The seventh-annual punctuation celebration features a haiku contest (e.g., “Punctuation marks: / Commas, colons, periods / That give words meaning”). Hundreds have already entered, and winners will receive—what else?—punctuation prizes. (Visit the website for submission guidelines and other ways to participate.)

The holiday has a punctuation publication, The Exclamation Point, with book recommendations, literacy news from around the world, and articles about Punctuation Playtime, a “program that teaches elementary school students punctuation in a fun and engaging way” from Rubin and his wife, Norma.

There are also the requisite T-shirts, cards, and mugs, but of course the best way to celebrate is to learn the rules of proper punctuation. It’s easier than it sounds, and the National Punctuation Day website has plenty of products and resources to help you do so.

As any editor can attest, the release of a new version of your style guide of choice brings mixed emotions: On the one hand, you’re happy to get an updated manual, which often elaborates upon or resolves issues that have been plaguing the previous edition for years. On the other hand, there’s a lot to learn, particularly in a tome the size of the Chicago Manual, not to mention a price tag ($65 in this case, if you didn’t take advantage of one of the special offers beforehand).

Fortunately, Chicago has provided an overview of what’s new in this edition, which reflects “editorial style and publishing practices in the digital age.” Given how much of editing has moved away from paper, I was happy to see proofreading guidelines for web-based documents and an electronic-editing checklist among the new additions. There’s also a “new and improved hyphenation guide,” presented in a table. Make sure to check out the significant rule changes (e.g., “Web site” is now ”website”!), but don’t worry: ”the fundamental principles of ‘Chicago style’ remain the same.” It appears most changes were made with simplicity or popular usage in mind.

Chicago’s very own “subversive copy editor,” Carol Fisher Saller, has kindly posted tips for learning the sixteenth edition on her blog. She also conducted an insightful interview with the Manual‘s principal reviser, Russell David Harper, the second installment of a two-part behind-the-scenes look at the revision process.

I thank Chicago for trying to make the transition easy for us editors, but I plan to hold on to my fifteenth edition, at least for now. Speaking of earlier editions, in honor of this latest release, Chicago is making the first edition of the manual, published in 1906, available as their free e-book for September (a new e-book is offered every month through their Digital Editions program) and as a downloadable pdf. A quick perusal of its contents will turn any anxiety you feel about the sixteenth edition into gratitude.

Whether or not you agree with the statement, the correct answer is B. Many people mistakenly use “upmost” when “utmost” is the word they want. The confusion stems from not only their similar sounds but also their similar meanings. (And probably because “upmost” looks more like a real word.)

According to Merriam-Webster, “upmost” is the shortened form of “uppermost,” which, as you would expect, means “situated in the highest or most prominent position,” whereas “utmost” means “situated at the farthest or most distant point” or “of the greatest or highest degree, quantity, number, or amount.”

It helps to think of “uppermost” in a literal sense (e.g., on the highest shelf) and “utmost” more figuratively (e.g., of the highest importance): the reference books of utmost importance were located on the uppermost shelf. When in doubt, use “utmost” (how often do you come across “uppermost”?), or, better yet, substitute a word whose meaning you’re sure of.

It’s most commonly used to join two independent clauses. The term “independent clause” probably isn’t helping the semicolon’s case; it’s just a fancy way of saying “complete sentence.” We usually separate sentences with a period, but when they’re closely related (as in the previous sentence), the semicolon shows this connection.

If you weren’t aware the mark had been placed on the endangered punctuation list, here’s a brief history of the semicolon’s demise. Although modern technology has played a role (blame the costly telegraphs of the mid-1800s), it seems most people want to do away with the mark simply because they don’t know how to use it. Hopefully, this Oatmeal comic will help. Emoticons can’t do it alone.

Thanks to both Wendy and Scott for sending me this link.

Karen

Oh dear. Do away with the em dash? Putting my personal affection for the mark aside, I’m hesitant to sub one form of punctuation for another. After all, you wouldn’t just swap out commas for colons. Although the em and en are both dashes, they have different meanings.

The en is primarily used in place of “to” (the 2010–2011 school year), but the lovely em dash—which The Chicago Manual of Style describes as “the most commonly used and most versatile of the dashes”—has many functions. It’s most often used to set off explanatory information, as in the previous sentence, or to indicate a break in thought.

To let you know where I’m coming from, here’s what Chicago has to say about dashes: “Hyphens and the various dashes all have their specific appearance and uses. The hyphen, the en dash, and the em dash are the most commonly used and must be typeset correctly; an en dash appearing where a hyphen is called for bespeaks editorial or typographic confusion.”

I assume they would apply the same logic to replacing an em dash with an en dash. Since it seems it’s the length of the em dash you object to, I suppose shortening it—while retaining its meaning—is a good compromise (but you should know there are 2-em and 3-em dashes). Visually, I like the way the em dash looks because it illustrates the separation that’s intended.

When it comes to punctuation, I’m more concerned about function than form, which is probably the opposite of how you feel. But I’m sure we have the same end goal in mind: readability. Maybe it would help if designers read The Elements of Style and editors read The Elements of Typographic Style?

Give up? The answer is B. You may remember this sentence from my post about Picasso and his take on grammar. I originally wrote the sentence in answer A, but my inner editor saw red (as in ink, not anger). So I looked it up, and sure enough, the word I wanted was “subscribe.”

Just as you subscribe to a magazine, you subscribe to a way of thinking (or don’t, in this case). The word “ascribe” is a synonym for “attribute”—fortunately, both start with the letter “a” to help us remember.

Picasso probably wouldn’t care either way. According to the quote ascribed to him in my post, he didn’t subscribe to traditional rules of language.

Looking for a way to celebrate? I suggest you pick up a copy of Fogarty’s latest book, The Grammar Devotional: Daily Tips for Successful Writing from Grammar Girl. (You can download the first four weeks here.)

I love the concept of this book. If you’re new to grammar, learning all the rules can seem overwhelming; if you already know your way around adverbs and semicolons, a daily devotional will help you keep it that way. And Fogarty provides answers to questions you may never have thought to ask. (Why is “y” a vowel only “sometimes”?) At the very least, it’s a fun read. Yes, a grammar book.

Fogarty has taken the successful “quick and dirty” style of her podcasts and created an even more concise grammar delivery format. (If you don’t have time for podcasts, now there’s no excuse.) One of the best things about the book is there aren’t any dates, so no matter when you resolve to improve your grammar, be it January 1 or March 4, you can get started any time of the year.

The Grammar Devotional covers everything you would guess (grammar, style, punctuation, spelling, word usage), but there are also sections you wouldn’t necessarily expect – my favorite: “Language Rock Stars,” profiles of well-known writers and grammarians. (Ever heard of Jed Hartman and the Law of Prescriptivist Retaliation?) I also like the “There’s a Name for That?” entries, which feature words about words (e.g., synecdoche, a type of metaphor). Another highlight for me was learning the origins of the sentence diagram. (I got so excited, I realized there was no turning back.)

There are linguistic lessons and typo tales throughout, with an appealing mix of frequent grammar and language questions (whether data is singular or plural) and less common subjects (how to correctly use the tilde symbol). Maybe only editors care about the proper order of adjectives, but don’t you want to know if it’s a “beautiful, blue swimming pool” or a “blue, beautiful swimming pool” before you dive in?

Fogarty addresses several formatting issues (one space or two after sentences?), including differences between fiction and nonfiction (quotes or italics for thoughts?). She also delves into literary devices (simile vs. metaphor) and questions specific to creative writing, such as how to handle quotation marks in dialogue and the definitions of first, second, and third person.

There’s a fairly consistent format from week to week with certain topics covered on the same days (e.g., punctuation is usually Monday). And there are word games, quizzes, and cartoons of Aardvark and Squiggly to keep you amused and reinforce what you’ve learned. Fogarty refers readers to related entries for more information, and there’s an index, so the devotional doubles as a reference book.

Editors will appreciate how Fogarty distinguishes between rules and style choices. As she puts it, “We wring our hands and try to decide whether to advise you to use the correct form or the common form because either choice will sound wrong to some people.” She often presents a range of acceptable options, giving the opinion of various style guides and weighing in with her own preference. With so many conflicting views out there, it’s extremely helpful to have simple, straightforward recommendations that apply to most situations. The overall result is a comprehensive writing resource, one of the best I’ve read.

Grammar Girl is a Language Rock Star herself. If you want to learn more, check out her first book, Quick and Dirty Tips for Better Writing. (You can read my review here.)

Thanks to Mignon for the book and for everything she does to help us write better!

I recently attended the Picasso and the Allure of Language exhibition, at Duke University’s Nasher Museum of Art, which examined the painter’s relationship with another art form: writing. The written word inspired Picasso both as a visual artist and as a poet and playwright. If you’ve seen any of his artwork (click on the image in the link above for examples, including illustrations for books), it’s no surprise Picasso didn’t subscribe to traditional rules of language. As he put it:

“If I begin correcting the mistakes you speak of according to rules with no relation to me, I will lose my individuality to grammar I have not incorporated. I prefer to create myself as I see fit than to bend my words to rules that don’t belong to me.”

This passion for innovation was central to Picasso’s longtime and influential friendship with Gertrude Stein, who played around with the rules of language herself. In her lecture “Poetry and Grammar,” Stein said:

“If writing should go on what had colons and semi-colons to do with it, what had commas to do with it, what had periods to do with it what had small letters and capitals to do with it.”

Copy editors, by default, are prescriptivists, who not only follow but enforce the rules. That’s one reason why I like to edit creative writing. Characters can say “I wish I was” instead of “I wish I were” if it’s true to their voice, and authors can choose to use alternative punctuation or none at all. You don’t do away with rules; you just create your own.

So I guess you could say I’m a descriptivist sympathizer. After all, without Picasso and Stein types, we wouldn’t have cubism or stream of consciousness technique or the interrobang.

But it’s probably best they’re not copy editors.

Thanks to Ivy for pointing out the Picasso quote as blog fodder.

If you read the results of my recent poll, you know both statements are true. But what about using the word “since” in place of “because”? I wish I could say it’s one of those trick questions where they’re both correct, but, as with many word usage issues, it’s not that simple.

Most editors—as well as their style manuals and reference books—will tell you it’s perfectly OK to use “since” in this sense (as in answer B). The Chicago Manual says the belief “the word relates exclusively to time” is “erroneous,” citing hundreds of years of causative usage. The AP Stylebook takes a slightly less supportive stance, stating “since is acceptable in a causal sense when the first event in a sequence led logically to the second but was not its direct cause.” Merriam-Webster uses each word in the definition of the other. So we’re all pretty much in agreement, yes? Not quite.

Unfortunately, words with dual meanings can create confusion. For example, “I’ve been planning to write a word usage post since it was voted the most popular blog topic” could mean from the time of the vote or because of the vote. For this reason, more cautious grammarians recommend we narrow the meaning of “since” to a past point in time.

And they do have a point, which most grammar texts acknowledge and some style guides embrace. The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, which is used in the social and behavioral sciences, advises, “since is more precise when it is used to refer only to time (to mean ‘after that’); otherwise, replace it with because.”

As always, if there’s the potential for misunderstanding, choose your words carefully. But in general, here’s one word usage issue that’s not really an issue. Most of us, including myself, use both “since” and “because” to indicate causation. When I try to maintain a distinction between the two, it seems forced.

Now, I wouldn’t necessarily argue this point on a copy editing test. But if you’re hired and put in charge of the style guide …

As The Chicago Manual of Style says, “the great mass of linguistic issues that writers and editors wrestle with don’t really concern grammar at all – they concern usage: the collective habits of a language’s native speakers.” (The Big Offenders series focuses on common – and controversial – usage issues, but there are more posts on this topic under the label “word usage.”)

Although “grammar” refers to the structure of language, it’s often used as a catchall to include related subjects, such as usage, punctuation, and spelling; therefore, it makes sense this topic would take second place with eleven votes. Coming in next are the profession-related posts, which appeal to a subset of readers: “style” ranked third with eight votes, and close behind, “copy editing” and “writing” tied for last place with seven votes each.

Thanks to those who voted – I’m looking forward to writing about all of these topics in the New Year!