# Grammar question - is this correct?



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

Is the grammar in this dialogue correct? Does a rhetorical question require a question mark?

_"Kathy, this is Jenny - an old school friend." 
"You mean an old friend from school," Kathy said, laughing. "She doesn't look a bit old."
Marc rolled his eyes. "Teaches English, what more can I say."_

Thanks in advance


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> Is the grammar in this dialogue correct? Does a rhetorical question require a question mark?
> 
> _"Kathy, this is Jenny - an old school friend."
> "You mean an old friend from school," Kathy said, laughing. "She doesn't look a bit old."
> ...


No question mark required.


----------



## David Anderson (Dec 15, 2012)

I think this one is a style call. Could go either way. I don't think that just because a question is rhetorical that you don't need a question mark. It's more to do with the tone of question. Like if it's more facetious and there's no rise in the tone of voice, then you're less likely to need a question mark.

I did notice a comma splice after "Teaches English" (grammatically speaking, it should be a period).


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

David Anderson said:


> I think this one is a style call. Could go either way. I don't think that just because a question is rhetorical that you don't need a question mark. It's more to do with the tone of question. Like if it's more facetious and there's no rise in the tone of voice, then you're less likely to need a question mark.
> 
> I did notice a comma splice after "Teaches English" (grammatically speaking, it should be a period).


Or you could use a dash after "teaches English." In that case, you could replace the earlier dash with a comma.

Personally, I think rhetorical questions -- even one that have become set phrases -- always need question marks.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

Thanks for the replies. Got more than I asked for  

What I wanted to know is if the 'old school friend', and 'old friend from school' bit is correct.


----------



## David Anderson (Dec 15, 2012)

Sorry if I said too much - I'm a bit of a grammar geek.



Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> _"Kathy, this is Jenny - an old school friend."
> "You mean an old friend from school," Kathy said, laughing. "She doesn't look a bit old."
> Marc rolled his eyes. "Teaches English, what more can I say."_


I'm not sure the logical distinction between "an old school friend" and "an old friend from school" comes through. They could both be interpreted to mean she's old.

You could perhaps solve this one by removing Kathy's correction, and just having her laugh and say: "She doesn't look a bit old."

Just a thought!


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

When writing, you want it to read the way you want the voice inflection to be interpeted. Most rhetorial questions do not end with the voice inflection going "up" like a question.  Therefore, regardless of what proper grammer says, if you don't want the reader to read it with a voice inflection going up you leave off the question mark. In my opinion, it is more important for the reader to get the tone and inflection than to be "correct".

You can do it either way, of course.


----------



## Cheryl M. (Jan 11, 2011)

The correction is the one that says she's old. The first one says the school is old. An adjective modifies the noun it precedes. So neither actually work for your purposes, and the English teacher would be wrong. It's just not a good example because it's common in conversational language to say it like that and not be misunderstood, even though grammatically it's incorrect.

ETA: old school friend - school could be a noun functioning as an adjective (making it a cumulative adjective), but its still not totally clear for a grammar nazi. But clearer than old friend from school.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> Is the grammar in this dialogue correct? Does a rhetorical question require a question mark?
> 
> _"Kathy, this is Jenny - an old school friend."
> "You mean an old friend from school," Kathy said, laughing. "She doesn't look a bit old."
> ...


Just sticking to your original question: to be grammatically correct, a rhetorical question requires a question mark.

I have to agree with David Anderson, though, that the distinction you're trying to make doesn't come through since the meaning is the same. I would consider omitting the rhetorical question as he suggestions.


----------



## MegSilver (Feb 26, 2012)

Maybe I'm just being a pill today, but I have to ask:

Did this rhetorical question end up on the page because it's you (author) arguing with yourself, or is this question on the page for a legitimate, story-or-character-driven reason?


----------



## John Daulton (Feb 28, 2012)

You don't *need *a question mark after a rhetorical question because it is a statement not a question, despite how it looks. Having one does not ruin the effect, but you don't need to put one there, as your character is not actually asking anything.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Some people are under the impression that there's a special kind of rhetorical question that doesn't require a question mark because it's uttered like a statement. This is a misunderstanding. *All * rhetorical questions are statements phrased like questions-that's the definition of a rhetorical question.

_"What do you want me to do about it?"_

If there's any stress in the above question, it's not on _it _ (like a question), but on _me _ (like a statement). For example:

_"What time is it?"_

Others are thrown off by the fact that you put a question mark on statement in dialogue that's meant as a question:

_"I want you to go."
"Me?" [= Why me?]_

In light of this convention, they think the punctuation goes both ways, so that you remove the question mark from a question that's uttered like a statement. Not so.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

MegSilver said:


> Maybe I'm just being a pill today, but I have to ask:
> 
> Did this rhetorical question end up on the page because it's you (author) arguing with yourself, or is this question on the page for a legitimate, story-or-character-driven reason?


I didn't put a question mark in the original as it never occurred to me that it required one, but on asking about the 'old school friend' and 'old friend from school' question someone pointed out that I'd missed out the question mark.Then I was obliged to also enquire if I really needed one for a rhetorical question. So it's me, the author enguiring .


----------



## Cheryl M. (Jan 11, 2011)

WHDean said:


> In light of this convention, they think the punctuation goes both ways, so that you remove the question mark from a question that's uttered like a statement. Not so.


Rhetorical questions need a question mark. CMOS 6.66
Direct questions need a question mark. CMOS 6.66
Polite requests in written form do NOT need a question mark. CMOS 6.69 (Would you please send me your Christmas catalog.)
Indirect question do NOT need a question mark. CMOS 6.68 (He asked me if I would send the Christmas catalog tomorrow.)

_A Writer's Reference_, seventh edition, Diana Hacker and Nancy Somers Pg 287

I just completed the Grammar, Mechanics, and Usage class for my copyeditor's certificate, so I just happen to know exactly where these are. 

ETA: exceptions - exclamatory sentence (Are you crazy!)


----------



## John Daulton (Feb 28, 2012)

Cheryl M. said:


> Rhetorical questions need a question mark. CMOS 6.66
> Direct questions need a question mark. CMOS 6.66
> Polite requests in written form do NOT need a question mark. CMOS 6.69 (Would you please send me your Christmas catalog.)
> Indirect question do NOT need a question mark. CMOS 6.68 (He asked me if I would send the Christmas catalog tomorrow.)
> ...


That last bit is the entire point. And in dialogue, you may not want the exclamation point, so a period works just as well. If it's being asked as a question, put a question mark in it. If it's a statement, "Well, ain't that something." There is no need for a question mark.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

John Daulton said:


> That last bit is the entire point. And in dialogue, you may not want the exclamation point, so a period works just as well. If it's being asked as a question, put a question mark in it. If it's a statement, "Well, ain't that something." There is no need for a question mark.


Actually the last bit is not the entire point because in no way is the rhetorical question she was asking about an exclamatory sentence.

It is a rhetorical question. They require a question mark to be grammatically correct.


----------



## CaseyHollingshead (Dec 8, 2012)

Nothing necessarily "needs" anything. Breaking the rules is almost essential to strong writing.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

CaseyHollingshead said:


> Nothing necessarily "needs" anything. Breaking the rules is almost essential to strong writing.


Wrong.

It needs it if it is to be _grammatically correct_. That was her question. Her question was NOT: Can I get away with breaking the rules of grammar?

We should know the rules of grammar because we are wordsmiths. Breaking the rules should be a* choice* because it serves our purpose in storytelling and NOT because we won't bother to learn the difference.


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> Thanks for the replies. Got more than I asked for
> 
> What I wanted to know is if the 'old school friend', and 'old friend from school' bit is correct.


No... saying old school friend is not incorrect.

I've been trying to think of an alternative... The idea is cute.

How about, "This is Jenny, I knew her real good when we were in school."

"You mean, real well, don't you?."

Or...

"After going to school all those years ago with Jenny, she knows me really well."

She laughed. "You've got a dangling modifier there. Jenny went to school with herself?"

I don't know. Good luck!!


----------



## CaseyHollingshead (Dec 8, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> Wrong.
> 
> It needs it if it is to be _grammatically correct_. That was her question. Her question was NOT: Can I get away with breaking the rules of grammar?
> 
> We should know the rules of grammar because we are wordsmiths. Breaking the rules should be a* choice* because it serves our purpose in storytelling and NOT because we won't bother to learn the difference.


I felt as though her question had already been answered and was simply making another observation.


----------



## Cheryl M. (Jan 11, 2011)

CaseyHollingshead said:


> Nothing necessarily "needs" anything. Breaking the rules is almost essential to strong writing.


I disagree. Knowing how to break rules WELL is a REFLECTION of strong writing. It must be done well. Anyone can break rules. That doesn't mean it's strong writing.


----------



## CaseyHollingshead (Dec 8, 2012)

Cheryl M. said:


> I disagree. Knowing how to break rules WELL is a REFLECTION of strong writing. It must be done well. Anyone can break rules. That doesn't mean it's strong writing.


Of course.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> I disagree. Knowing how to break rules WELL is a REFLECTION of strong writing. It must be done well. Anyone can break rules. That doesn't mean it's strong writing.


And what one may consider is doing it well may not be by another.  That's the beauty ofwriting.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

CaseyHollingshead said:


> I felt as though her question had already been answered and was simply making another observation.


Sorry, I interpreted your comment as meaning that the rules don't matter. They matter whether we always follow them or not.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Cheryl M. said:


> Rhetorical questions need a question mark. CMOS 6.66
> Direct questions need a question mark. CMOS 6.66
> Polite requests in written form do NOT need a question mark. CMOS 6.69 (Would you please send me your Christmas catalog.)
> Indirect question do NOT need a question mark. CMOS 6.68 (He asked me if I would send the Christmas catalog tomorrow.)
> ...


Maybe they left this out of the course.  The CMS and _A Writer's Reference _ are style guides, neither is a grammar nor a rhetoric, but each is a little of both. Grammar is _proper syntax_ (not including meaning or intention), rhetoric is figures of speech. The concept _rhetorical question _ belongs to rhetoric, not to grammar, because a rhetorical question is identical with a non-rhetorical question from a syntactical standpoint. The difference is tone and meaning. Paradigm example:

"Where do you *think * you're going?" (Question asked to a lost tourist)
"Where do you think *you're* going?" (= "You're not going anywhere." Said by angry mother to child)

Like I said, the first is not a rhetorical question, but the second is, even though the two sentences are identical.

Indirect questions belong to grammar, but they're not questions. The term is just a word for a class of statement.

"Polite requests" doesn't represent a specific grammatical or rhetorical category. You can ask for something in a lot of ways. What's right and what wrong depends on the sentence. The example you gave couldn't be construed as a question.


----------



## Cheryl M. (Jan 11, 2011)

WHDean said:


> Maybe they left this out of the course.  The CMS and _A Writer's Reference _ are style guides, neither is a grammar nor a rhetoric, but each is a little of both. Grammar is _proper syntax_


No, A Writer's Reference is not a style guide, it's a reference guide for grammar, punctuation, mechanics, and usage. It's also a *quick* reference to AP, MLA, and CMOS (it actually covers very little style). Syntax is covered under usage. And syntax doesn't change the punctuation.

LOL! I hate these discussions because they always just go around in circles. <---Not intended to be snark!


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

From Grammar Girl:

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/rhetorical-questions-question-mark.aspx



> You've probably heard rhetorical questions more often than you realize. You start a sentence with a negative word when you mean something positive. So "Wasn't that movie great?" means that you think the movie was great. It seems counterintuitive, but that's the way English works. It's called a rhetorical question, and it can end in either a question mark or an exclamation point, *and in dialogue you can sometimes even have a speaker's rhetorical question end in a period * (1).


(Bold added by me.)

The reference source she uses is Grammatically Correct, by Anne Stilman, which states this on page 117 & 118:



> In dialogue, it is sometimes realistic to have a speaker's rhetorical question end in a period.
> 
> Look, why don't we just drop the whole thing.
> Well, isn't that just dandy.
> ...


So, no, the rhetorical question in your example does not require a question mark, since it's dialogue.


----------



## Cheryl M. (Jan 11, 2011)

swolf said:


> The reference source she uses is Grammatically Correct, by Anne Stilman, which states this on page 117 & 118:
> 
> So, no, the rhetorical question in your example does not require a question mark, since it's dialogue.


Now you have options! 

3 key points to copy editing: 1. There's rarely a right or wrong answer. 2. Whatever you do, be consistent. 3. Be able to support your choices (if you can provide reliable supporting citations, you can do it-Elmo is not a reliable source).


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

Without jumping into style guides, I'd say the question of whether "You mean an old friend from school" should have a comma or a question mark depends on phrasing.

If it's phrased as a statement, then it's _not_ a rhetorical question. As a statement, it should have the comma.

If it's phrased as a question, then I think the question mark is absolutely required there. The question mark is a cue for the reader to expect the uptick in inflection at the end of the sentence.

When I read your example I took the comma to mean that Kathy was phrasing that as a statement. The sentence itself is verbally ambiguous without punctuation, because it is omitting either "do" ("Do you") or "must" ("You must"). The punctuation is what makes it clear. If you intended the sentence as a question, the comma is incorrect.

In dialogue I never leave the question mark out of a question, except under specific circumstances:

1) The question is cut off by a dash.
2) The speaker is inflecting a question as a statement. (Usually this gets explained afterward, and I still use the question mark.)

The first rule doesn't apply to ellipses; they always get followed by a question mark if they're in a question, except for the rhetorical "So..." which I treat as more of a statement.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

In this case, the question would be (non-rhetorically) which do you consider more authoritative? _Grammatically Correct_ by Anne Stilman or the _The Chicago Manual of Style_

I suspect most of you know my opinion on that, but one could use _Grammatically Correct_ as justification if one didn't want to believe CMoS.


----------



## Cheryl M. (Jan 11, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> In this case, the question would be (non-rhetorically) which do you consider more authoritative? _Grammatically Correct_ by Anne Stilman or the _The Chicago Manual of Style_
> 
> I suspect most of you know my opinion on that, but one could use _Grammatically Correct_ as justification if one didn't want to believe CMoS.


True, but even CMOS can be vague at times. And sometimes you want a very specific answer. 6.66 is still pretty vague, so it wouldn't be a stretch to decide to use a period and not be wrong if you have supporting evidence (which I would say Stilman qualifies-that doesn't mean a person can't argue the opposite, only that you have support for your choices). There are a couple things that I don't agree with in the CMOS, along with many other copyeditors. Lots of us need to support our choices often. When you do need to defend your choices, if there is a compelling argument for your case, you'll generally be okay. Unless you have a CMOS die-hard prescriptivist boss/client. Like you would be.  In which case, support shmupport, you'd want CMOS compliance and no arguments about it. And that's fine too.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Cheryl M. said:


> True, but even CMOS can be vague at times. And sometimes you want a very specific answer. 6.66 is still pretty vague, so it wouldn't be a stretch to decide to use a period and not be wrong if you have supporting evidence (which I would say Stilman qualifies-that doesn't mean a person can't argue the opposite, only that you have support for your choices). There are a couple things that I don't agree with in the CMOS, along with many other copyeditors. Lots of us need to support our choices often. When you do need to defend your choices, if there is a compelling argument for your case, you'll generally be okay. Unless you have a CMOS die-hard prescriptivist boss/client. Like you would be.  In which case, support shmupport, you'd want CMOS compliance and no arguments about it. And that's fine too.


Fortunately for the (theoretical) poor sod, I have no employee to beat into submission, and my co-author on fantasies is even more of a CMoS diehard than I am.

I didn't think 6.66 was vague, but I actually agree with you that if you need a justification, Grammatically Correct gives you one. (ETA: I suppose. I don't know that particular reference and not all references are created equal. I"d have to know more about the book, really) Of course, I always say if you know the rule and it isn't working for you in your fiction--I'd say differently in non-fiction--then break it, so maybe I'm less prescriptive than one might think.

I just tend to take my rules to break from CMoS.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Cheryl M. said:


> True, but even CMOS can be vague at times. And sometimes you want a very specific answer. 6.66 is still pretty vague, so it wouldn't be a stretch to decide to use a period and not be wrong if you have supporting evidence (which I would say Stilman qualifies-that doesn't mean a person can't argue the opposite, only that you have support for your choices).


My version of The Chicago Manual of Style (15th Edition) makes no mention of rhetorical questions. So I'm guessing you're using the 16th Edition. Could you give us the direct quote from 6.66?


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

swolf said:


> From Grammar Girl:
> 
> http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/rhetorical-questions-question-mark.aspx
> 
> ...


I call this the "orthographic conceit": the mistaken belief that punctuation can stand in for things conveyed by living speakers beyond questions, statements, and shouts. Add an ellipsis to every sentence because, in your mind, the speaker pauses a lot: "I think I&#8230;love&#8230;you." Add in some extra commas because-like Captain Kirk-the speaker has a halting speech pattern: "Scotty, I, need, some, help, here!" Italicize every word where the speaker would have added emphasis: "I _don't _ want to _go_." And, of course, the always trusty vowel stretch: "But I neeeed you baaabyyyy!"

All these conventions are fine and good in comic books. But writers are expected to convey meaning through words-descriptions, beats, tags-not through font manipulation ("Arrrrgh!" he exclaimed). Come to that, most style guides will tell you not to use exclamation marks for every raised voice because it's gets gimmicky real quick, even though it's grammatically correct to do so.

Conveying inflection or tone with a period after a question falls into the same category. The period conveys no definite distinction that will be recognized by the reader because it conveys too many things to be meaningful. By your own admission, "So he really said that, did he" conveys two distinctly different intentions: uninterested or musing reaction. Well, which is it? Was the speaker "uninterested" or was he "musing"? Or was he irritated? Or disappointed? Or, was he ten other things that a flat delivery would convey? And was it really a flat delivery or was it a typo? And where do I, the reader, go to find out about the special meaning of periods after questions?

If you want to covey how someone said something-beyond question or exclamation-you have to tell and you have to pick unambiguous expressions.

"Look, why don't we just drop the whole thing" and "Well, isn't that just dandy" could be said a dozen different ways by emphasizing different words (e.g., why, drop, whole; that, dandy) and by using different facial expressions. And you can't tell in real life whether the speaker expects a response when you're standing in front of him by the way he says it. So what does using a period in written prose convey exactly when the question mark on a rhetorical question doesn't tell you whether a response is solicited or not? That he didn't utter the rhetorical question like a question? Well, of course he didn't utter the rhetorical question like a question-that's why it's given a special name, "rhetorical question."

By the way, questions like "So he really said that, did he?" are a special kind of rhetorical question called _tag questions_. They're informal and only used in speech.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

WHDean said:


> I call this the "orthographic conceit": the mistaken belief that punctuation can stand in for things conveyed by living speakers beyond questions, statements, and shouts.


The post you quoted and replied to dealt only with question marks, periods and exclamation points. That would be your "questions, statements, and shouts."

Sometime I think you just like to hear yourself talk. (Or, read your own words, as the case may be.)


----------



## Cheryl M. (Jan 11, 2011)

swolf said:


> My version of The Chicago Manual of Style (15th Edition) makes no mention of rhetorical questions. So I'm guessing you're using the 16th Edition. Could you give us the direct quote from 6.66?


I'm out to lunch with the hubs right now, but will when I get home. It doesn't specifically say rhetorical question either. It says something to the effect of questions conveying surprise (and other emotions I can't recall-basically lumping it in there under a broader concept).

Will quote directly when I get home.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Cheryl M. said:


> I'm out to lunch with the hubs right now, but will when I get home. It doesn't specifically say rhetorical question either. It says something to the effect of questions conveying surprise (and other emotions I can't recall-basically lumping it in there under a broader concept).
> 
> Will quote directly when I get home.


I've signed up for the online version, but I can't get to it until I get home.

Sounds like 6.66 is similar to 6.70 in the 15 Edition, which reads:



> 6.70 Use of the question mark. The question mark is used to mark a direct question, to indicate an editorial doubt, or (occasionally) to express surprise or disbelief. A double question mark, sometimes used humorously to express totall surprise or confusion, is generally to be avoided. See also 6.77,6.121, 6.123.
> 
> Who will represent the poor?
> Tomas Kraftig (1610?-66) was the subject of the final essay.
> This is your reply?


The last example - the one for using a question mark to express surprise or disbelief - is not a rhetorical question. It's not even a question unless you add the question mark.

If that's what the 16th Edition is saying in 6.66, then, no, the Chicago Manual of Style is not saying that rhetorical questions need a question mark.


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

WHDean said:


> I call this the "orthographic conceit": the mistaken belief that punctuation can stand in for things conveyed by living speakers beyond questions, statements, and shouts. Add an ellipsis to every sentence because, in your mind, the speaker pauses a lot: "I think I&#8230;love&#8230;you." Add in some extra commas because-like Captain Kirk-the speaker has a halting speech pattern: "Scotty, I, need, some, help, here!" Italicize every word where the speaker would have added emphasis: "I _don't _ want to _go_." And, of course, the always trusty vowel stretch: "But I neeeed you baaabyyyy!"
> 
> All these conventions are fine and good in comic books. But writers are expected to convey meaning through words-descriptions, beats, tags-not through font manipulation ("Arrrrgh!" he exclaimed). Come to that, most style guides will tell you not to use exclamation marks for every raised voice because it's gets gimmicky real quick, even though it's grammatically correct to do so.
> 
> Conveying inflection or tone with a period after a question falls into the same category. The period conveys no definite distinction that will be recognized by the reader because it conveys too many things to be meaningful. By your own admission, "So he really said that, did he" conveys two distinctly different intentions: uninterested or musing reaction. Well, which is it? Was the speaker "uninterested" or was he "musing"? Or was he irritated? Or disappointed? Or, was he ten other things that a flat delivery would convey? And was it really a flat delivery or was it a typo? And where do I, the reader, go to find out about the special meaning of periods after questions?


Though I think swolf is wrong about leaving off the question mark if the question is in fact meant to be a question (albeit rhetorical; that's irrelevant), I would disagree as a matter of style that using punctuation this way is a grammatical crime. Like all devices, it just needs to be handled well, and it's disastrous when mishandled. To me this falls into the exact same category of a character with an accent. Writing accents gets gimmicky very fast, and most writers tend to agree that they shouldn't be written. But mannerisms and quirks in their speech outside of pronunciation usually _should_ be written.

The exclamation point relies on subtlety to be effective. It may need to be used when the volume ticks up suddenly, but if you have an entire conversation shouted then it should be almost nonexistent, and the shouting should be conveyed a different way. Likewise using all caps. Similar discretion should be used for a character who pauses frequently; once it's been established, it doesn't need to be beaten to death. The overuse of italics is difficult to read, but using them sporadically is highly effective.

When we write dialogue it has to be infused with life, and that can't always be done by asides. I see it as a balancing act between trying to get the most you can out of established conventions--punctuation, italics, etc.--and filling in the rest as best you can, but without getting cutesy or annoying by overdoing it. Punctuation gives us some tools for indicating the tone of the speaker, but they're not perfect tools. Using ellipses and exclamation points occasionally is perfectly valid if you don't go overboard. And yes, I've even used vowel extension on rare occasions, but "rare" is the operative word here; I'm talking once per book rare.

All that said, it's very uncommon for me to put a period at the end of a question even when it's phrased without the inflections of a question. (Exception: I did have a character speaking through a speech synthesizer, where the punctuation helped ground what she was saying and keep her voice from sounding too "real".) There are hundreds of different ways to inflect any given sentence, and as I said the punctuation is only a limited tool. If the guts of the sentence are still very much a question, and I merely want to convey that the speaker is saying it in a way that takes most of the question out of it, I tend to still use the question mark but say something about their tone. If their question has been _completely_ drained of that, I might use the period. Rhetorical questions don't pass this test; a rhetorical question is still very much a question. The period substitution only ever comes into play when a character is firmly making a point using a question as pretext; it's very blunt, very obvious, and the period caps it off. This is the kind of subtle use such a device demands if it's going to be used at all.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Lummox JR said:


> Though I think swolf is wrong about leaving off the question mark if the question is in fact meant to be a question...


I posted from two grammatical sources, so it's not really me you're claiming is wrong.

As for The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th Edition, here's what it has to say about question marks:

http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org (You can get a free, 30-day subscription.)



> *6.66 Use of the question mark *
> 
> The question mark, as its name suggests, is used to indicate a direct question. It may also be used to indicate editorial doubt (e.g., regarding a date or facts of publication; see 14.13 or (occasionally) at the end of a declarative or imperative sentence in order to express surprise, disbelief, or uncertainty. See also 6.72, 6.116, 6.118.
> 
> ...


No mention of rhetorical questions there.

Also, with The Chicago Manual of Style online, there's the ability for users to ask questions to get clarification. Here is one of those questions:

http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Punctuation/faq0068.html



> Punctuation
> 
> Q. What's the accepted usage when one wants to put both a question mark and an exclamation mark? For instance, "Who could blame him" is clearly a question, but in context becomes more like an exclamation.
> 
> A. You can use an exclamation point. Readers will understand: Who could blame him! *It's a rhetorical question in any case, and such questions often take a period rather than a question mark.*


(Bold added by me.)

So, there you have it. The Chicago Manual of Style makes no mention of question mark use for rhetorical questions, and when someone specifically asked about it, they were told that rhetorical questions often take a period rather than a question mark.

Is there any more doubt to the answer here? I'm curious if those who are claiming that the Chicago Manual of Style is the bible of grammar, are going to agree with it in this case. (And I wonder if you've even read it in the first place.)


----------



## Cheryl M. (Jan 11, 2011)

swolf said:


> So, there you have it. The Chicago Manual of Style makes no mention of question mark use for rhetorical questions, and when someone specifically asked about it, they were told that rhetorical questions often take a period rather than a question mark.


Sure, if that's what they said, great. I'm all for going with it. 

But it's not in the CMOS at all, so this is a question relying upon interpretations, which is why I said 6.66 is vague. A rhetorical question is still a question that you could argue is an emotional response, such as disbelief or surprise (it's usually sarcasm). Using that chapter to guide you in using a question mark or not wouldn't be wrong. _Often taking a period_ leaves a bit of wiggle room too.

If there were a definitive black and white answer, it would probably not be vague. This question comes up often and there's still no direct answer in the CMOS. *shrugs* I've yet to have a client with a rhetorical question that would've been better understood with a period. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, just that I've never come across it. LOL or maybe I just corrected with a question mark. Most people know a rhetorical question when they see one, question mark or no.

Regardless, I most definitely agree; it's been cleared up enough.

Personally, I don't like rhetorical questions, so I'm always on the side of getting rid of them altogether.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

I agree, Cheryl.  I'm all for writers having as many options open to them as possible, and if the grammar rules allow it, then I say go for it. (And sometimes even when they don't.   )

As for using rhetorical questions, I would agree that limiting them in narration is the right thing to do.  But people use them all the time when speaking, and placing them in dialogue adds realism (without overdoing it.)


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Lummox JR said:


> Though I think swolf is wrong about leaving off the question mark if the question is in fact meant to be a question (albeit rhetorical; that's irrelevant), I would disagree as a matter of style that using punctuation this way is a grammatical crime. Like all devices, it just needs to be handled well, and it's disastrous when mishandled. To me this falls into the exact same category of a character with an accent. Writing accents gets gimmicky very fast, and most writers tend to agree that they shouldn't be written. But mannerisms and quirks in their speech outside of pronunciation usually _should_ be written.
> 
> The exclamation point relies on subtlety to be effective. It may need to be used when the volume ticks up suddenly, but if you have an entire conversation shouted then it should be almost nonexistent, and the shouting should be conveyed a different way. Likewise using all caps. Similar discretion should be used for a character who pauses frequently; once it's been established, it doesn't need to be beaten to death. The overuse of italics is difficult to read, but using them sporadically is highly effective.
> 
> ...


I agree in the main. You could even use all caps in a case where you're reporting what's written on a piece of paper or computer screen; e.g., DIE. But using it to convey the fact that the character is shouting is just poor form (e.g., "DIE!" he shouted).

Anyway, I had three points:

1. Talking about rules and breaking them is wrongheaded. There are no "rules." There are just conventions. You follow them or you don't.

2. Rhetorical questions belong to rhetoric, not to grammar. Punctuation follows grammar, not rhetoric. Thus, a rhetorical question is a question, punctuated like a question. The best policy is obvious by the responses here: some people accept some rhetorical questions with periods in some contexts. Yet no one has provided a principle for it, so no one really agrees on when it's right and when it's wrong. But who has objected to always using a question mark? No one. There's the answer.

3. Intonation is no guide to punctuating anything but declarative questions (e.g., "You went there?"). In that case, you have no way to tell if it's a question. In spoken North American English, however, some questions-like wh-questions-sound like declarative sentences because there's no rise in tone at the end. Compare the questions with the statements:

_When's the game? Game's at eight.
Where's the bathroom? The bathroom's down the hall.
What's his beef? Don't know._

So to argue that rhetorical questions shouldn't be punctuated with question marks by appeal to intonation is nonsensical. Why not leave it off these questions too? If the answer is because they're rhetorical questions, see point 2.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

swolf said:


> So, there you have it. The Chicago Manual of Style makes no mention of question mark use for rhetorical questions, and when someone specifically asked about it, they were told that rhetorical questions often take a period rather than a question mark.
> 
> Is there any more doubt to the answer here?


That's not an answer. It's a waffle. The answer says rhetorical questions "often take a period rather than a question mark." Which rhetorical questions and how often? In which contexts? All or only some? Based on that answer, tell me if I've punctuated the following correctly:

_Can a man be completely guilty of a crime. Was what I did really so wrong. Who could blame me. _

It shouldn't be hard if that's a real answer. But it isn't a real answer based on any principle other than "Do as you will." And once you ask ten people and get ten different answers, you'll do the smart thing and follow my principle--which, unlike yours and the CMS respondent's, is based on something.


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

Not to start a kerfuffle here, swolf, but I wasn't really addressing the CMS, just the idea that Grammar Girl suggesting the question mark is skippable doesn't really hold up well under common sense. Most places you have a question, you use a question mark, and reasonable exceptions are thin on the ground. I don't recall ever seeing a reasonable example of the idea that a rhetorical question is treated any differently than a regular one, so her answer deserves a big "citation needed" stamp. (And frankly, I don't give the CMS a great deal of weight in terms of punctuation usage in dialogue. Their handling of ellipses for instance is terrible.)

But none of that has any bearing on the text at hand, because the punctuation is absolutely crucial to establishing whether the sentence is a statement at all. Kathy's reply in the OP's text is either a statement or a question. The words are ambiguous as to which; therefore the punctuation is the deciding factor. If the OP meant it to be a question, a question mark is mandatory to make that distinction because otherwise a reader will see it as a statement. One is "Do you mean" and the other is "You must mean", each with one of the critical words omitted that would give it context.

If the wording had been "Do you mean", we would be unambiguously dealing with a question. And I'd say in that case, the use of the comma comes off as wrong. I have to go with WH on this: Always including the question mark is universally accepted, but dropping it is a huge gray area. There doesn't seem to be enough of a reason to wade into the gray.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

WHDean said:


> That's not an answer. It's a waffle. The answer says rhetorical questions "often take a period rather than a question mark." Which rhetorical questions and how often? In which contexts? All or only some? Based on that answer, tell me if I've punctuated the following correctly:
> 
> _Can a man be completely guilty of a crime. Was what I did really so wrong. Who could blame me. _
> 
> It shouldn't be hard if that's a real answer. But it isn't a real answer based on any principle other than "Do as you will." And once you ask ten people and get ten different answers, you'll do the smart thing and follow my principle--which, unlike yours and the CMS respondent's, is based on something.


It's an answer to the question asked. And it clearly shows that the Chicago Manual of Style doesn't require question marks for rhetorical questions.

But of course, we find out now that you not only know more than dictionaries, you also know more about grammar than those responsible for the Chicago Manual of Style.

Bwahahaha! You're funny, dude.

Never admit you're wrong. Never.    It's comical, really.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Lummox JR said:


> Not to start a kerfuffle here, swolf, but I wasn't really addressing the CMS, just the idea that Grammar Girl suggesting the question mark is skippable doesn't really hold up well under common sense.


First of all, you said I was wrong, not Grammar Girl, which is the only issue I had with you.



Lummox JR said:


> Most places you have a question, you use a question mark, and reasonable exceptions are thin on the ground. I don't recall ever seeing a reasonable example of the idea that a rhetorical question is treated any differently than a regular one, so her answer deserves a big "citation needed" stamp. (And frankly, I don't give the CMS a great deal of weight in terms of punctuation usage in dialogue. Their handling of ellipses for instance is terrible.)


She did give citation. It was in the excerpt I posted.

As much as you can argue that it makes 'sense' that all questions must have a question mark, I can argue that it makes 'sense' that the purpose of rhetorical questions aren't to ask questions, but instead make statements. And therefore, it makes 'sense' not to use a question mark.



Lummox JR said:


> But none of that has any bearing on the text at hand, because the punctuation is absolutely crucial to establishing whether the sentence is a statement at all. Kathy's reply in the OP's text is either a statement or a question. The words are ambiguous as to which; therefore the punctuation is the deciding factor. If the OP meant it to be a question, a question mark is mandatory to make that distinction because otherwise a reader will see it as a statement. One is "Do you mean" and the other is "You must mean", each with one of the critical words omitted that would give it context.


You're confused. The line the OP was asking about (concerning the rhetorical question) was this one:

Marc rolled his eyes. "Teaches English, what more can I say."

Not the line before that.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

David Anderson said:


> Sorry if I said too much - I'm a bit of a grammar geek.
> 
> I'm not sure the logical distinction between "an old school friend" and "an old friend from school" comes through. They could both be interpreted to mean she's old.


This is what I thought. We used to joke about members of our club being: 
A) members of long standing
B) long standing members.

Not sure if long-standing needs a hyphen. Long standing members would be those who stood around for a long time . I was trying to use this type of comparison. Perhaps Kathy's correction could be: "A friend from my old school."


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

swolf said:


> It's an answer to the question asked. And it clearly shows that the Chicago Manual of Style doesn't require question marks for rhetorical questions.
> 
> But of course, we find out now that you not only know more than dictionaries, you also know more about grammar than those responsible for the Chicago Manual of Style.
> 
> ...


I guess I should be pleased that I've converted you from AP to CMS. If "Sex Zombies 2" is a little more professionally written than its predecessor, some small share of the credit must surely go to me. (Don't forget to mention me in the acknowledgements!)

All the same, if the A in the CMS Q&A is a real answer, you should've been able to apply it to the series of three rhetorical questions I gave you-after all, the measure of good style advice is that it's applicable. But you didn't follow through. The reason, I take it, is that there is only one sensible solution-i.e., question marks on all three-and that solution is mine. All the alternatives would've been unbalanced or just plain awkward.

And there's the rub. It's easy to say "some rhetorical questions don't need question marks," and it's easy to come up with a shortlist of ones you think don't. But it's a bad principle to follow because your list won't overlap with the next person's list, and some people won't see a reason to use a period at all, so they'll be confused or take it for a mistake.

Now, you can cast about for some more authorities to confute me, which is not hard. I'm sure you can find someone who recommends just about everything. But authorities are immaterial to my case, because I didn't appeal to authority in the first place. Go back and read the thread: Cheryl brought up CMS, and I said that it was a style guide, not grammar or a rhetoric. I didn't cite the CMS or anything else as an authority because I made an argument.

That argument is as sound as it was when I first stated it: (1) "rhetorical question" is a rhetorical classification, not a grammatical one, so it offers no support either way; (2) question marks only follow intonation in the case of declarative questions (i.e., statements posed as questions); and (3) it's a good idea to use question marks on all questions because there's no accepted convention around using a period with them.

As an aside, your claim that I can't admit that I'm wrong is wrong. I have in fact admitted that I was wrong on KB. For example, I publically retracted my statements over the "gifting books to raise one's rank" dispute because I was under the impression that it was against Amazon's policy. Once it was revealed that it wasn't, I publically acknowledged that I was wrong and took back what I'd said (instead of just walking away from the thread), even though I'm not anonymous-like you. How many of your 3,278 posts feature you admitting you're wrong over anything? For some reason I suspect your admissions tally up to an even zero.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> Not sure if long-standing needs a hyphen. Long standing members would be those who stood around for a long stime . I was trying to use this type of comparison. Perhaps Kathy's correction could be: "A friend from my old school."


I think you're right, Jan, that someone who was really uptight about avoiding ambiguous modifiers would say something like the above, whereas the modifier "old" was syntactically ambiguous in both of the statements in your OP. That said, in real usage, anyone with a good grasp of English would understand the expression "old school friend" to mean "a friend from my old school," so Kathy does come off as obsessive or a pedant -- not just "an English teacher." I mean, I'm an English teacher, and I'd be perfectly happy with "old school friend" or "old friend from school."


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

For anyone who is interested in a reasonably authoritative summary of the use of question marks, as opposed to one of the usual back and forth ad infinitum arguments, I recommend this online educational source.

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/question.htm

Yes, there are grammatical "rules". Yes, you can choose to break them, but this is what they are.

ETA: As has been pointed out, I'm a bit of a CMoS purist, but some people want something simpler and more concise. This addresses the conventions which are fairly universally accepted (in the US) as grammatical.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

Becca Mills said:


> I think you're right, Jan, that someone who was really uptight about avoiding ambiguous modifiers would say something like the above, whereas the modifier "old" was syntactically ambiguous in both of the statements in your OP. That said, in real usage, anyone with a good grasp of English would understand the expression "old school friend" to mean "a friend from my old school," so Kathy does come off as obsessive or a pedant -- not just "an English teacher." I mean, I'm an English teacher, and I'd be perfectly happy with "old school friend" or "old friend from school."


Thanks. Can you think of a better way of saying it so that she doesn't come across as a complete pedant? It's for a short story and I need to establish character and the relationship between Marc and his wife, Kathy.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

The majority of people don't use perfect grammar when speaking. To make characters do that can make the characters sound very stilted. This whole thread makes me laugh. Too many people would rather be "correct" in regard to question mark/period then realisitic in their dialog.  Odd, since I assume most on here are writers. Dialog is a huge part of writing.

Perhaps I am "wrong" according to your style books when I use something other than a question mark for a rhetorical question, but I am right in regard to how I want my character to sound. As a writer, that's what matters to me. If I taught English, I would do it differently.  (But then I would explain that sometimes rules make written dialog sound fake and perhaps the writer should ignore them.)

To each their own, of course. Just keep in mind that sometimes "correct" makes your character sound pompous and so formal that one wonders if they have a stick up their...style manual.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

WHDean said:


> I guess I should be pleased that I've converted you from AP to CMS.


I didn't bring CMS up in this thread. I merely pointed out what it says. I would think that if someone is claiming it should be followed, they would have actually read it.



WHDean said:


> If "Sex Zombies 2" is a little more professionally written than its predecessor, some small share of the credit must surely go to me. (Don't forget to mention me in the acknowledgements!)


That's pretty ballsy for someone with no books in his signature.



WHDean said:


> All the same, if the A in the CMS Q&A is a real answer, you should've been able to apply it to the series of three rhetorical questions I gave you-after all, the measure of good style advice is that it's applicable. But you didn't follow through. The reason, I take it, is that there is only one sensible solution-i.e., question marks on all three-and that solution is mine. All the alternatives would've been unbalanced or just plain awkward.


It's a simple concept. Let me draw it in crayon so you can understand it.

The response answered the question asked. Quite clearly, in fact. But here's the important part, so pay attention. The question wasn't, 'When should I used question marks with rhetorical questions?'. So you're obtusely asking it to answer a question that wasn't asked.

However, if someone from the organization responsible for the Chicago Manual of Style makes the statement, "It's a rhetorical question in any case, and such questions often take a period rather than a question mark," then it can be logically deduced that the Chicago Manual of Style doesn't require question marks for rhetorical questions.

Again, it's a simple concept. If you need help with the big words, let me know.



WHDean said:


> Now, you can cast about for some more authorities to confute me, which is not hard. I'm sure you can find someone who recommends just about everything. But authorities are immaterial to my case, because I didn't appeal to authority in the first place. Go back and read the thread: Cheryl brought up CMS, and I said that it was a style guide, not grammar or a rhetoric. I didn't cite the CMS or anything else as an authority because I made an argument.


You have cited CMS as an authority. Right here:



WHDean said:


> Most publishing houses and universities (i.e., those without an internal style guide) across North American have adopted the _Chicago Manual of Style _ (em-dash, no spaces).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So, if you want to write newspaper articles, use AP style. If you want to write books, use _Chicago_.


And here:



WHDean said:


> If you follow _The Chicago Manual of Style_-which you should-_parks _ would be capitalized because the word _park _ is part of the name of both entities (8.52). But be careful about how you word it. If you write "I go to two *parks*, Prospect and Central," _parks _ is no longer capitalized because it's now a generic description (CMS 8.53).


And here:



WHDean said:


> Well, one way is to indulge in fantasies about your authorial voice, and how you don't need "The Man's rulebook," and how everyone who came before you couldn't possibly teach you anything about writing because you're the uniquest of Gaia's snowflakes. The other way is to follow the good advice and accepted standards codified in books like Chicago and get over yourself.


Yeah, authorities are immaterial to you. 

You just want to blather your opinion, and if an authority agrees with it, then you cite it, if it doesn't, it's immaterial to you.



WHDean said:


> That argument is as sound as it was when I first stated it: (1) "rhetorical question" is a rhetorical classification, not a grammatical one, so it offers no support either way; (2) question marks only follow intonation in the case of declarative questions (i.e., statements posed as questions); and (3) it's a good idea to use question marks on all questions because there's no accepted convention around using a period with them.


I'll just paraphrase what you told someone else...

Well, one way is to indulge in fantasies about your rhetorical classification, and how you don't need "authorities," and how everyone who came before you couldn't possibly teach you anything about writing because you're the uniquest of Gaia's snowflakes. The other way is to follow the good advice and accepted standards codified in books like Chicago and get over yourself.



WHDean said:


> As an aside, your claim that I can't admit that I'm wrong is wrong. I have in fact admitted that I was wrong on KB. For example, I publically retracted my statements over the "gifting books to raise one's rank" dispute because I was under the impression that it was against Amazon's policy. Once it was revealed that it wasn't, I publically acknowledged that I was wrong and took back what I'd said (instead of just walking away from the thread), even though I'm not anonymous-like you. How many of your 3,278 posts feature you admitting you're wrong over anything? For some reason I suspect your admissions tally up to an even zero.


When I'm wrong, I admit it, like here: http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,135202.msg1987246.html#msg1987246

But, unlike you, I don't spout off my opinion like it's fact, and I don't write long-winded posts about how we really shouldn't listen to dictionaries when they disagree with me, or that I know more than the creators of the CMS.

And you're not anonymous like me? Huh? I'm using my real name, with links to my books in my signature, and authors pages that have my picture on them.

Who the hell are you again?


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

There are grammatical rules.

However, each business, English teacher, college professor, and publication arbitrates the rules differently. That is why there are style guides. _The Chicago Manual of Style_ is generally considered the "go to" style guide for books in the US, but not universally. There are other style guides, including but not limited to the Modern Language Association.

Any discussion of "correct grammar" will be futile if the participants do not first state which style guide will govern the discussion.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Caddy said:


> The majority of people don't use perfect grammar when speaking. To make characters do that can make the characters sound very stilted. This whole thread makes me laugh. Too many people would rather be "correct" in regard to question mark/period then realisitic in their dialog. Odd, since I assume most on here are writers. Dialog is a huge part of writing.
> 
> Perhaps I am "wrong" according to your style books when I use something other than a question mark for a rhetorical question, but I am right in regard to how I want my character to sound. As a writer, that's what matters to me. If I taught English, I would do it differently. (But then I would explain that sometimes rules make written dialog sound fake and perhaps the writer should ignore them.)
> 
> To each their own, of course. Just keep in mind that sometimes "correct" makes your character sound pompous and so formal that one wonders if they have a stick up their...style manual.


"How dare you answer someone's question when they ask what the correct grammatical convention is" posts tend to get on my very last nerve. The OP asked and was answered. Criticizing people who dared to do so, especially with a snarky "Odd, since I assume most on here are writers." remark is seriously uncalled for. I would expect that from swolf, and not from you, Caddy.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> How dare you answer someone's question when they ask what the correct grammatical convention is" posts tend to get on my very last nerve. The OP asked and was answered. Criticizing people who dared to do so, especially with a snarky "Odd, since I assume most on here are writers." remark is seriously uncalled for. I would expect that from swolf, and not from you, Caddy.


J.R. forgive me if my response seemed aimed at those who answered the question directly before the thread moved along further. That was not my intent. My intent was to reply to those who keep going on and on about how if someone doesn't follow these rules they are somehow out of line (aka WHDean for one). The thread had moved from simply answering the OP question to what the various manuals said about these questions, and some were unable to admit they were "wrong" even when posts were made proving they were.

Grammatical convention questions get on my nerves, too, as you can see. However, I can see how some who simply answered the original question thought I was taking a swipe at them, and that is not how I meant it. Bottom line? I didn't mean to offend those who answered honestly and who didn't try to insult those who felt differently, or deny quoted answers when they were presented with them. However, I DID mean to take a swipe at those who insinuate that if we don't follow what they think is right we are somehow considering ourselves unique or special (especially when direct quotations are provided proving otherwise).

Anyway, apologies for my post insulting anyone who commented kindly and without deviating from the original question.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

JRTomlin said:


> I would expect that from swolf, and not from you, Caddy.


And I don't expect it from anyone. Let's all knock it off. I'm trying to finish up my Christmas cards....

Geeze-louise, the things y'all argue over.

Betsy


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Caddy said:


> J.R. forgive me if my response seemed aimed at those who answered the question directly before the thread moved along further. That was not my intent. My intent was to reply to those who keep going on and on about how if someone doesn't follow these rules they are somehow out of line (aka WHDean for one). The thread had moved from simply answering the OP question to what the various manuals said about these questions, and some were unable to admit they were "wrong" even when posts were made proving they were.
> 
> Grammatical convention questions get on my nerves, too, as you can see. However, I can see how some who simply answered the original question thought I was taking a swipe at them, and that is not how I meant it. Bottom line? I didn't mean to offend those who answered honestly and who didn't try to insult those who felt differently, or deny quoted answers when they were presented with them. However, I DID mean to take a swipe at those who insinuate that if we don't follow what they think is right we are somehow considering ourselves unique or special (especially when direct quotations are provided proving otherwise).
> 
> Anyway, apologies for my post insulting anyone who commented kindly and without deviating from the original question.


Sorry, Caddy, for mistaking your response. I have to agree about the going on and on about it. In fact, I agree that we have to bend the rules to suit our purposes.

And sorry, Betsy for... well, for the fact that you have to put up with us.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

> "Kathy, this is Jenny - an old school friend."
> "You mean an old friend from school," Kathy said, laughing. "She doesn't look a bit old."
> Marc rolled his eyes. "Teaches English, what more can I say."


Punctuating rhetorical questions aside, I don't see a problem with this exchange. In fact, it's commonplace social banter: A says, "Here's an old friend of mine." B says, "Who are you calling old!" C rolls his eyes because he finds wordplay annoying. The only issue may be the dissonance with the slang expression "old school," which has specific connotations for people under 40.

Note. "Long standing" is conventionally hyphenated only when used as a premodifier/ attributive adjective; e.g., "The long-standing member was indeed long standing."



JRTomlin said:


> http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/question.htm


Leaving aside the injunction to use a question mark with rhetorical questions, I note that the author of this piece also differentiates tag questions from rhetorical questions. As I suggested before, tag questions can be considered a species of rhetorical question, but (a) not all can be so considered and (b) the intent of the sentence is to make a statement, but only the tag is phrased like a question. The main clause of the sentence is in fact phrased like a statement, where a rhetorical question is phrased like a question. I'm sure there's a debate among rhetoricians as to whether tag questions are really rhetorical questions.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

Betsy,

I'm sorry, too!  We are in the holiday season and so much for peace and good will, huh?  My apologies.  What bothers me almost is much is that I could have had quite a few words written in my 5th book by now if I would have stayed out of here!  Anyway, peace.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Dear swolf,

I’ve said the same thing about six times now. Each time you return to the case that you wish I’d made to prove just how awful a fellow I am. I’m not exactly blind to this, even if I sometimes pretend to be. But that’s enough for me. Though do feel free to use my failure to address each and every point of yours as further evidence of my stupidity and mendacity—those grounds always make for the strongest arguments.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

WHDean said:


> Punctuating rhetorical questions aside, I don't see a problem with this exchange. In fact, it's commonplace social banter: A says, "Here's an old friend of mine." B says, "Who are you calling old!" C rolls his eyes because he finds wordplay annoying. The only issue may be the dissonance with the slang expression "old school," which has specific connotations for people under 40.
> 
> Note. "Long standing" is conventionally hyphenated only when used as a premodifier/ attributive adjective; e.g., "The long-standing member was indeed long standing."
> 
> Leaving aside the injunction to use a question mark with rhetorical questions, I note that the author of this piece also differentiates tag questions from rhetorical questions. As I suggested before, tag questions can be considered a species of rhetorical question, but (a) not all can be so considered and (b) the intent of the sentence is to make a statement, but only the tag is phrased like a question. The main clause of the sentence is in fact phrased like a statement, where a rhetorical question is phrased like a question. I'm sure there's a debate among rhetoricians as to whether tag questions are really rhetorical questions.


I didn't recommend it as an in-depth article on the topic, but as a rough guide for people who want to know the most widely accepted conventions and who aren't comfortable with the complications of lengthy style guides. I think someone who uses (or for that matter decides to ignore) that particular article will at least have a handle on what most literate people would consider "standard English usage". Grammarians and rhetoricians can go on about and debate these topics ad infinitum, but that rarely serves the purpose of fiction writers.

In the sentence in question, *I* would use a question mark. That's me. Other writers might make other choices, but hopefully they would understand the choice they were making. Now, surely we have pounded this particular horse well into the ground, and it must be time to throw a little dirt over its corpse. Well, I'm ready at any rate, so officially bowing out.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

WHDean said:


> But that's enough for me.


Too bad. I was looking forward to you posting your book links.


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> Thanks. Can you think of a better way of saying it so that she doesn't come across as a complete pedant? It's for a short story and I need to establish character and the relationship between Marc and his wife, Kathy.


I threw these out up thread a ways. I don't know if you saw them amongst the shuffle.

How about, "This is Jenny, I knew her real good when we were in school."

"You mean, real well, don't you?."

Or...

"After going to school all those years ago with Jenny, she knows me really well."

She laughed. "You've got a dangling modifier there. Jenny went to school with herself?"

I don't know. Good luck!!


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Caddy said:


> those who keep going on and on about how if someone doesn't follow these *rules * they are somehow out of line (aka WHDean for one).


I don't understand why people keep saying I'm talking about "rules" when I've said umpteen times-including on this thread-that there are no rules. I've even started a thread about how there are no rules. What more can I do but say flatly "There are no rules"? Does anyone want me to start another thread about how and why there are no rules? You follow convention or you don't. If you don't want to follow, don't. I don't care one way or the other. And I never criticize people's decisions not to follow convention-if it appears that way, you've misunderstood. I always and only (1) criticize false or dubious claims about what those conventions are and (2) propose/argue for a principled course of action based on experience. There's a big, big difference.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

WHDean said:


> I don't understand why people keep saying I'm talking about "rules" when I've said umpteen times-including on this thread-that there are no rules. I've even started a thread about how there are no rules. What more can I do but say flatly "There are no rules"? Does anyone want me to start another thread about how and why there are no rules? You follow convention or you don't. If you don't want to follow, don't. I don't care one way or the other. And I never criticize people's decisions not to follow convention-if it appears that way, you've misunderstood. I always and only (1) criticize false or dubious claims about what those conventions are and (2) propose/argue for a principled course of action based on experience. There's a big, big difference.


Then you need to find out who's stolen your password and posted things like this:



WHDean said:


> Most publishing houses and universities (i.e., those without an internal style guide) across North American have adopted the _Chicago Manual of Style _ (em-dash, no spaces).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So, if you want to write newspaper articles, use AP style. If you want to write books, use _Chicago_.





WHDean said:


> If you follow _The Chicago Manual of Style_-which you should-_parks _ would be capitalized because the word _park _ is part of the name of both entities (8.52). But be careful about how you word it. If you write "I go to two *parks*, Prospect and Central," _parks _ is no longer capitalized because it's now a generic description (CMS 8.53).





WHDean said:


> Well, one way is to indulge in fantasies about your authorial voice, and how you don't need "The Man's rulebook," and how everyone who came before you couldn't possibly teach you anything about writing because you're the uniquest of Gaia's snowflakes. The other way is to follow the good advice and accepted standards codified in books like Chicago and get over yourself.


And now you're trying to say there are no rules? (<---note the use of the question mark to denote surprise and disbelief, per the CMOS, 16ED, 6.66)

ETA: Oh, and I forgot about this one:



WHDean said:


> Keep in mind that being anti-style guide is like hanging a sign around your neck that says "amateur." Writers and institutions adopt style guides _by choice_. It makes their work consistent with others on things that ultimately don't matter. Do you really need independence around em-dash spacing? Really? You have to rely on _typography _ to distinguish your style from others?


Yeah, you're a regular 'no rules' kind of guy.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> I didn't recommend it as an in-depth article on the topic, but as a rough guide for people who want to know the most widely accepted conventions and who aren't comfortable with the complications of lengthy style guides. I think someone who uses (or for that matter decides to ignore) that particular article will at least have a handle on what most literate people would consider "standard English usage". Grammarians and rhetoricians can go on about and debate these topics ad infinitum, but that rarely serves the purpose of fiction writers.
> 
> In the sentence in question, *I* would use a question mark. That's me. Other writers might make other choices, but hopefully they would understand the choice they were making. Now, surely we have pounded this particular horse well into the ground, and it must be time to throw a little dirt over its corpse. Well, I'm ready at any rate, so officially bowing out.


Well, I find the question interesting and I think it's worth exploring. It's not tiring for me because I don't find it upsetting. Clearly, however, some people do. I assume that it's because they think it's about them or that someone will judge them negatively. All I can say is that it's not about them, which is no consolation if they don't want anyone to say such things at all. But the only way to avoid people feeling that way is to say nothing at all-at least, that's the only one I know of. That's an option, of course, but it doesn't leave much beyond frivolity to talk about.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

valeriec80 said:


> I threw these out up thread a ways. I don't know if you saw them amongst the shuffle.
> 
> How about, "This is Jenny, I knew her real good when we were in school."
> 
> ...


Thanks so much, but the characters are from the UK and wouldn't say 'real' well or 'real' good. It's set in 1989 and they are in their forties.


----------



## Cheryl M. (Jan 11, 2011)

Caddy said:


> The majority of people don't use perfect grammar when speaking.


Except that this thread is (supposed to be LOL) about a character that is correcting someone else's English. If she's correcting someone's English then it's a good idea to be right unless you want the character to come off as an idiot that thinks she knows it all - which doesn't seem to be the case. The original question was basically asking if the modifiers were correctly used in the correction. Which they weren't.

Jan: People going around correcting other people on their grammar usage _are_ pedantic, no matter how you word it, otherwise they wouldn't be doing the correcting. I would go with softening her by using the other character to make fun of it in a friendly way and have the teacher accept it all gracefully with a "yeah, I know" kind of response. This way you know that she doesn't take herself too seriously.

HTH.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> Except that this thread is (supposed to be LOL) about a character that is correcting someone else's English. If she's correcting someone's English then it's a good idea to be right unless you want the character to come off as an idiot that thinks she knows it all - which doesn't seem to be the case. The original question was basically asking if the modifiers were correctly used in the correction. Which they weren't.


Yes, CHeryle, you are right about this. However, as I mentioned a couple of times, I was not referring to this but to the later posts regarding rhetorical questions and the use of question marks or periods and how some feel you should "always" follow a punctuation (I should have said "punctuation" not "grammar") rules.

Right now I have moved to a small screen and can't find my glasses. Please forgive any glaring spelling errors.!? ... - i


----------



## Cheryl M. (Jan 11, 2011)

Caddy said:


> Yes, CHeryle, you are right about this. However, as I mentioned a couple of times, I was not referring to this but to the later posts regarding rhetorical questions and the use of question marks or periods and how some feel you should "always" follow a punctuation (I should have said "punctuation" not "grammar") rules.
> 
> Right now I have moved to a small screen and can't find my glasses. Please forgive any glaring spelling errors.!? ... - i


I wasn't trying to poke at you, I swear! I misunderstood, I started skimming the posts...  Apologies!


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

WHDean said:


> Well, I find the question interesting and I think it's worth exploring. It's not tiring for me because I don't find it upsetting. Clearly, however, some people do. I assume that it's because they think it's about them or that someone will judge them negatively. All I can say is that it's not about them, which is no consolation if they don't want anyone to say such things at all. But the only way to avoid people feeling that way is to say nothing at all-at least, that's the only one I know of. That's an option, of course, but it doesn't leave much beyond frivolity to talk about.


I wasn't saying there was anything wrong with you finding the question interesting, just that it wasn't someone like you who wants an in-depth discussion that my comment and link was aimed at. I knew you wouldn't find it adequate, but it gives enough information to satisfy many writers. People who want to go into whether a tag question is a form of rhetorical question (I happen to think so) are likely to want more discussion. The author of that page I linked to might well agree but feel that is information that wouldn't be useful to people using the page.

ETA: Although currently, I'm more interested in not burning my pancakes since I need to eat before I start writing.


----------



## Cheryl M. (Jan 11, 2011)

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> Thanks so much, but the characters are from the UK and wouldn't say 'real' well or 'real' good. It's set in 1989 and they are in their forties.


Maybe instead of having a correction she could just say the "she doesn't look very old" line. That way we know what she's saying without her needing to actually do any correcting. It also makes it a little smarter, IMO. Those that won't get it won't miss anything from it and those that do will (hopefully) find it cute.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

Cheryl M. said:


> Maybe instead of having a correction she could just say the "she doesn't look very old" line. That way we know what she's saying without her needing to actually do any correcting. It also makes it a little smarter, IMO. Those that won't get it won't miss anything from it and those that do will (hopefully) find it cute.


Thanks. Does this read ok? (I've added a bit more to show context - hope I haven't added more debatable points )

_"I did. But I came back to London to marry Kathy." He nodded towards a slim, smartly dressed woman who had obviously engaged the rapt attention of the club captain. "Hey, Kathy," he called, and signalled her over. She excused herself with a final laughing remark and joined them.
"Kathy, this is Jenny - an old school friend." 
"She doesn't look a bit old," Kathy said, laughing. Marc rolled his eyes. "Teaches English - what more can I say."
I warmed towards her. She seemed a fun person. I could see why men would be attracted to her. "_


----------



## Cheryl M. (Jan 11, 2011)

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> Thanks. Does this read ok? (I've added a bit more to show context - hope I haven't added more debatable points )
> 
> _"I did. But I came back to London to marry Kathy." He nodded towards a slim, smartly dressed woman who had obviously engaged the rapt attention of the club captain. "Hey, Kathy," he called, and signalled her over. She excused herself with a final laughing remark and joined them.
> "Kathy, this is Jenny - an old school friend."
> ...


Yeah, that works better. Now you don't have to worry about it because any truly grammatical correction would require word replacement and restructuring. That would definitely come off rude and unpleasant, not fun and charming.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> Thanks. Can you think of a better way of saying it so that she doesn't come across as a complete pedant? It's for a short story and I need to establish character and the relationship between Marc and his wife, Kathy.


Could Kathy make the correction in a joking way? Or perhaps the ambiguous modifier could be a bit more obviously ambiguous so that Kathy's correction would be necessary?

Here's a great list of dangling/ambiguous modifiers I like to use when explaining the concept to students. Maybe the form of one of these sentences could be adapted into something that would sound more obviously weird or wrong to the reader, at which point Kathy could helpfully step in and clarify?


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

valeriec80 said:


> I threw these out up thread a ways. I don't know if you saw them amongst the shuffle.
> 
> How about, "This is Jenny, I knew her real good when we were in school."
> 
> ...


These are good! I especially like the last one. People use dangling modifiers just like that one *all the time*, and (speaking as an English teacher) it really bugs me. I probably wouldn't rib a friend for it, but I'd be biting my tongue.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> I wasn't trying to poke at you, I swear! I misunderstood, I started skimming the posts... Grin Apologies!


 No offense taken at all. I didn't think you were poking at me. I could see where I could be misunderstood, since I talked about grammar instead of punctuation. Happy Holidays.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Becca Mills said:


> Could Kathy make the correction in a joking way? Or perhaps the ambiguous modifier could be a bit more obviously ambiguous so that Kathy's correction would be necessary?
> 
> Here's a great list of dangling/ambiguous modifiers I like to use when explaining the concept to students. Maybe the form of one of these sentences could be adapted into something that would sound more obviously weird or wrong to the reader, at which point Kathy could helpfully step in and clarify?


From the link you provided:

Holding a bag of groceries, the roach flew out of the cabinet.

When I lived in Miami, we had roaches like that.


----------



## Cheryl M. (Jan 11, 2011)

QuantumIguana said:


> From the link you provided:
> 
> Holding a bag of groceries, the roach flew out of the cabinet.
> 
> When I lived in Miami, we had roaches like that.


Ew.

Roaches that flew out of cabinets with bags of groceries or flying roaches?


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> I didn't recommend it as an in-depth article on the topic, but as a rough guide for people who want to know the most widely accepted conventions and who aren't comfortable with the complications of lengthy style guides. I think someone who uses (or for that matter decides to ignore) that particular article will at least have a handle on what most literate people would consider "standard English usage". Grammarians and rhetoricians can go on about and debate these topics ad infinitum, but that rarely serves the purpose of fiction writers.
> 
> In the sentence in question, *I* would use a question mark. That's me. Other writers might make other choices, but hopefully they would understand the choice they were making. Now, surely we have pounded this particular horse well into the ground, and it must be time to throw a little dirt over its corpse. Well, I'm ready at any rate, so officially bowing out.


I didn't mean to quibble with the site (I know it well, and it's a good site generally). My intent was to insert a Google-able distinction that would help anyone who investigates the matter further (i.e., the relationship between tag and rhetorical questions). Prescriptive grammar, descriptive grammar, rhetoric, linguistics, writing handbooks, and even philosophy each have different types of language analysis. Style guides and general handbooks tend to pick and choose from each to create a useful and coherent set of heuristics.

But as you've probably realized style guides don't always tell you what comes from where and why-their reason being their intention to be practical-and they're not always right. Case in point. I couldn't get into this before but the two "rhetorical questions" from Stillman, "Look, why don't we just drop the whole thing" and "Well, isn't that just dandy," are _not _ rhetorical questions; they're _negative questions _ (note the Google-able term). So for her to claim that they don't need question marks because they're rhetorical questions is inaccurate. I mean that the justification, "because they're rhetorical questions," is not a justification for someone who wants one-note, _wants one_-and who wants to make writing decisions from sounds principles. That person is being misinformed, either because Stillman didn't know or didn't think it was important.

Again, I'm not contradicting anything you've said or the site in saying this. I mention this for people who have more questions.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

WHDean said:


> I didn't mean to quibble with the site (I know it well, and it's a good site generally). My intent was to insert a Google-able distinction that would help anyone who investigates the matter further (i.e., the relationship between tag and rhetorical questions). Prescriptive grammar, descriptive grammar, rhetoric, linguistics, writing handbooks, and even philosophy each have different types of language analysis. Style guides and general handbooks tend to pick and choose from each to create a useful and coherent set of heuristics.
> 
> But as you've probably realized style guides don't always tell you what comes from where and why-their reason being their intention to be practical-and they're not always right. Case in point. I couldn't get into this before but the two "rhetorical questions" from Stillman, "Look, why don't we just drop the whole thing" and "Well, isn't that just dandy," are _not _ rhetorical questions; they're _negative questions _ (note the Google-able term). So for her to claim that they don't need question marks because they're rhetorical questions is inaccurate. I mean that the justification, "because they're rhetorical questions," is not a justification for someone who wants one-note, _wants one_-and who wants to make writing decisions from sounds principles. That person is being misinformed, either because Stillman didn't know or didn't think it was important.
> 
> Again, I'm not contradicting anything you've said or the site in saying this. I mention this for people who have more questions.


I understand what you're saying. It's always good to give the links for people who want to go more deeply into it. With me, it depends on my mood. You're right that the purpose of a style guide is entirely practical which makes it a good source for those of us who mainly focus is on production.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

QuantumIguana said:


> From the link you provided:
> 
> Holding a bag of groceries, the roach flew out of the cabinet.
> 
> When I lived in Miami, we had roaches like that.


Ugh. If there's anything worse than a massive roach, it's a thieving massive roach.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Becca Mills said:


> Ugh. If there's anything worse than a massive roach, it's a thieving massive roach.


Yeah, I hate flying roaches that are big enough to carry off a bag of groceries. Those are the _worst_!


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> Thanks so much, but the characters are from the UK and wouldn't say 'real' well or 'real' good. It's set in 1989 and they are in their forties.


Very good? Quite good? Really good?

Lol!! I tried. Hope you figure something. 

(B-but I thought people from the UK didn't make grammatical mistakes unless they spoke in a Cockney accent.)


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

valeriec80 said:


> Very good? Quite good? Really good?
> 
> Lol!! I tried. Hope you figure something.
> 
> (B-but I thought people from the UK didn't make grammatical mistakes unless they spoke in a Cockney accent.)


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

Thanks to everyone who weighed in on this issue.  

I've decided that someone who rolls their eyes is obviously not asking a question to which they expect an answer. Marc is actually making a statement, so I'm going with:

“Kathy, this is Jenny – an old school friend.” 
“She doesn't look a bit old,” Kathy said, laughing. 
Marc rolled his eyes. “Teaches English - what more can I say.”

Hope that when I finally publish it I won't get accusatory one stars for poor grammar/punctuation


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

WHDean said:


> Case in point. I couldn't get into this before but the two "rhetorical questions" from Stillman, "Look, why don't we just drop the whole thing" and "Well, isn't that just dandy," are _not _ rhetorical questions; they're _negative questions _ (note the Google-able term). So for her to claim that they don't need question marks because they're rhetorical questions is inaccurate. I mean that the justification, "because they're rhetorical questions," is not a justification for someone who wants one-note, _wants one_-and who wants to make writing decisions from sounds principles. That person is being misinformed, either because Stillman didn't know or didn't think it was important.


The definition of rhetorical question:

http://grammar.about.com/od/rs/g/rhetquesterm.htm


> A question asked merely for effect with no answer expected. The answer may be obvious or immediately provided by the questioner.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question


> A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point and without the expectation of a reply.[1] The question is used as a rhetorical device, posed for the sake of encouraging its listener to consider a message or viewpoint. Though these are technically questions, they do not always require a question mark.
> 
> For example, the question "Can't you do anything right?" is asked not to gain information about the ability of the person being spoken to, but rather to insinuate that the person always fails.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rhetorical+question


> rhetorical question
> noun
> a question asked solely to produce an effect or to make an assertion and not to elicit a reply, as "What is so rare as a day in June?"


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rhetorical+question


> A question to which no answer is expected, often used for rhetorical effect.


http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/rhetorical-question.html


> A rhetorical question is one that requires no answer because the answer is obvious and doesn't need to be stated . The speaker (of the rhetorical question) is not looking for an answer but is making some kind of a point, as in an argument.
> Read more at http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/rhetorical-question.html#eO1ItMpqbYUkUHr6.99


Both of these lines,

Look, why don't we just drop the whole thing.
Well, isn't that just dandy.

meet the definition of a rhetorical question. They are questions, but they are not seeking an answer.

There is nothing in the definition of a rhetorical question that states that they can't be negative.

Negative questions are formed with a negative in them. That's it. And just like positive questions, they can be rhetorical.

This paper discusses the difference between information seeking questions and rhetorical questions:

http://people.umass.edu/bhatt/papers/bhatt-nels-rhetorical.pdf


> * Han (1997) on NPI-licensing in rhetorical questions:
> 
> (1) a. Positive information seeking -questions do not license strong NPIs:
> # Who lifted a finger to help Sam?
> ...


The last example shows how to form a rhetorical question using a negative question.

And this paper discusses negative rhetorical questions:

http://www.sfu.ca/~chunghye/papers/lingua112-3-2.pdf


> While an ordinary question seeks information or an answer from the hearer, a
> rhetorical question does not expect to elicit an answer. In general, a rhetorical question
> has the illocutionary force of an assertion of the opposite polarity from what is
> apparently asked (Sadock, 1971, 1974). That is, a rhetorical positive question has the
> ...


So, in conclusion, would you please stop spreading misinformation? (While at the same time arrogantly claiming that others are misinformed.)


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

You're confusing grammar with rhetoric and linguistics. Your own sources all say exactly what I said, namely, that "rhetorical question" is a rhetorical category, not a grammatical one. Grammatical categories are determined by syntax; rhetorical categories by function and meaning. Since grammar (not rhetoric) rules punctuation, what rhetoric has to say doesn't matter. So if someone says he doesn't add question marks to rhetorical questions because they're rhetorical, that's his business; but he can't claim that no one has to because they're rhetorical without explaining what rhetoric has to do with grammar.

The second source of your moral outrage-negative vs. rhetorical questions-comes down to the same confusion between the grammar and rhetoric terminology. Again, grammar makes it's categories by syntax; rhetoric by function and meaning. Hence, the meanings of "negative" and "rhetorical" question in rhetoric are *not identical * with their meanings in grammar. In the rhetoric sources you cited, the "negative rhetorical questions" are not "negative questions" in grammar-you're just confusing the two distinct forms.

In Greenbaum's _Oxford English Grammar_, rhetorical questions are treated as exceptions to the "correlation between sentence types and communicative uses," because they take "the form of a question but the communicative function of a statement," where: "If the rhetorical question is positive the implied statement is negative, and vice versa" (3.9, p. 52). This definition accords exactly with the last source you cited, such that this is indeed a negative rhetorical question:

_What hasn't John done for Sam? = John has done everything for Sam._

Note that the implied statement is the *opposite * of the explicit one.

Greenbaum treats negative questions as varieties of positive and negative sentences because there's no contradiction between explicit and implicit meaning (3.11, p. 55). So let's look at Greenbaum's example of a negative question next to Stillman's alleged example of a rhetorical question:

_Listen can't we do this some other time [?] = Let's do this another time.
Look, why don't we just drop the whole thing [?] = Let's drop the whole thing._

Could it be anymore obvious now? There's no distinction between the explicit and implicit meaning. *These are not rhetorical questions*. So I was right that Stillman can't appeal to a rhetorical category (i.e., rhetorical question) to make a grammatical rule for negative questions, when grammar doesn't recognize negative questions as rhetorical questions.

I'll send you my bill and offer some parting advice. Don't accuse people of making things up and spreading misinformation when your own opinion is based on the results of one Google search that you didn't undertand.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

More long-winded blathering instead of admitting you're wrong. No quotes from sources to support your case, just more bullshit.

Once again:

http://people.umass.edu/bhatt/papers/bhatt-nels-rhetorical.pdf


> * Han (1997) on NPI-licensing in rhetorical questions:
> 
> (1) a. Positive information seeking -questions do not license strong NPIs:
> # Who lifted a finger to help Sam?
> ...


And:

http://www.sfu.ca/~chunghye/papers/lingua112-3-2.pdf


> While an ordinary question seeks information or an answer from the hearer, a
> rhetorical question does not expect to elicit an answer. In general, a rhetorical question
> has the illocutionary force of an assertion of the opposite polarity from what is
> apparently asked (Sadock, 1971, 1974). That is, a rhetorical positive question has the
> ...


There you have TWO sources that not only state CLEARLY that negative rhetorical questions exist, but they also give examples of them. And those examples match Stiltman's examples, so that's a third source.

But yeah, according to your delusional fantasies, they're all wrong, and you're right.

Seriously, dude, it's getting pathetic now. Aren't you embarrassed yet?


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

You didn't even read my post. I quoted Greenbaum word for word and cited the pages. And claiming that I dispute the existence of negative rhetorical questions is nonsensical because it was never even an issue. I never questioned the existence of negative rhetorical questions.

I pointed out that your examples of rhetorical questions from Stillman are *not * _negative rhetorical questions_; they're just plain old _negative questions_. Greenbaum shows why. You need me to repeat it? Okay: Stillman's examples are not rhetorical questions. That's my claim then and now. That's what you denied and insulted me over, even though it was you who misunderstood. But you obviously can't tell the difference or don't even want to read the response before you reply.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

The examples in the excerpts I posted are structured exactly like Stillman's.    That's three sources giving examples of rhetorical questions, which you keep denying are rhetorical questions.

They are questions, and they're not asking for answers.  That makes them rhetorical.  By definition.

You bloviating for paragraphs on end isn't going to change that.  Once again, a thread devolves into your refusal to accept reality.

And I'm still waiting for those book links.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

And I'd like to address this:



WHDean said:


> Greenbaum treats negative questions as varieties of positive and negative sentences because there's no contradiction between explicit and implicit meaning (3.11, p. 55). So let's look at Greenbaum's example of a negative question next to Stillman's alleged example of a rhetorical question:
> 
> _Listen can't we do this some other time [?] = Let's do this another time.
> Look, why don't we just drop the whole thing [?] = Let's drop the whole thing._
> ...


You're attempting to confuse negative questions with rhetorical questions, as if whether a question is negative or not decides whether it's rhetorical.

It doesn't. According to the definition (I know you think you're too smart for dictionaries, but most normal people use them for the definitions of words) all a rhetorical question needs is 1) to be a question, and 2) to not ask for an answer.

"Look, why don't we just drop the whole thing."

That is a question. "Why don't we" makes it a question.

And in that context, it's not asking for an answer. It is (as you admitted) making the statement, "Let's drop the whole thing."

Therefore, it IS a rhetorical question. And none of your bull shit is going to change that.

The other example, which is an example of a negative question from Greenbaum:

"Listen can't we do this some other time?"

That is NOT a rhetorical question. It is negative, but it's not rhetorical. It's asking the question, "Can we do this some other time?", and it requests an answer from the person it's directed at, yes or no. Either we can do this at another time, or we can't.

What I'm trying to figure out is, do you really believe this crap you're flinging, or are you dishonestly ignoring the obvious in an attempt, as usual, to not admit you're wrong?


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

> You're attempting to confuse negative questions with rhetorical questions, as if whether a question is negative or not decides whether it's rhetorical.


No. I've said three or four time now that negative rhetorical questions and negative questions are different kinds of questions in grammar. Inverting subject and verb makes something a question in grammar (subject italicized; verb bold):

*Are * _we_ allowed in? _We_ *are* allowed in.

Adding a negation to the positive question makes it a negative question:

*Aren't * we allowed in?/ Are we *not * allowed in?

A rhetorical question-according to your sources and mine-is a question that makes an implied statement that's positive when the question is negative and a negative statement when the question is positive. As your source puts it:



> &#8230;a rhetorical question does not expect to elicit an answer. In general, a rhetorical question has the illocutionary force of an assertion of the opposite polarity from what is apparently asked&#8230;.That is, a rhetorical positive question has the illocutionary force of a negative assertion, and a rhetorical negative question has the illocutionary force of a positive assertion.


Hence, rhetorical questions (1) don't seek answers and, decisively, (2) make negative assertions when positive and positive assertions when negative. An example of a positive rhetorical question and its negative statement (bold marks the negative):

_What has John ever done for Sam? = John has *not * done anything for Sam._

Negative rhetorical question with positive statement (bold marks the negative):

_What *hasn't * John done for Sam? = John has done everything for Sam._

Now, you admit that Greenbaum's question is not a rhetorical question, but claim yours and Stillman's question is a rhetorical question. So you admit that there are negative questions that aren't rhetorical questions. The only question remaining, therefore, is whether Stillman's question is rhetorical or not. I say it is only a negative question-as I've said all along-and the syntax proves it. The expressions "why don't" and "can't" mean the same thing and they're interchangeable:

_[1] "Look, why don't we just drop the whole thing?" 
= [1'] "Look, can't we just drop the whole thing?"

[2] "Listen can't we do this some other time?"
= [2'] "Listen why don't we do this some other time?"_

On top of that-as I showed before-there's no contradiction between the implied statements and the questions above, as there must be with rhetorical questions. The sentence "Look, why don't we just drop the whole thing" does not mean "Let's not drop the whole thing/ I don't want to drop the whole thing" it means what it says, "Let's drop the whole thing /Can we drop it/ May we drop it?" Note again that "why can't/why don't" and "can/do" mean the same thing.

So if you admit that 2 is a negative question, but not a rhetorical question, how can you maintain that 1 is a rhetorical question but not a negative question when the two are identical questions? You can't.

Further, you say that "Look why don't we drop the whole thing?" is a rhetorical question because it doesn't solicit an answer in that context. What context? You provided it independent of any context. But that's neither here nor there. The fact that rhetorical question don't necessarily invite responses is not unique to rhetorical question (or negative questions). Take all these metaphysical or introspective questions:

_"Why do bad things always come in threes?"
"What's an honest man to do in this life?"
"Is my destiny out there among the stars?"
"To be or not to be?"
"Will there ever be a rainbow?"_

None of those questions invites an answer because no one could possibly know what the answers are or would be. They're the kind of introspective-or pondering-out-loud type-questions people don't expect answers to-if they've even uttered them in the presence of another person. Again, no one even has to be there to answer for these questions to be asked. Yet none of them is a rhetorical or a negative question. So, no, "being asked without expecting an answer" is not exclusive to rhetorical questions; the contradiction between surface and implied meaning is what defines a rhetorical question.


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

Awright, guys, don't make me come in there and moderate!! 

Can we continue with this without personal attacks?
^
  |---- *not* a rhetorical question


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Allow me to make this simple, and remove all of your extraneous crap.

You claimed that Stillman's examples weren't rhetorical questions, right here:



WHDean said:


> Case in point. I couldn't get into this before but the two "rhetorical questions" from Stillman, "Look, why don't we just drop the whole thing" and "Well, isn't that just dandy," are _not _ rhetorical questions;


But then you claimed her question wasn't really asking a question, but instead making a statement, right here:



WHDean said:


> Look, why don't we just drop the whole thing [?] = Let's drop the whole thing.[/i]


You just admitted her question was making a statement, not asking a question. That's the definition of a rhetorical question.

Boom, we're done.

Anything else you have to add is just long-winded attempts to backtrack from your admission, and will be ignored.

_Threadlock. --Ann & Betsy_


----------

