Restrictive relative clauses are not set off by commas. You've probably used this book yourself. This book is short and viciously concise. I was even astounded to find out that she always memorized English words with her mini dictionary to be more expressive of her thoughts and feelings. I met them on a Cunard liner several years ago. It makes students nervous without teaching them about sentence structure. These are spoken in the standard English gobbledeguck yet immediately backed up by real-world examples.
Also, at that time, I was envious of a political icon in the Philippines who was admired for her intelligence and oratorical speeches. They add no particular insight, though some readers may find them a welcome distraction from the barked eccentricities of the book's two main authors. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. Further, and, is the least specific of connectives. The audience, which had at first been indifferent, became more and more interested. The first 14 pages are still the gospel truth, but much of the grammar and usage advice in the rest of the book is baloney. Should be the daily companion of anyone who writes for a living, and for that matter, anyone who writes at all.
Then for number 3, there were two instances when as the grammarian introducing the word of the day, I mispronounced the word and I was corrected by fellow club members. He was hired to revise the book for re-release after Strunk died, and he nearly doubled the length of the book with his additions. I have the same problem. Say what you will about him, he was not a hypocrite; this little book can be read in one sitting. I always believe that I should not insist something invalid and unreliable since there are many beholders in the universe. And, indeed, this is how the book is formatted.
The section warning against the passive, for example, is replete with passives. While I agree with everything said above, I do still recommend the book. While it makes sense to avoid an enormous pile of independent clauses in one's writing, it seems unlikely that trying to change the way people naturally use the language will solve this problem. When I finished that dictionary, I had proven my hypothesis. It is permissible to make an emphatic word or expression serve the purpose of a sentence and to punctuate it accordingly: Again and again he called out. Again and again, Strunk and White recommend the stuffy and unidiomatic, and warn against what sounds effective and natural. For those who are worried about the pedantry of writing, this book is mostly about grammar and what can be more effective in using the English language.
The grammatical advice was not new to me, which allowed my attention to drift further, and I think I would have more appreciation for this if I had discovered it sooner. Her illustrations are occasionally pretty, sometimes baffling, but generally pointless. It's a great book for writers. Five years later, the fourth edition text was re-published as The Elements of Style Illustrated 2005 , with illustrations by the designer. No hard and fast rule for all words can be laid down.
This also prevents confusion, as various English dialects may take these words in different ways, but all share the same roots. Or the subordinate clauses might be replaced by phrases: Owing to the disappearance of the early records of the city, the story of its first years can no longer be reconstructed. Strunk's rulings on word use especially amongst words with similar meanings are based on the root words, and the original meanings. Here is a smattering: Do not begin a sentence with however or a similar unimportant word. To advance my English skills, I decided to teach Koreans since teaching them seemed like was all the fashion then. Pointless nagging about mythical shibboleths brings grammar instruction into disrepute. This was reinforced by my reading of what really went on at the New Yorker and the wild and hilarious antics of the staff.
No doubt I've made some grammar or style mistakes in my review. Commissioned by Macmillan to revise Strunk's book, White edited the 1959 and 1972 editions of The Elements of Style. A simple correction, usually serviceable, is to omit the word so, and begin the first clause with as: As I had never been in the place before, I had difficulty in finding my way about. Harcourt republished it in 52-page format in 1920. He has to report all these 3 for 2-3 mins before the end of the meeting. Integral to developing this sensitivity was reading this slim volume. Its voice Had I read this a year ago, happily under the spell of nazism, I might have filled this little review with the kind of gleaming praise and happy diligence of the awakened; however, in the past year I was compelled to take up a few contemporary grammar and style guides and subsequently have developed a sore throat around these pills.
I welcome constructive advice that helps me attain that goal. It might seem obnoxious, but really they just can't help it. It is, however, an excellent beginning place for incipient writers. It should not be part of the puzzle. The point is not that you write this way or that; the point is that you care about the way you choose. Our teacher was not interested in getting us to pass a standardized test; instead, she wanted to really teach us how to read and write. It has achieved the status of a kind of sacred text, with all of the problems that result.