a capital letter and that 'I' is always capitalised.

Re: The difference between a phrase and a sentence (Chris)

pieanne — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 08:55:48 GMT

A sentence begins with a capital and ends with a full-stop - or a question mark in the case of an interrogative sentence, an exclamation mark for an exclamative sentence -.

There can be different clauses in a sentence.

Re: Punctuation

miriam — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 04:41:55 GMT

From "A Grammar of Contemporary English", by R. Quirk et al.

Both question and exclamation mark exclude the use of other separation punctuation and have the value of a period inasmuch as what follows begins with the capitalisation of a new sentence. But when they co-ocur with the end of quotation, they come within the quotation marks and if more of the including sentence follows, no capital letter is used.
'How silly she is!', he thought.

Vocatives are, also, usually separated from the rest of the sentence in which they ocur by commas. The reason is that, intonationally, the vocative is set off from ther est of the clause either by constituing a separate tone-unit or by forming the 'tail' or post-nuclear part of a tone-unit. This changes in intonation are reflected, in writing, by the use of commas.

Many things in grammar are "common", many others are "right", and others are plainly "wrong". When we make a choice, we have to be aware that our listener/reader may follow the rules considered "right", and we would certainly be at a disadvantage if we chose how to speak/write following what is "common" only.
Some common things are, at the same time, right.
Some others, quite common too, are wrong.
And yet others are simple accepted because most people are not sure what the right form is.

The decision, as usual, depends on the speaker/writer. The results will, most probably, be a direct consequence of our choices.

Miriam