stritran help

[G Gabriel]

Re: stritran help

edited out:
crlf_to_comma(*reverse_words(" and "+*reverse_words(vLocation)))

[Stan Mathews]

Re: stritran help

I'll have to weigh in on Al's side....

Wikipedia says:

A comma before the final and, or, or nor in a list of more than two things is called a serial comma or an Oxford comma:
We had milk, biscuits, and cream.
It is called the Oxford comma because the style guide of the Oxford University Press is one of its prominent advocates.
Although the Oxford comma is not always used, it should be applied to avoid ambiguity. Omitting the Oxford comma changes the meaning of a sentence, and unless the author is aware of the possible meaning the comma should be included rather than omitted.
I spoke to the boys, Sam and Tom. � The boys refers to Sam and Tom.
I spoke to the boys, Sam, and Tom. � The boys, Sam, and Tom are separate units; thus, four or more people were spoken to in all.
I spoke to x, y and z. This sentence is stating that y and z are what comprise x.
I spoke to x, y, and z. This sentence is stating that x, y, and z were all spoken to and that they are different entities.

www.nyu.edu indicates something similar

In a series of three or more items, opinion is mixed on whether to use a comma before the conjunction. The Chicago Manual of Style and Strunk and White say "yes." The New York Times and AP say to omit the comma in a simple series, but use it in a complex series. But what constitutes a simple or a complex series? Do the following two sentences have the same meaning?

45. "Mary, John and Harry are here."
46. "Mary, John, and Harry are here."

[MikeC]

Re: stritran help

Stan (and Al),

I agree completely that it Should be used...but society (in all its wisdom ) changes perfectly good rules all the time even when the changes do not make perfect sense...this being one of them. The English language is still evolving and I, for one, wish it would stand still for a while--or at least not make sudden changes that are not thought out entirely. But then I guess that will never happen as, from what I understand, a language's rules today are dictated by common usage even if it is incorrect (ain't and schizophrenia being my two top pet peeves!).

[G Gabriel]

Re: stritran help

Another alternative:
word(strtran(vlocation,crlf(),", "),1,",",w_count(vlocation,crlf())-1)+" and "+word(vlocation,-1,crlf())

[G Gabriel]

Re: stritran help

And another:
crlf_to_comma(word(*reverse_words(vlocation),2,crlf(),20))+" and "+word(vlocation,-1,crlf())

[G Gabriel]

Re: stritran help

The simplified expression that was edited out:
crlf_to_comma(*reverse_words(" and "+*reverse_words(vLocation)))

produces:
"Left Foot,Left Knee,Right Hip, and Right Hand"

It's awfully simple if you can live with that extra comma.

I am no English major, so take your pick.

[CALocklin]

Re: stritran help

Wow! And I think that I date myself with older ways!!! :D

OK, this is a bit off-topic but my wife is a teacher also and, since I often end up trying to read the papers [garbage] the students write, I can't help throwing my 2 (10?) cents in. (Mike, I'm not dissing you - just commenting on grammar and the use of commas.)

The real purpose of using correct grammar is to make things easy to read. However, some time ago people seemed to decide that grammar was too difficult to learn so they started making it "easier" by relaxing some of the rules. Unfortunately, relaxing the rules makes it harder to read. Not harder to read the words but harder to get the meaning of the sentence. I lost count loooonnnggg ago of how many times I've had to re-read a sentence even on this message board to figure out what the writer intended to say simply because he didn't punctuate it correctly. Just because someone can eventually "figure it out" doesn't make it acceptable. (In fact, if the grammar is really bad, I just move on. I figure anybody who can't write better than that is also going to have a hard time understanding my instructions and I don't want to waste my time.)

For the case in question, adding a comma before the last item in a series almost never detracts from the readability. (However, there are exceptions to everything.) In fact, I researched on the internet and found that the vast majority of sites specify that the last comma should be used. (Of approximately 10 sites I checked, only one site suggested that it should not be used, one or two more suggested that it was optional, and all university sites checked said it should be used.)

I found this in the Wikipedia (bold added):

A comma before the final and, or, or nor in a list of more than two things is called a serial comma or an Oxford comma:

• We had milk, biscuits, and cream.
• It is called the Oxford comma because the style guide of the Oxford University Press is one of its prominent advocates.
• Although the Oxford comma is not always used, it should be applied to avoid ambiguity. Omitting the Oxford comma changes the meaning of a sentence, and unless the author is aware of the possible meaning the comma should be included rather than omitted.

(They have a couple good examples of why "Omitting the Oxford comma changes the meaning..." Use the link above to open Wikipedia and read them. It's something I had never considered but it is grammatically correct.)

Here's a different example of where it would be really important to use a comma to separate the last item in a series: The color of the objects in the order presented were green, orange, red and white, and blue. If this were written without the comma before the last item it would be virtually impossible to be sure you understood the real intent. It might be determined that there were only 3 objects and the last object was "red and white and blue" or maybe it was just a typo and there were 5 objects each with one color. Using the commas correctly makes the intent clear.

One of my favorite examples of why grammar is important is the story where the mayor of a city visits a classroom while they are studying english and says that grammar really isn't very important. So the teacher puts this on the board:

The mayor said the teacher is wrong.

Then adds some punctuation:

"The mayor", said the teacher, "is wrong."

Everyone should make it easy on their readers by learning and using good grammar. This is especially true when writing proposals and other things that could affect your pocket book. If two or more proposals are presented, anything that is difficult to read is much less likely to be accepted.

[G Gabriel]

Re: stritran help

Since my knowledge of grammer is less than that of Donald Duck's, I put both syntax(s) in Word and checked the grammer for both, guess what? both are correct.

Somebody care to comment on syntax(s)?
edited:
checked that one too, it should be:
syntaxes

[G Gabriel]

Re: stritran help

Cal:
Although I have no expertiese in this, but my guess is submitting a proposal with grammatical errors might work to your advantage. It denotes geekness.

[MikeC]

Re: stritran help

Cal,

Yep! :)

Everything you just said was just an elaboration of what I said so no thought of your "dissing" me even crossed my mind.

As off topic as most of the latter posts have been, I like to hear the hows and whys of what others here think about things...gives me more insight into who everyone is.

[christobal]

Re: stritran help

Since my knowledge of grammer is less than that of Donald Duck's, I put both syntax(s) in Word and checked the grammer for both, guess what? both are correct.

The problem with "MsWord" is in which English do you speak!



See this link : Whitesmoke

[G Gabriel]

Re: stritran help

The one they speak in the hood!

[christobal]

Re: stritran help

The one they speak in the hood!

Is that ?
A neighbourhood or neighborhood (see spelling differences) is a geographically localised community located within a larger city, town or suburb

[G Gabriel]

Re: stritran help

Da hood.

[Tim Kiebert]

Re: stritran help

Boy, you guys have been busy while I was sleeping. As far as to comma or not to comma I am on the to comma side. I had that question in the back of my mind while I was constructing the expression I posted. However, when answering an expression type question as this one, I make the assumption that the asker has a reason for what he wants and so try to come up with a way that works for the desired result.

Having said that and if Don would see the error of his ways;) and include the final comma then just change the '1' in the stuff() function to a '0' and a 1 to the position value. This will leave the comma in.

The reason my expression looks quite long is that I included an 'if' test to allow for a list length of 1.

if(w_count(crlf_to_comma(vLocation),",")>1,strtran(stuff(crlf_to_comma(vLocation),at(",",crlf_to_comma(vLocation),-1)+1,0," and "),",",", "),crlf_to_comma(vLocation))

Hhmm, using a final comma means we now have to test for only two elements otherwise we get: Left Foot, and Right Hand.

case(line_count(vLocation)=1,crlf_to_comma(vLocation),line_count(vlocation)=2,strtran(crlf_to_comma(vLocation),","," and "),line_count(vlocation)>2,strtran(crlf_to_comma(*reverse_words("and "+*reverse_words(vLocation))),",",", "),.t.,"")

I had to add a true case at the end because for some reason the expression was returning a result of false (.F.) if vlocation was blank. If I do ?case(1=2,"www",1=3,"qq") then I get a "" as a result. I think this may be a question for another thread.

Gabe,

I was thinking I liked your double reverse expression but then realised one more minor detail was missing and that is the space after the comma, which is also proper grammatical construction I believe. I used it above but added a strtran() to add the space.

PS Have taken too long repling to this, numerous interuptions, and I see a few more posts have been added.