Hi writers on Hubski
I made corrections on my student's essay. He sent me the thank-you note below. In discussing other corrections, I mentioned that he should put periods in the thank-you note where the commas are. This would make four little sentences. Was I wrong?
- Thanks for the feedback, I really appreciate you spending the time on these finer details I would not normally catch. Changes have been made, please see the attached.
They looked like run-on (comma splice) sentences to me. My student then wrote this:
- I'll be honest though, I think I am having some trouble with comma splices. In my email I still feel it sounds better with the commas in. When I change the sentences from two to four, I feel the writing seems choppy, disjointed, and almost primitive or childlike.
But then SELF-DOUBT struck. Anyone?
"Correct" is a hilarious concept when dealing with the English language. Creative writers generally fall back on Strunk & White. S&W agree with b_b, but further argue that the use of a conjunction would make the comma correct: Tech writers revert back to their own style guides (MLA, APA, NSCA, etc) which would all argue that the only appropriate choice would be periods. And then there would be examples of the opposite and then everyone would grumble because no one is reading anyway. Prose writers would do any of the following: - Thanks for the feedback! I really appreciate you spending the time on these finer details I wouldn't normally catch. Changes have been made; please see the attached. - Thanks for the feedback... I really appreciate you spending the time on these finer details I would not normally catch. Changes have been made - please see the attached. - Thanks for the feedback, because I really appreciate you spending the time on these finer details I would not normally catch... changes have been made, so please see the attached. - Thanks for the feedback - I really appreciate you spending the time on these finer details I would not normally catch. Changes have been made... please see the attached. - Thanks for the feedback. I really appreciate you spending the time on these finer details I would not normally catch; Changes have been made. Please see the attached! All say different things, obviously, depending on what you're trying to convey. What the original sentence conveys is "I write like I talk and I talk like I can't stick up for myself and I'm never sure when my sentences are finished." How does he want to come across? 'cuz English is a crushingly varied language precisely so that this sort of semiotic payload can be contained within the choice of "where you put the dots."Thanks for the feedback, because I really appreciate you spending the time on these finer details (THAT) I would not normally catch.
Yes, a conjunction would obviously work well, too. I suggested semicolon, because I figured it was the easiest way to maintain the same exact language without actually creating a new sentence. As to your point about "correct" being a fluid thing in English, I totally agree when we're talking about authors with style. A student doing a college exercise should, in my opinion, stick to the basic rules (however defined, MLA, etc). Gotta learn the rules before you can break them.
I'll be honest - this whole discussion has made me re-examine what, exactly, I think they're teaching "the kids" these days. I've always had a dismissive relationship with grammar. It's been natural and assumed and you put the words in the order you do because duh. That's how they go. But I'm awakening to the fact that the rigor with which people are being instructed in the manipulation of written English has atrophied greatly since I was forced to diagram sentences. I had presumed that most people, by college, bloody well knew "the rules" and, more so, that "the rules" of any engagement would be fundamentally clear to any practitioner prior to putting pencil to paper. At the same time I'm realizing that nobody puts pencil to paper anymore and that the idea of actually having (and knowing!) a style book is novel and unknown. It's interesting. I like pointing out that Thai has five registers (common, formal, rhetorical, religious, and royal) and that the register used depends on the context. English also has five registers (frozen, formal, consultative, casual and intimate) but the more I look at it, the more apparent it's becoming that the first two are becoming opaque to all but the learned. Interesting times.A student doing a college exercise should, in my opinion, stick to the basic rules (however defined, MLA, etc). Gotta learn the rules before you can break them.
I've never seen a list of English registers, but those seem kind of arbitrary. What's the difference between consultative and formal registers? Intimate and casual? Or if you could, point me in the direction of the source for that list because I'd like to look into it. I love a good book on language.
Oh, but lil! Your comma is not correct here either! "Just because they are childlike does not mean that the commas are correct." In consolation, I offer you Muphry's Law. I would also note in passing, and not aiming particularly at any commenter, but it is hard to take grammar advice from those whose comments exhibit egregious errors. On the other hand, this is an informal forum where we are discussing grammar, not a formal assignment or some such, so I understand that for instance when you, lil, put your comma in that place, you were typing to reflect sound/the way you spoke, as opposed to maybe striving for correctedness. And Hubski doesn't have a spell check feature on the comments, and some people have a hard time with spelling indeed: I am trying not to be too critical. Muphry's Law, everyone.Just because they are childlike, does not mean that the commas are correct.
Thank you for introducing me to Muphry's Law. That's awesome.
Absolutely - correction made! Commas are tricky. The so-called comma rules are often superseded by the uber-rule "Don't litter your sentences with too many commas." Meanwhile, I will badge your comment. In class I encourage students to find typos in my work and reward them (with chocolate kisses) when they do.
To compare: Both constructions seem off to me. DISCLAIMER: I am no editor or academic, I often face this problem myself and I eschew all sorts of concrete "rules" about "things." That sentence wants to be a joke. I meant to say I play it by gut. Specifically, by action. (As I write, I reflect upon my own inadequacies. I reflect upon my own editing process, how crazy I get without any anchor and how I can now see why grammar would be useful, maybe not as an anchor which I doubt can exist in any positive way but as a buoy to hang onto against the enveloping ocean of aesthetic doubt. I reflect upon how hard that sentence might have been to get through. The ocean is cold and horrifying.) I think you're right. The problem seems obvious in approaching the action of the language. Thanks for the feedback, and I really appreciate you spending the time on these finer details I would not normally catch are two redundant thoughts, the second clause echoing the first while elaborating yes, he knows what feedback is basically. ... reads to me without problem. Gets it done without the layer of awkward insecurity. Now, as a grammar noob, have I missed the comma splice as inappropriate construction? Let me play the smarmy student that cannot help but push back against abstracted authority! I say no! I'm operating by rhythm here! A period creates a heavy space. A semicolon is too heavy but in a different way. A comma, a comma seems just right. That skip in mental processing that I like; that casual flippancy towards grammatical institutions which establishes a tone of conversational intimacy. Maybe. I'm no expert. I'm not even sure I struck the right tone here. Maybe that comma splice is totally cool. Then I'd feel dumb. If I may ask, why the SELF-DOUBT? Is it because his original sentence better hides his inelegance of action?Thanks for the feedback, I really appreciate you spending the time on these finer details I would not normally catch. Changes have been made, please see the attached.
Thanks for the feedback. I really appreciate you spending the time on these finer details I would not normally catch. Changes have been made. Please see the attached.
I think if those sentences seem choppy or primitive, then he shouldn't write them. Just because they are childlike, does not mean that the commas are correct.
Thanks for the feedback. Changes have been made, please see the attached.
I agree with and appreciate the various choices kleinbl00 offers. I love the notion of the tech writers' style guides. I'm suggesting that each of my students create a style guide of their own in which they note writing errors that they tend to make. Once they are aware that a particular habit is construed by me as an error, they can choose to use it if they are writing creative prose. I want them to be aware that they have used a comma where a semi-colon or period is needed. Then they can make an informed choice, should they have a reason. Of course language is dynamic and authorities abound. Some of my suggestions to my students (such as to use the Oxford comma) are preceded by the words "While you are in my class." Few university students have had detailed feedback on their writing. The first real feedback I had was from my thesis advisor in graduate school. So far, they seem to appreciate a careful reading, even when they disagree with me (as in the example above). CORRECTION: Student was not disagreeing with me so much as feeling uncomfortable with the short sentences and wondering if he would gradually feel more comfortable.If I may ask, why the SELF-DOUBT? Is it because his original sentence better hides his inelegance of action?
Good question. For a moment, I wondered whether, in fact, the words I identified as sentences were actually fragments. I'm much more certain now.
That's awesome. "Know your enemy." And that's terrifying. Does nobody diagram sentences anymore? Granted, I've always just sort of had a knack for it and sucked when I had to explain what participle phrases were, but some people can dance, I can string words together. Nonetheless, it was bloody beaten into our heads in 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and I finally broke free in 9th when they determined that Honors courses didn't have to put up with that shit. Then when I got to college they waived English for me so I dunno what that looks like; I had to take tech writing for engineering and that was mostly "we know you're Korean but since you're here to work for Boeing we expect a basic remedial grasp of English out of our larger feeder schools."I'm suggesting that each of my students create a style guide of their own in which they note writing errors that they tend to make. Once they are aware that a particular habit is construed by me as an error, they can chose to use it if they are writing creative prose.
Few university students have had detailed feedback on their writing. The first real feedback I had was from my thesis advisor in graduate school.
My sister is an elementary school teacher, and I can tell you that the national standards specifically instruct teachers not to diagram sentences (or even teach parts of speech). This seems ridiculous, and I didn't believe her when she told me that, but, sadly, it appears to be true. They (which ever geniuses write common core standards) have deemed the process of sentence construction boring and counter to learning to speak and read (apparently because kids gets too wrapped up in details). It is one of those sad casualties of No Child Left Behind, or whatever name that bureaucratic nightmare hides behind these days (Race to the Top!).
That is terrifying. One of my wife's friends explained to me the way they teach science these days, where it is standard practice to guide the pupil towards finding his own answers through investigation and research. "All well and good," I said, "but at some point you have to let the kid know that the earth truly does revolve around the sun." "Well, that's the old way of thinking," she said. "No, investigation is all well and good but they're kids," I countered. "Don't you think it's important to let them know when they've hit upon the scientifically-backed, expert-agreed reality of the situation?" "It's more important to teach them how to find those answers themselves," she said. "But what if they decide the sun revolves around the earth?" "we would emphasize that they should investigate their sources fully in all instances." "But if they've managed to find a bunch of crackpot evidence that supports their claims, aren't you going to tell them they're wrong?" "It's important not to phrase the question in terms of right or wrong." "The earth does revolve around the sun. There is a right and wrong here." "And the student will determine that on their own when properly instructed." "But proper instruction does not involve telling them when they've arrived at the wrong conclusion?" "We would emphasize that there are many answers and that the student should make sure he's picked the right one." "So you're rewarding certainty rather than accuracy." "I wouldn't look at it that way." "You're giving the student the opportunity to believe that the sun revolves around the earth simply because he wants it to be true. Isn't the whole point of 'instruction' to teach the kid how the world works?" "The point of instruction is to teach the kid how to learn." "Okay, great. But in this case, the kid needs to learn how to tell the right answer from the wrong answer." "There's no right or wrong - " "There is, though- okay, we'll skip that. So if the kid manages to find the page for the Flat Earth Society and take it at face value, are you going to instruct him in the ways of determining parody from fact?" "I'm a science teacher, not a logic teacher." "That refuses to teach kids how that the earth revolves around the sun." "I don't refuse to teach them that, I refuse to tell them the way the world works." * * * Last time I talked to that bitch.
I was just thinking about this sort of thing today. Current educational practices are to teach children, instead of, say, math -- rather "how to solve problems." Critical thinking. Lots of buzzwords like that. This leads to a lot of children who can't do math. I'm not sure if any of them can solve problems, as it were, but they certainly can't fucking solve math problems anymore -- I see it every damn day when I volunteer. If you can't tell I think this is stupid and modern educational practices are a waste of time and that we can almost always learn more on our own and I guess I just needed a brief space to rant. That entire day of teaching kids to search for truth or whatever could have been boiled down into one sentence, "the earth revolves around the sun," and then they could have moved on to learning things that actually could use a bit of sought truth, as it were, and that would've been great and meaningful.
In second grade I was always the fastest at times tables and was generally rewarded with Smarties. Also, what the fuck is it about the tempting #askhubski tag that causes it to instantly become reddit-ified the moment there's an influx from reddit? I swear that's the only place on the site I'm seeing an impact so far.
I've temporarily ignored #askhubski, I've found it to be rather obnoxious at the moment. But I have full faith things will calm down soon enough and we will be left with another batch of wonderful people! I know I came over in the last round!
I damn near started a cranky old man post and then I had dinner. AskReddit was the same way until the mods turned nazi. IAmA, ELI5, AskScience, SuicideWatch, DoesAnybodyElse and god knows how many other subreddits were created solely to purify AskReddit in the midst of some fad or other.
To swing back around to writing for a second. University students are subject to the whims of all their teachers. Most will not "mark" writing, looking instead for ideas. As you say above (far above), every journal has its own style guide. I'm not sure about the US although many people prefer the Chicago Manual of Style. In Canada, the government, major newspapers, and educational institution agree that the * Oxford Canadian Dictionary* and the Oxford Canadian Manual of Style will be the current authorities. Here's a line from the NASA History Writing Style Guide that says why consistency in style is a good ideal:
You're giving the student the opportunity to believe that the sun revolves around the earth simply because he wants it to be true.
That would be an example of the gradual truthyfication of education. Truthiness is when we call something "true," because we want it to be true, usually without examining or understanding the evidence. It feels like it should be true.The purpose of style guidelines is to achieve consistency in prose style and usage so that readers can become absorbed in the content rather than be distracted by curiosities in form. Authors and editors likewise will have an easier task, composing and revising by the same set of rules. Guidelines are guidelines, however, and not laws etched in stone. Rules of usage, to serve their purpose, must of necessity strike a balance between custom, clarity, and principle.
Totally. Which is why they dominate nonfiction. Within fiction, however, the style and usage are half the fun. Ran into this all the time in screenwriting because there are precise, colorful, appropriate words to use, but the knuckle headed screenwriting "industry" has gotten the idea that if you use language more colorful than the bare minimum, you're "polluting" the story. Nevermind that every spec screenplay ever sold has all sorts of "color."The purpose of style guidelines is to achieve consistency in prose style and usage so that readers can become absorbed in the content rather than be distracted by curiosities in form.
I don't think that teacher really understood the methodology of what she was trying to do. Teachers are now taught that the old models of teaching, "rote memorization" and "lecture" which are teacher-centric and focus on teaching rather than learning, are less desirable than student-centric approaches, which focuses on the students and relies on the teacher being there for motivation, focus and guidance. While there are merits to both approaches, there are also serious drawbacks. In reality, good teachers have to adapt to the classes they are given, as every group of people has its own dynamic, preferred learning style, etc. I've seen this attitude too often. Yes, it makes it easier for teachers to break things up into narrow subjects, but it doesn't help students. Instead, it gives students the idea that these things are unrelated when in fact many of them overlap in numerous instances. For example, a molecular chemist needs to know how to write so that other molecular chemists or scientists of other specializations can understand the work so that it may be used or experimented with. Anyway, breaking things down is fine, but I don't see a whole lot of instruction on how to put things together, which is not fine."I'm a science teacher, not a logic teacher."
And she said as much (the latter, not the former!). But then, that's the issue - whereas before, teachers had a straight path between ignorance and knowledge, they now must make a meandering, traipsy path through self esteem. Which okay, if you're a genius instructor with unlimited time, no problem. But there are more jolly old elves at the north pole than there are genius instructors with unlimited time.I don't think that teacher really understood the methodology of what she was trying to do. Teachers are now taught that the old models of teaching, "rote memorization" and "lecture" which are teacher-centric and focus on teaching rather than learning, are less desirable than student-centric approaches, which focuses on the students and relies on the teacher being there for motivation, focus and guidance.
Yeah, no arguments there. Everyone wants to have a superkid these days, but it seems like a lot of people forget that dedicated, focused time is what it takes to develop skills and talent. I don't envy teachers in the U.S.if you're a genius instructor with unlimited time, no problem.
Do you envy teachers somewhere else though? Is there a dream state or country that celebrates and rewards good teachers?
To answer the first question: no, not personally. To answer the second: that really depends on the person and what their dream in regard to teaching entails. What exactly do you mean by rewards? Financial rewards? A good teaching experience? Anyway, take a look at this infographic: I was a for-profit English as a Foreign Language Teacher, which meant that I had bottom lines to think about. I also had to figure out how to market the courses I created and how to keep asses in seats, plus creating an experience that was effective and enjoyable enough that students and corporate students/companies would talk about me to their friends. It's a lot different that teaching public or private school. That said, for-profit teachers have to deal with a lot of the same stuff that regular teachers do: class chemistry, how their student's days have affected their mood, administrators that don't know what they're talking about, unreasonable requests from parents, people expecting the best education humanly possible for the minimum amount of compensation . . . As I was a for-profit teacher, my line for that last part was, "OK, you only want to pay me half my rate? I'll teach you at half my ability." Anyway, I hear good things about Scandanavian countries as far as the balance of compensation and good experience with students. I guess I wouldn't mind teaching at the university level again, but if I did do it again, I'd definitely shop around a bit first.
I wonder if the US salaries are normalized for time off. In many other countries, school is a year round affair. In the US, teachers' salaries are based off a 9 month schedule (with ample time off during the year, as well). This makes their effective pay quite a bit higher than their nominal pay. Also, I would have to imagine that in other developed countries, teacher pay doesn't vary so wildly in different geographical regions. Generally, teachers in the Midwest and Northeast actually get paid decently (up to $80,000 for a teacher with a master's degree and a lot of experience), whereas in the South, they seem to think that teacher is the lowest rung of the professional world (despite all the evidence to the contrary).
Hmm, yeah I don't know how the information was compiled. I would take that infographic with a grain of salt to be sure. It was created using data from 2009 and who knows how many hands it passed through before becoming an image. Still, I thought it was a nice, general illustration. As far as variance in pay, I have no idea. What you say makes a certain amount of sense as conjecture, if only because most developed nations have a lower population and smaller geographic area than the U.S. I don't know for sure who is a teacher on hubski, but I know there are a few. Maybe we can ask them? I know that in the Northeast, teachers can definitely make a good wage, depending on district and whether or not they belong to the teacher's union. I know a woman who graduated a year ahead of me who was able to buy a lake house on Winnipesauke only a few years after she started working as a teacher because she got into the Boston teacher's union right away. Maybe it's just because I'm from snooty, old New England, but I'm not surprised to hear someone say that about the South. My only experience with the school systems in the South is from things my relatives in Florida have complained about. Is Florida considered a part of the South?
I just finished reading a book on economics for non-economists and basically it came down to: Prices drive everything No one does anything without incentives Price controls fuck shit up You get what you pay for and Human emotions make us forget a whole lot of these basic principles and because of that, we often fuck ourselves over. Florida is in the news for weird, dumb crimes often because: you get what you pay for.
They're missing one key component (perhaps the biggest component), which is that often people are unaware of all the information they need to clearly see which incentives are in their favor and which aren't (informational asymmetry, in the parlance). This can be willful, but normally is not. It has been the strategy of the neocon movement to obscure poor people's incentives as much as possible specifically by playing to their (mostly irrational) emotional state. In this article, the author points out how strongly his geographic location is united against the Affordable Care Act, despite the fact that it has 26% poverty (an astronomical number, even third world-esque), pretty much all of whom are already, or would certainly now qualify for, government assistance. The branding and obscuring (done intentionally by monied interests) that these uneducated people are subjected to makes it pretty much impossible to determine a logical course of action.
I hear you. I don't think it's a coincidence that the country the created modern advertising also has such wily politicians. Alan Moore compares advertising people as essentially practitioners of magic that use their abilities to manipulate reality for financial gain and the detriment of all. Alan Moore is nuts, but once you get beyond his crazy exterior, he begins to make a lot of sense. I haven't checked that link out yet, but I will. I know a lot of people who are against the electoral college, but the intention of the electoral college as I understand it, was so that informed decisions could be ensured in regard to the vote. Of course, that's probably not exactly how it goes down for elections today, but "the way to hell is paved with good intentions" right? Edit: it's funny how "the War on Terror" is supposed to make Americans feel more secure and is supposed to be against extremists, but instead it turns out it's a war being waged by extremists and making people scared of their own shadows.
Yes. Not a father, but if I were I would hesitate to send my kids to be fucked up by political bullshit masquerading as education. There is a time fr questioning and a time for objective truth. The way the planets work is not a subject that should be debated in class. Instead, why not focus in how we arrived at that conclusion in the first place? Then we can have a science and history lesson in one. There's a reason kids didn't discover the interesting science to begin with. It's tough shit that takes study, years of it. Sad.
By the time I went to school, we worked on handwriting in grades k-2 and not often and grammar in grade 3-8 for like, 2 weeks a year. Apparently my school district was in the top 100 in the nation which makes me wonder at the quality of public education in America, since my classes were not particularly rigorous.
If you are using your own sentence as a valid example of connective semicolons, then I would ask that you rescind that advice. (Please understand that I mean no offense. I'm just tired of holding my tongue as this thread beats more bad grammar into swords.) Semicolons are not replacements for verbal pauses, nor are they replacements for commas. They link the previous complex sentence to another, turning the precedent into a premise for the antecedent's conclusion. The precedent thought could have survived as a sentence on its own, and make the reader keep it in mind as a setup or a preface. The "hard stop" is exactly what needs to happen when you have finished a thought. "You should advise him to use semicolons" is a complete thought. Defining a semicolon (even though the subsequent definition is invalid) is a separate thought. You could have instead said, "...use semicolons, as they split..."; the meaning would be the same. Notice the previous sentence is "A, quoting B; thus C." The Oatmeal has a great description, in case you feel I'm full of it. It's important to parse written language as something different from transcribed speech. People may feel that their sentences are childish if they are too short. They want to extend the moment, as if a short sentence were premature. Thus they keep connecting thoughts that do not belong in the same sentence. Other languages have tools for non-concise paragraphs. English lacks the declensions and verb tenses that allow other languages to extend sentences without confusing the reader. It also lacks tonal marks. Thus a reader cannot guess the highs or lows that would be in the spoken version of one's writing. Appropriating a piece of punctuation to attempt the same is confusing. We have enough reasons not to do this. Let's not do it.
Shorter sentences work better. In the 'American method', at least. Albert Camus wrote the first half of The Stranger this way--precise and briefly. You can see how in the second half of the book, he changes up the style again to better illustrate the inner world our protagonist has retreated into. But it's important to change things up in your writing. If you keep things running on too many times in a row, you'll lose the reader. Each paragraph has its own cadence. Longer sentences aren't any smarter or more adult than short ones are. Probably less so. When I write, sentences always goes from short to long. Then from long to short. And once I'm sure the reader is well-rested I can hit them with a sentence that stretches way out passed its due date, and maybe it even continues with a comma splice. Tell him/her to read their work out loud. The awkward and breathless comma splices will make themselves much more apparent.
To me, shorter sentences are great for punctuating a point, but they can really lack depth at times. The other day, on another post, I mentioned a sentence I had to study in detail in college that my instructor held as the greatest sentence he was aware of (I learned a great deal from studying it). This sentence, while not overly long, has seemingly infinite depth; it would be impossible to recreate its appeal with several sentences that purport to convey the same information. Each modifying clause adds another layer to the initial, simple sentence, and each clause is even successively more complex, the first being plain vanilla, the second inventing a new word (fatly), so that we may envision in our heads what Faulkner even means by "fatly earnest", a phrase that none of us has ever heard, but that we can intuit immediately, the final using a very delicate metaphor, beautiful yet precise. Simplicity just would not do. Anyway, I guess my point is that variety is the most important thing. One needs to know when to use subtle, complex sentences, and when to use the blunt force of a short sentence.Shreve was coming up the walk, shambling, fatly earnest, his glasses glinting beneath the running leaves like little pools.
Your instructor is right, that sentence is dope. And you're right too, adding clauses isn't always a bad thing. The semicolon thing is right, too, but I think it's easy to overdo it with those. I guess I come from the minimalist school of thought. But I think the important lesson here (as we've seen with all the different viewpoints and what kleinbl00 said about 'correctness' in our language) is that it's important to switch it up, as you said. Damn, I'm just reading through all these replies. Punctuation and grammar just set this place off.
Yeah, in the Translator's Note in my edition the guy talks about how Camus acknowledged employing this 'American method' in writing the book. "the short, precise sentences; the depiction of a character ostensibly without consciousness; and, in places, the 'tough guy' tone." Kind of interesting, but I wonder why.
I realise this is a super old discussion: but you are worrying too much about rules. Punctuation is there to serve us, not be our master. Use as you wish, for effect, for clarity, however you like. There really is no "correct" with most of this stuff. There's better, there's worse, and there's different, but beyond that it's your choice and your power as the writer to bend this stuff to your will. The fact is that written prose doesn't actually match very well how we think or how we speak. (Record a conversation some time and and then transcribe it - you'll be surprised). As such, writing an email to someone is quite an artificial task - it's a kind of synthesis. Really the only purpose is to communicate your thoughts and if you have done that in a broadly appropriate way (ie not text speak!) then you're good.
In the hubskiverse six months is "super-old" I guess, but thanks for revisiting one of my favourite threads. One difference between written prose and spoken conversation is this: In a conversation, the person is in front of you. If you don't understand what she is saying, you can say, "What do you mean?" In prose, if you don't understand, you go back and read it again. If it is written badly, you throw it out. I think that we agree that the goal, in either case is to communicate. The problem comes with your phrase "broadly appropriate way." Another way of defining "rules" in writing is "best practice," a term they use in health care, education, and other places. What is the best practice that will make your written prose most readable to most people? Best practice, correct grammar, proper usage of words (diction), and most understandable word order (syntax) is agreed upon through usage and discussion. I recently came across yet another website called Pain in the English that I found fun and helpful.There really is no "correct" with most of this stuff.
If you read down the thread, you'll see a lot of disagreement with that statement. There's better, there's worse, and there's different, but beyond that it's your choice and your power as the writer to bend this stuff to your will.
Unless you are writing for an audience that you want to please. You'll find that your audience does not want its reading interrupted by inconsistent usage. As you bend this stuff to your will, your audience might want some familiarity. If you don't care about the audience, bend away. The fact is that written prose doesn't actually match very well how we think or how we speak.
Written prose is a different thing from spoken conversation. Written prose is not trying to be spoken conversation. Spoken conversation when written is indicated by quotation marks and indentations for each speaker to make it easy to read as conversation.
A quick note to all contributors, especially kleinbl00 - I forwarded the link to the discussion to my student who found it helpful and also noted: Wow! That really drove some discussion. Some very interesting feedback. Kleinbl00 offered some great variations.