Studio e approfondimento della lingua inglese
 

Comma splices

ngs 19 Lug 2017 13:59
Hi everyone,

I keep coming across comma splices more and more often as of lately. I
even asked on a subreddit about grammar and I was looked at as if I
was[*] out of this world for even suggesting that comma splices might be
substandard usage.
Don't get me wrong. I believe in simplifying the language and in getting
rid of complicated rules which don't bring any real benefits to the
table, but I think that comma splices really hurt the flow of the
reading, or at least of *my* reading.

What's your stance on this matter?

[*] Yeah, I don't use subjunctives anymore if not in very formal
writing, which means that I never use them.

Kiuhnm
Tony the Ice Man 19 Lug 2017 20:53
On 07/19/17 4:59 AM, ngs wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> I keep coming across comma splices more and more often as of lately. I
> even asked on a subreddit about grammar and I was looked at as if I
> was[*] out of this world for even suggesting that comma splices might be
> substandard usage.
> Don't get me wrong. I believe in simplifying the language and in getting
> rid of complicated rules which don't bring any real benefits to the
> table, but I think that comma splices really hurt the flow of the
> reading, or at least of *my* reading.
> What's your stance on this matter?
> [*] Yeah, I don't use subjunctives anymore if not in very formal
> writing, which means that I never use them.
> Kiuhnm

When two relatively unrelated independent clauses (that are really two
different thoughts) are joined by a comma without a conjunction (or
other appropriate connector), that is considered a substandard comma
splice. For example, "I don't like inappropriate comma splices, I do
like the proper use of the subjunctive" is a comma splice.

The example sentence above would be acceptable if the the clauses were
joined by "but." However, it is not considered grammatically correct to
join the clauses with "however," a "conjunctive adverb." I made this
error in the past until an editor pointed it out to me. Now, I close the
first independent clause with a period before starting the second with
"however."

Because my knowledge of English is based on my intuition, which has been
steeped in a profound interest and total immersion in written and spoken
English language usage all of my life, and not driven by an interest in
the rules of grammar, I consulted some references so that I could better
explain "my stance." I agree with all of the guidelines listed below,
which I gleaned from those texts, so they can be considered a
description of my intuitive stance.

1. You can join two closely related clauses of equal importance with a
semicolon when you want to emphasize the relationship. "I don't like
inappropriate comma splices; I do appreciate the proper use of the
subjunctive."

2. You can join two closely related clauses of equal importance with a
coordinating conjunction that also shows how they are related. "I don't
like inappropriate comma splices, yet I do appreciate the proper use of
the subjunctive." References say that neither a conjunctive adverb
(however, nevertheless, therefore) nor any other transitional expression
(for example, in fact, on the other hand) substitutes for a coordinating
conjunction. You should use a semicolon or period in these applications.

3, You can join two clauses that are not of equal importance by
subordinating the less important idea in a dependent clause. "I like the
proper use of the subjunctive, not the inappropriate use of comma splices."

4. You can join two short balanced independent clauses with a comma. "I
like the subjunctive, I like commas." (However, my stance is that I
would prefer to write these as two separate sentences.)

5. You can join two short parallel independent clauses with a comma,
especially when one clause contradicts the other. "The subjunctive isn't
formal, it's standard English."

6. You can join a statement and tag question, even thought each is an
independent clause. "The appropriate use of the subjunctive is
admirable, isn't it?"

Fortunately for me, I don't have to learn these rules, they just sound
right to my ear. I wish that I could more fully transfer that advantage
to my knowledge of Italian, but language immersion isn't convertible.
ngs 20 Lug 2017 14:39
On 19/07/2017 20:53, Tony the Ice Man wrote:
> When two relatively unrelated independent clauses (that are really two
> different thoughts) are joined by a comma without a conjunction (or
> other appropriate connector), that is considered a substandard comma
> splice. For example, "I don't like inappropriate comma splices, I do
> like the proper use of the subjunctive" is a comma splice.
>
> The example sentence above would be acceptable if the the clauses were
> joined by "but." However, it is not considered grammatically correct to
> join the clauses with "however," a "conjunctive adverb." I made this
> error in the past until an editor pointed it out to me. Now, I close the
> first independent clause with a period before starting the second with
> "however."

This is true for Italian as well: I'd never use "comunque" in place of
"ma". I think a semicolon would also be acceptable or maybe even
preferable when the two clauses are short.
By the way, is my use of the colon(:) above correct? In Italian I often
use the colon that way to introduce further explanation or
clarification. For instance:

Il film non mi è piaciuto: i personaggi erano poco delineati e la
storia poco originale.

> Because my knowledge of English is based on my intuition, which has been
> steeped in a profound interest and total immersion in written and spoken
> English language usage all of my life, and not driven by an interest in
> the rules of grammar, I consulted some references so that I could better
> explain "my stance." I agree with all of the guidelines listed below,
> which I gleaned from those texts, so they can be considered a
> description of my intuitive stance.
>
> 1. You can join two closely related clauses of equal importance with a
> semicolon when you want to emphasize the relationship. "I don't like
> inappropriate comma splices; I do appreciate the proper use of the
> subjunctive."
>
> 2. You can join two closely related clauses of equal importance with a
> coordinating conjunction that also shows how they are related. "I don't
> like inappropriate comma splices, yet I do appreciate the proper use of
> the subjunctive." References say that neither a conjunctive adverb
> (however, nevertheless, therefore) nor any other transitional expression
> (for example, in fact, on the other hand) substitutes for a coordinating
> conjunction. You should use a semicolon or period in these applications.
>
> 3, You can join two clauses that are not of equal importance by
> subordinating the less important idea in a dependent clause. "I like the
> proper use of the subjunctive, not the inappropriate use of comma splices."

These 3 rules/guidelines also apply to Italian.

> 4. You can join two short balanced independent clauses with a comma. "I
> like the subjunctive, I like commas." (However, my stance is that I
> would prefer to write these as two separate sentences.)

I have your same reservation (both in English and in Italian).

> 5. You can join two short parallel independent clauses with a comma,
> especially when one clause contradicts the other. "The subjunctive isn't
> formal, it's standard English."

I'd also use a colon here:

The subjunctive isn't formal: it's standard English.

I think that rules 5 and 3 are so similar that they could be fused.

> 6. You can join a statement and tag question, even thought each is an
> independent clause. "The appropriate use of the subjunctive is
> admirable, isn't it?"

L'uso appropriato del congiuntivo è ammirabile, non trovi?

> Fortunately for me, I don't have to learn these rules, they just sound
> right to my ear. I wish that I could more fully transfer that advantage
> to my knowledge of Italian, but language immersion isn't convertible.

Lucky for us, I can't see any differences between Italian and English in
this regard.

Kiuhnm
ilChierico 21 Lug 2017 00:29
On 20/07/2017 14:39, ngs wrote:

> This is true for Italian as well: I'd never use "comunque" in place of
> "ma". I think a semicolon would also be acceptable or maybe even
> preferable when the two clauses are short.

Again, academic english has its own rules.

> By the way, is my use of the colon(:) above correct? In Italian I often
> use the colon that way to introduce further explanation or
> clarification. For instance:
>
> Il film non mi è piaciuto: i personaggi erano poco delineati e la
> storia poco originale.

You can even use the colon(:) twice or more times, in italian language.
I must warn you that nobody uses semicolon(;) any more, in Italy.
Fathermckenzie 21 Lug 2017 07:07
Il 21/07/2017 00:29, ilChierico ha scritto:
> must warn you that nobody uses semicolon(;) any more, in Italy.

Chi te l'ha detto? Forse non lo usi tu.

--
Et interrogabant eum turbae dicentes: “Quid ergo faciemus?”.
Respondens autem dicebat illis: “Qui habet duas tunicas,
det non habenti; et, qui habet escas, similiter faciat”.
(Ev. sec. Lucam 3,10-11)
Tony the Ice Man 21 Lug 2017 08:33
On 07/20/17 5:39 AM, ngs wrote:
> This is true for Italian as well: I'd never use "comunque" in place of
> "ma". I think a semicolon would also be acceptable or maybe even
> preferable when the two clauses are short.
> By the way, is my use of the colon(:) above correct? In Italian I often
> use the colon that way to introduce further explanation or
> clarification. For instance:
> Il film non mi è piaciuto: i personaggi erano poco delineati e la
> storia poco originale.

I have also used colons for lots of purposes, but professional editors
have corrected me. Apparently, I overuse them.

Colons are used to set off lists or series, including those introduced
by phrases like "the following" or "as follows." In most cases except
for some exceptions for convention, the colon must be preceded by an
independent clause.

So, it appears that your example doesn't ******* the first criterion
although it does ******* the second criterion.

I sometimes make the mistake of putting a colon after an expression,
such as: namely, for example, that is, or such as.

The correct usage is to place a comma after expressions, such as,
namely, for example, that is, or such as. Those expressions serve the
same purpose as a colon.

> I'd also use a colon here:
> The subjunctive isn't formal: it's standard English.

It seems you are even more prone than I am to overuse the colon. If your
preference is to adhere to more standard practices of punctuation, you
might consider using other options in the example above.

Some other situations in which the colon is appropriate are the
following: explanatory material, quotations, business letter
salutations, separating titles from subtitles, separating chapter from
verse, separating minutes from seconds, and separating the place of
publication from the name of the publisher.
ngs 21 Lug 2017 12:10
On 21/07/2017 07:07, Fathermckenzie wrote:
> Il 21/07/2017 00:29, ilChierico ha scritto:
>> must warn you that nobody uses semicolon(;) any more, in Italy.
>
> Chi te l'ha detto? Forse non lo usi tu.

ilChierico esagera, però è innegabile che l'uso del punto e virgola sia
in forte declino.

Kiuhnm
ngs 21 Lug 2017 12:37
On 21/07/2017 08:33, Tony the Ice Man wrote:
> On 07/20/17 5:39 AM, ngs wrote:
>> This is true for Italian as well: I'd never use "comunque" in place of
>> "ma". I think a semicolon would also be acceptable or maybe even
>> preferable when the two clauses are short.
>> By the way, is my use of the colon(:) above correct? In Italian I
>> often use the colon that way to introduce further explanation or
>> clarification. For instance:
>> Il film non mi è piaciuto: i personaggi erano poco delineati e la
>> storia poco originale.
>
> I have also used colons for lots of purposes, but professional editors
> have corrected me. Apparently, I overuse them.
>
> Colons are used to set off lists or series, including those introduced
> by phrases like "the following" or "as follows." In most cases except
> for some exceptions for convention, the colon must be preceded by an
> independent clause.
>
> So, it appears that your example doesn't ******* the first criterion
> although it does ******* the second criterion.

I've just found this:
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/colons.asp

In particular, have a look at rule 4:

> A colon instead of a semicolon may be used between independent
> clauses when the second sentence explains, illustrates, paraphrases,
> or expands on the first sentence."
>
> Example: He got what he worked for: he really earned that promotion.

That's my favorite (ab)use of the colon!
Maybe there isn't complete agreement between professional editors.
Italian grammarians don't even agree on simple matters such as "qual'è"
versus "qual è" or "sé stesso" vs "se stesso", so this wouldn't surprise
me one bit.

Kiuhnm
Tony the Ice Man 21 Lug 2017 17:03
On 07/21/17 3:37 AM, ngs wrote:
> I've just found this:
> http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/colons.asp
>
> In particular, have a look at rule 4:
>
>> A colon instead of a semicolon may be used between independent
>> clauses when the second sentence explains, illustrates, paraphrases,
>> or expands on the first sentence."
>>
>> Example: He got what he worked for: he really earned that promotion.

Yes, that falls within the explanatory material category of use. So, I
think that you're right and your example sentence, This is true for
Italian as well: I'd never use "comunque" in place of "ma," would fit in
that category

> That's my favorite (ab)use of the colon!
> Maybe there isn't complete agreement between professional editors.
> Italian grammarians don't even agree on simple matters such as "qual'è"
> versus "qual è" or "sé stesso" vs "se stesso", so this wouldn't surprise
> me one bit.

It's certainly the case that there often isn't total agreement on
grammar, but I think that with explanatory material you can feel safe
using a colon. My focus on lists or series was too restrictive.
ilChierico 21 Lug 2017 18:02
On 21/07/2017 12:10, ngs wrote:

>> Chi te l'ha detto? Forse non lo usi tu.
>
> ilChierico esagera, però è innegabile che l'uso del punto e virgola sia
> in forte declino.

Io cerco di usarlo anche se di recente ho qualche problema con le
virgole, in effetti.
ilChierico 21 Lug 2017 18:07
On 21/07/2017 12:37, ngs wrote:

> Italian grammarians don't even agree on simple matters such as "qual'è"
> versus "qual è" or "sé stesso" vs "se stesso", so this wouldn't surprise
> me one bit.

For the latter form, I read some sort of explanation. But the former is
without any doubt "troncamento" (written in italian to avoid
misunderstanding) so "qual e'" is the only correct form.
ngs 21 Lug 2017 18:12
On 21/07/2017 17:03, Tony the Ice Man wrote:
> It's certainly the case that there often isn't total agreement on
> grammar, but I think that with explanatory material you can feel safe
> using a colon. My focus on lists or series was too restrictive.

OK, thanks.

Changing the subject, why did you put "stance" between quotes in one of
your previous posts in this thread? As you probably noticed, non native
speakers try to pick up as many i*****ms as possible in the attempt to
sound "more native".

I remember reading the expression "That's a horse of a different
colo(u)r" on this newsgroup many years ago. I think it was Joey. (I
can't see him right now. I hope he's doing well.) Anyway, I used that
expression with another native speaker and he didn't understand what I
meant. I explained it to him and he suggested that I should never use
that expression again...

Kiuhnm
ngs 21 Lug 2017 18:57
On 21/07/2017 18:07, ilChierico wrote:
> On 21/07/2017 12:37, ngs wrote:
>
>> Italian grammarians don't even agree on simple matters such as "qual'è"
>> versus "qual è" or "sé stesso" vs "se stesso", so this wouldn't surprise
>> me one bit.
>
> For the latter form, I read some sort of explanation. But the former is
> without any doubt "troncamento" (written in italian to avoid
> misunderstanding) so "qual e'" is the only correct form.

L'obiezione è che "qual" compare soltanto in un modo di dire ormai poco
usato: "Qual buon vento [ti porta]!". Per questo motivo, alcuni
sostengono che "qual" non faccia praticamente più parte dell'italiano
corrente e si debba quindi usare la forma elisa "qual'è".
Comunque penso che, almeno per ora, "qual è" sia la scelta più condivisa
e sicura.

Riguardo alla seconda questione, se accettiamo "se stesso" allora perché
non accettare "al di la"? Io preferisco "sé stesso".

Kiuhnm
Tony the Ice Man 21 Lug 2017 19:17
On 07/21/17 9:12 AM, ngs wrote:
> Changing the subject, why did you put "stance" between quotes in one of
> your previous posts in this thread? As you probably noticed, non native
> speakers try to pick up as many i*****ms as possible in the attempt to
> sound "more native".

The "stance" in quotations implied my personal alienation from the use
of that word in regard to the topic under discussion. It's a perfectly
fine word to use in that instance. I just found the word a little
humorous in reference to myself because it implies a rigidity that
doesn't fit my relativistic perspective. If I were to choose a more
appropriate word, it might be "opinion."

Ultimately, I believe that we should all use language as we want, but we
should also be aware of how it may be interpreted by others. For
example, I will not suffer fools gladly who use "literally" to mean
"virtually." In time, I may be in the minority with that stance.

> I remember reading the expression "That's a horse of a different
> colo(u)r" on this newsgroup many years ago. I think it was Joey. (I
> can't see him right now. I hope he's doing well.) Anyway, I used that
> expression with another native speaker and he didn't understand what I
> meant. I explained it to him and he suggested that I should never use
> that expression again...

The expression is rather dated and perhaps your acquaintance drew from a
more youthful treasury of expressions which didn't include that vintage.
I'll employ our trusty colon to introduce a couple of explanatory
references:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/horse-of-a-different-color--a
https://i*****mation.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/horse-of-a-different-color/
ngs 21 Lug 2017 22:31
On 21/07/2017 19:17, Tony the Ice Man wrote:
> Ultimately, I believe that we should all use language as we want, but we
> should also be aware of how it may be interpreted by others. For
> example, I will not suffer fools gladly who use "literally" to mean
> "virtually." In time, I may be in the minority with that stance.

I'm afraid it might not take long:

[informal] used to emphasize what you are saying:
He missed that kick literally by miles.
I was literally bowled over by the news.
He literally flew across the room.
I literally had a heart attack when I heard the news.
They were literally over the moon at the news.
She was literally tearing her hair out with grief.
He was literally millions of miles ahead of the other runners.

(from <http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/literally>)

>> I remember reading the expression "That's a horse of a different
>> colo(u)r" on this newsgroup many years ago. I think it was Joey. (I
>> can't see him right now. I hope he's doing well.) Anyway, I used that
>> expression with another native speaker and he didn't understand what I
>> meant. I explained it to him and he suggested that I should never use
>> that expression again...
>
> The expression is rather dated and perhaps your acquaintance drew from a
> more youthful treasury of expressions which didn't include that vintage.
> I'll employ our trusty colon to introduce a couple of explanatory
> references:
>
> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/horse-of-a-different-color--a
> https://i*****mation.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/horse-of-a-different-color/

Next time I'll use the more sober "that's a different story".

Kiuhnm
Tony the Ice Man 21 Lug 2017 22:40
On 07/21/17 1:31 PM, ngs wrote:
> On 21/07/2017 19:17, Tony the Ice Man wrote:
>> The expression is rather dated and perhaps your acquaintance drew from a
>> more youthful treasury of expressions which didn't include that vintage.
>> I'll employ our trusty colon to introduce a couple of explanatory
>> references:
>> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/horse-of-a-different-color--a
>> https://i*****mation.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/horse-of-a-different-color/
>
> Next time I'll use the more sober "that's a different story".

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Lo so che agli italiani piaciono le espressioni che riferiscono alle vedure.
ngs 22 Lug 2017 01:33
On 21/07/2017 22:40, Tony the Ice Man wrote:
> On 07/21/17 1:31 PM, ngs wrote:
>> On 21/07/2017 19:17, Tony the Ice Man wrote:
>>> The expression is rather dated and perhaps your acquaintance drew from a
>>> more youthful treasury of expressions which didn't include that vintage.
>>> I'll employ our trusty colon to introduce a couple of explanatory
>>> references:
>>> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/horse-of-a-different-color--a
>>> https://i*****mation.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/horse-of-a-different-color/
>>
>> Next time I'll use the more sober "that's a different story".
>
> You're comparing apples and oranges.
>
> Lo so che agli italiani piaciono le espressioni che riferiscono alle
> vedure.

... che si riferiscono...

Senza il riflessivo "si", il significato cambia e "riferire" significa
dire/comunicare:
Marco mi ha riferito che oggi ti sei assentato dal lavoro.
Sara riferisce che le sue imprese stanno decollando.

Don't ask me for a general rule about "si" because I don't think there
is a simple one.

Kiuhnm
Tony the Ice Man 22 Lug 2017 03:26
On 07/21/17 4:33 PM, ngs wrote:
> On 21/07/2017 22:40, Tony the Ice Man wrote:
>> Lo so che agli italiani piaciono le espressioni che riferiscono alle
>> vedure.
>
> ... che si riferiscono...
> Senza il riflessivo "si", il significato cambia e "riferire" significa
> dire/comunicare:
> Marco mi ha riferito che oggi ti sei assentato dal lavoro.
> Sara riferisce che le sue imprese stanno decollando.
> Don't ask me for a general rule about "si" because I don't think there
> is a simple one.

Yes, thank you. It's another reminder that my English immersion
knowledge isn't convertible.

Because I believe that you you also appreciate comments on your writing,
let me offer some observations about your earlier email that I let slide
without comment. They are just oddities that hint that the writer may
not be a native English speaker.

The expression "out of this world" typically refers to something amazing
and wonderful. That pizza was out of this world. If you want to imply
"odd," you might say "other worldly," or more informally, "from another
planet" or "from Mars."
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/out-of-this-world

You should say "lately" or "as of late," but not "as of lately." That
doesn't mean you won't be able to find examples of the less common
expression. Here is a discussion of the topic. It mentions an NGram
viewer, something new to me.
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/29810/as-of-late-or-as-of-lately

Google Books Ngram Viewer is an online search engine that charts
frequencies of any set of comma-delimited search strings using a yearly
count of n-grams found in sources printed between 1800 and 2000.
https://books.google.com/ngrams
ngs 22 Lug 2017 14:29
On 22/07/2017 03:26, Tony the Ice Man wrote:
> Because I believe that you you also appreciate comments on your writing,
> let me offer some observations about your earlier email that I let slide
> without comment. They are just oddities that hint that the writer may
> not be a native English speaker.

If you put it that way, then, in a previous post, you wrote ....
Just kidding: I appreciate any help you can give me!

> The expression "out of this world" typically refers to something amazing
> and wonderful. That pizza was out of this world. If you want to imply
> "odd," you might say "other worldly," or more informally, "from another
> planet" or "from Mars."
> https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/out-of-this-world
>
> You should say "lately" or "as of late," but not "as of lately." That
> doesn't mean you won't be able to find examples of the less common
> expression. Here is a discussion of the topic. It mentions an NGram
> viewer, something new to me.
> https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/29810/as-of-late-or-as-of-lately

Thanks Tony, it makes sense. That reminds me of "the reason why" which
is also redundant.

> Google Books Ngram Viewer is an online search engine that charts
> frequencies of any set of comma-delimited search strings using a yearly
> count of n-grams found in sources printed between 1800 and 2000.
> https://books.google.com/ngrams

I have a passing knowledge of n-grams since they come up often in ML/AI.

Kiuhnm
ilChierico 23 Lug 2017 22:58
On 21/07/2017 18:57, ngs wrote:

> Riguardo alla seconda questione, se accettiamo "se stesso" allora perché
> non accettare "al di la"? Io preferisco "sé stesso".

Sospetto che la confusione linguistica abbia molto a che fare col
Sessantotto, io pure assieme alla spiegazione sul vero motivo per cui ci
e' stato insegnato in modo sbagliato quarant'anni fa, ho letto l'appunto
sull'espressione utilizzata dal Manzoni "i miei venticinque lettori",
mutuata da un modo di dire del Cinquecento, che non mi era mai stato
spiegato a scuola.

Come si fa a cambiare l'esegesi del testo manzoniano senza avvisare la
Crusca e senza causare una guerra grammatical-semantico-irreparabile? :-D

Quindi chi ha ragione? Quien sabe O:-)
ADPUF 25 Lug 2017 11:27
ngs 18:57, venerdì 21 luglio 2017:

> On 21/07/2017 18:07, ilChierico wrote:
>> On 21/07/2017 12:37, ngs wrote:
>>
>>> Italian grammarians don't even agree on simple matters such
>>> as "qual'è" versus "qual è" or "sé stesso" vs "se stesso",
>>> so this wouldn't surprise me one bit.
>>
>> For the latter form, I read some sort of explanation. But
>> the former is without any doubt "troncamento" (written in
>> italian to avoid misunderstanding) so "qual e'" is the only
>> correct form.
>
> L'obiezione è che "qual" compare soltanto in un modo di dire
> ormai poco usato: "Qual buon vento [ti porta]!".


c'è anche
"nel qual caso"


> Per questo motivo, alcuni sostengono che "qual" non faccia
> praticamente più parte dell'italiano corrente e si debba
> quindi usare la forma elisa "qual'è".
> Comunque penso che, almeno per ora, "qual è" sia la scelta
> più condivisa e sicura.


Ma non mi pare un errore dei più gravi; scrivendo spesso scappa
l'apostrofo per abitudine a metterlo tra -l e la parola
successiva.


> Riguardo alla seconda questione, se accettiamo "se stesso"
> allora perché non accettare "al di la"? Io preferisco "sé
> stesso".


Ma sì ormai quell'eccezione non ha più senso, se mai l'ha
avuto.


--
AIOE °¿°
Ho plonkato tutti quelli che postano da Google Groups!
Qui è Usenet, non è il Web!
ngs 25 Lug 2017 17:43
On 25/07/2017 11:27, ADPUF wrote:
> ngs 18:57, venerdì 21 luglio 2017:
>
>> On 21/07/2017 18:07, ilChierico wrote:
>>> On 21/07/2017 12:37, ngs wrote:
>>>
>>>> Italian grammarians don't even agree on simple matters such
>>>> as "qual'è" versus "qual è" or "sé stesso" vs "se stesso",
>>>> so this wouldn't surprise me one bit.
>>>
>>> For the latter form, I read some sort of explanation. But
>>> the former is without any doubt "troncamento" (written in
>>> italian to avoid misunderstanding) so "qual e'" is the only
>>> correct form.
>>
>> L'obiezione è che "qual" compare soltanto in un modo di dire
>> ormai poco usato: "Qual buon vento [ti porta]!".
>
>
> c'è anche
> "nel qual caso"

Sì, c'è anche "in un certo qual modo".

Kiuhnm
Fathermckenzie 25 Lug 2017 17:56
Il 25/07/2017 17:43, ngs ha scritto:
>> c'è anche
>> "nel qual caso"
>
> Sì, c'è anche "in un certo qual modo".

"come e in qual misura"
"in un certo qual senso"
"qual piuma al vento"

--
Et interrogabant eum turbae dicentes: “Quid ergo faciemus?”.
Respondens autem dicebat illis: “Qui habet duas tunicas,
det non habenti; et, qui habet escas, similiter faciat”.
(Ev. sec. Lucam 3,10-11)

Links
Giochi online
Dizionario sinonimi
Leggi e codici
Ricette
Testi
Webmatica
Hosting gratis
   
 

Studio e approfondimento della lingua inglese | Tutti i gruppi | it.cultura.linguistica.inglese | Notizie e discussioni linguistica inglese | Linguistica inglese Mobile | Servizio di consultazione news.