Yes!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Thursday, April 29, 2010 2:08:47 PM)| |  | _strat_ wrote: | | Good, good - I just checked it again, and there are no "though" or "although"s in it.
So basicaly, my previous post was wrong. I guess so. Although. I should have used "though" since I was contrasting the previous sentence... Right?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Ah!!! I love it!! OK, here goes:
The use of though and although are quite often interchangable. "Though" is considered less formal, however, it can also be used as an adverb to say that the information in the clause is in direct contrast to the information in the previous sentence. "Although" cannot be used in this manner. These words are most often used to explain that there is an unexpected contrast in what happens in the main clause and the adverbial clause.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Weeeeell... I guess so. Although (and theres another question although or though - which is proper, or are both proper?) I must say that there are members here who dont write properly all of the time, but arent stupid assholes.
Thanks for the reasurrance tho - I had to post a somewhat formal E-Mail in English, and when I checked it (after sending it, of course, thats just me), I found out about this.
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now hold on there, young man!!! There ARE rules! Nothing is really ever "set in stone" but one should always strive to be as accurate and "comprehensive" as one possibly can when one is writing, especially in a forum such as this! Afterall, this is your communication vehicle and the way you write says a lot about you! I should think you would want to be as proper as one can be! Don't forget.... I am watching you! HAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | That was very... Comprehensive. Lol.
So, if I got it right, its not set in stone, and you can basicaly just do how you feel is right. Which is how Ive always been doing it.
Thanks!
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Oh it is SO good to have you back!!! HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The use of a comma with a conjunction is fine when one is connecting two independent clauses ( He sang well, but he often got tired.) Some writers believe that the coordinating conjunction has adequate seperation and will leave the comma out in short, balanced independent clauses. My rule has always been to simply use the comma when in doubt!
More often, a mistake is made when one puts a comma after a coordinating conjunction. Now, that does not mean that it is ALWAYS wrong but it is rare that you would need a comma after a coordinating conjunction. Of course, when speaking we often pause after the little conjunction but there is rarely a need for a comma there when writing. How's that?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ive got a question on a certain part of writing in the English language here, regarding the use of the comma.
Now, IDK - I might have been doing it wrong the whole time, because Ive been following the rule that we were taught at Slovene language classes in school, which is that you can never put a comma before or after "and" when writing in Slovene. For example: "I went into the shop, and saw the Nostradamus CD" - if I translated that sentence into Slovene, I would have to ommit the comma, because of that rule.
Now, does English have this rule? I know that in some cases there is no comma, like when you list stuff: "this, that and something else" - no comma. But what about other cases? Are there times when you can put a comma near "and"? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
