User talk:GrammarDamner/Archives/2023/December

condescending 'actually'
Dear GrammarDamner, I note your undo Heat: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia of my undo. Your language is condescending: by 'actually', you mean to imply that I am ignorant of things that you know, and by 'incorrect', you imply that you have superior access to what is actually correct.

Perhaps you are right, that I am ignorant of things that you know, and that you have superior access to what is actually correct. I would like some detail from you to support your position. If you please, enlighten me.Chjoaygame (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, Chjoaygame! Thanks for stopping by! I'm sorry that you incorrectly interpreted some things. I certainly did not imply by that you are ignorant by using the word 'actually', nor did I imply that I have 'superior access' to anything by calling an incorrect comma 'incorrect'. In fact, I'd say your overall tone is a little condescending. For example, you put the word 'improvement' in quotes, even though I hadn't used it. Anyway, I'm more than happy to explain why the comma is incorrect. That particular comma, which is sometimes called a joining comma or conjunction comma, should only be used to separate two independent clauses (subject and verb). In the sentence in question, that comma was separating an independent clause and a dependent clause. Just because we have a conjunction word, in this case 'or', does not mean that we should have a comma before it. I hope this clears it up. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks! GrammarDamner   how are things?  01:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I can understand how you are more than happy to explain why the comma is incorrect.


 * You helpfully define 'clause' as "subject and verb", but we are discussing adverbial phrases, not clauses. I still don't know the source of your views about commas. Perhaps you will enlighten me?


 * I put the comma there to indicate that the two phrases were independent, not dependent. "Amount of ice melted" and "change of temperature" refer to different types of process. Amount of ice melted refers to latent heat, due to a change of phase without change of temperature. Change of temperature characterises sensible heat. Why do you say that the two items are dependent? I accept that a comma there is not strictly obligatory, but I hoped it would help.


 * As for "quotes", I used paired inverted commas, not quotation marks, and I was referring not to your words, but to my own edit cover note's word 'improvement'. It indicated that I thought that you felt your removal of the comma was an improvement; if I had intended to quote your words, I would have written "improvement". Did you feel that your removal of the comma was an improvement?


 * I think that, whether you were conscious of it or not, to an ordinary reader, your usage of 'actually' carries an implication of condescension from a position of superior knowledge.Chjoaygame (talk) 04:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, I feel that removing the incorrect comma was an improvement. The two clauses are dependent (I incorrectly said one of them was independent, sorry) because they could not be complete sentences on their own. As such, they are dependent on other parts of the sentence. If the clauses separated by a conjunction both contain at least one subject and at least one verb, then they require a comma. These aren't my views. These are grammatical rules. As for a source, there are many. Here is the first one that popped up from a Google search. This particular source uses the term conjunction commas and does a good job explaining when and when not to use them. GrammarDamner   how are things?  05:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thoughts.Chjoaygame (talk) 06:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * My pleasure! Thank you for your thoughts too! GrammarDamner   how are things?  23:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)