Punctuation

You may be thinking of the inconsistency created by the fact that exclamation and question marks are used before the closing speech marks to indicate the nature of the utterance, and these both have the same status as a full stop. Indeed, full stops are also used, but ONLY when the sentence finishes there.

Punctuation is not subject to rules, merely 'conventions' ("a set of agreed, stipulated, or generally accepted standards, norms, social norms, or criteria, often taking the form of a custom," says Wikipedia). The logic of these conventions is dictated by what's easiest for the reader to decode. The convention in the punctuation of direct speech is to regard the dialogue tag ('she said' etc) as part of the same sentence as the direct speech it's attached to, hence the use of a comma.



Nice one, RC!

Norway has a language council, but none of the English speaking countries do. Which is why English is such a weird language with so many word borrowed from so many sources.


I agree with most of what you've said, but can't get my head around the logical flaws. For example, here's one side of a phone call.

"He's coming home now. He's at the door. I think he's really going to spank me!" Sally exclaimed.
"He's coming home now. He's at the door. I think he's really going to spank me?" Sally said, unsure if she actually thought he would go through with it this time.
"He's coming home now. He's at the door. I think he's really going to spank me." Sally said.

Three complete sentences in quotes. We all agree that the first two examples should end with either "!" or "?". (Quotes had to be used because ?. just doesn't work). I just don't see anything inherently different in sentence three to use a "," rather than the "." that ends all of the other complete sentences. Now if a sentence is being being split, say:
"I still love you, but you can never use that paddle again." Jane moaned as she rubbed her bruised bottom.
Became
"I still love you," Jane moaned as she rubbed her bruised bottom, "but you can never use that paddle again."
then I can see that it's one sentence separated by the identifier as opposed to being two complete sentences, which is a different thing, but sentences end in complete stops, question marks, or exclamation points.

That really isn't why. All languages borrow from other languages, some more than others - check out German or Russian, for a start. (The German for 'spanking', you'll be delighted to know, is 'Spanking'.) English is 'weird' - especially as regards its spelling, perhaps the most erratic in the world - primarily because it's the forced merger between two very different linguistic streams: the Germanic Anglo-Saxon and the Latinate Norman-French, which got smashed together following the 11th-century Norman Conquest.

One good result of this, though, is that while our spelling went utterly doolally (and there's a great borrowed word) we managed to jettison about 90% of our grammar. So we don't have to futz around with such pointless exercises as agreeing adjectives with the gender of their nouns/pronouns, as in most other European languages - or bother with the cases (nominative, accusative, etc) of nouns and definite/indefinite articles, as in German or (even worse) in Hungarian.

I don't think anyone can deny that it is weird and erratic yet there is a rationale behind English spelling. There is an excellent book on the subject by David Crystal - "Spell it Out" subtitled "The Singular Story of English Spelling", Profile Books 2012.

For such an esoteric subject, this is a really good read and invaluable for anyone with an interest in the subject.

Thanks, Brodie - I'll seek that one out!

Languages with a central controlling board only borrow for slang, or temporarily use a word until an approved word is found. For example, it took years for the French to come up with a word for space shuttle, and until they did they called it "space shuttle". Once they had their own word for it, the term "space shuttle" was no longer part of the official French language.

There is a huge different between controlled languages that have an official form and the free flowing one such as English. One is much better at adapting to the world around it while the other resists cultural drift, making it much easier for a modern reader to comprehend documents written in the past.

I worked for many years in Cambridge, with many foreign students, language students and tourists.
I came to the conclusion that one of the advantages of English is that poor English speakers can often just about make themselves understood, while this doesn't seem to apply in many other languages, particularly French, or perhaps I have just been unlucky with awkward and unhelpful French.
You know for certain that the latter is the case in the Paris Metro!

PhilK
... primarily because it's the forced merger between two very different linguistic streams: the Germanic Anglo-Saxon and the Latinate Norman-French, which got smashed together following the 11th-century Norman Conquest.

Not just two linguistic stream, but three! Don't forget the Vikings that lived on the coast who traded and intermarried with the Anglo-Saxon farmers. The articles determining case was dropped as well as noun endings due to the smashing of German and Scandinavian.

Mostly what we got from the French is a huge vocabulary. For example, in court people ate beef and pork while the commoners ate meat from cows and pigs.

So we ended up with the French words for our table food, but kept the Anglo Saxons names for the actual animals.

Some nationalities are very accommodating in this regard. I've always found that Greeks are delighted if you make an effort to speak their language, and will help you along with vocabulary and grammar tips.


Don't judge all of France by Paris. I often visit Languedoc in the deep south, and people there are almost invariably charming and helpful, whatever my linguistic limitations.

I'll be amazed if you can find a single French person, or current French publication (even 'Le Figaro'), that'll call the weekend anything but 'le weekend'.