I was struck by this sentence and its analysis. I have never read this book, so I have no idea if the image I associate with this sentence is accurate, but it is vivid nonetheless. I picture this sentence as if it were a movie - the only audio being the bell clanging. The rest of the view quiet, children walking on snow-covered ground. I'm guessing this is not the case, but the sentence seems so descriptive. The authors of this text rephrased the sentence a couple different ways on the next page, but they argue (and I agree) that the rewrites are not as good. I can't articulate why I like the original better, but I think it goes to show that grammar has an important role in writing - not just clarity, but also tone.

The thing that sticks out to me about this paragraph is how descriptive it is and the types of sentence structure he uses. You know when you read something unnecessarily long and you just think, is it really important that I know this information? That's how I felt here. Additionally, the second sentence is long and sort of hard to follow. "The sun brings from its reflection on the tropic sea" is a relative clause with the relative pronoun omitted. I think the sentence would have been clearer had he included it. Or maybe it just feels hard to comprehend because the subject of the sentence is so long.

I think this section has some interesting grammatical choices. I think "the masquerade revelers" acts as an appositive to "regulars" to give the listener more context. Furthermore, "drunk as they watch my shattered edges glisten" is modifying revelers. Normally, I would view this phrase as a predicate adjective, except there is no verb there (if you just consider the sentence as starting at "the masquerade revelers").

The first thing that stood out to me about this is how short these phrases are. It gives the song a certain type of feel that I struggle to describe... I guess the feel of a lullaby - short and concise. Having never heard this song, I originally saw "exit light" and "enter night" as imperative sentences, but in a way it also seems like the purpose is to give the setting.

In thinking about these poems, I wondered why Levertov chose to make her poem much more condensed - to the point it made it difficult for me to understand what she meant. However, I think it lies with the start of the poem - "The world is not with us enough" Her style itself was not enough - it is short and quick, and it conveys her view of the world. This contradicts Wordsworth's opinion that the world is seeming too good for us and we waste our lives.

I think it's interesting to see how even within my lifetime, I've heard a lot of discourse over the term African-American. I feel like in middle school and high school it was seen as the "politically correct" term. However, I think many people equate the word African-American with Black even though they are not always synonymous. Sometimes I'll hear actors from other countries be referred to as African-American because they are Black, even though they're not American. I think I hear Black being used more often than I used to.

I think sometimes Black is seen as a negative term. In general, talking about race makes a lot of people uncomfortable, but that doesn't mean that we should not have conversations about it. I think conversations about how grammar connects with race not only give us a better way to communicate but also raise questions in and of themselves. Capitalizing race is something I have thought about while writing papers, but I have never really thought about the greater sociological impacts.

I think this kind of argument is the strongest I have heard in support of the singular "they". While people may not view that as "technically correct" while editing written work, it can often go unnoticed verbally. If someone left trash at the table, I feel like most people would say "someone left their trash." and not say something like "someone left his or her trash." And as we have discussed, grammar rules change (like the oxford comma). Who is to say that they/their is "incorrect"?

I promise I'll write more thought provoking annotations, but I completely had to stop reading and question the author's vocabulary preferences.

I get that the missing oxford comma created uncertainty in the law. However, I wonder if this sets a good precedent. Will this case be used to win future cases where there is a dispute over law due to grammar? I am also curious whether there actually was a misunderstanding. When I read the exemptions, I interpret it such that "packing for shipment" and "distribution of" are separate categories. Regardless, I do believe the truck drivers had a case. I guess when it comes to law, the policy of better safe than sorry applies when determining whether to put a comma.

I think the author had too much fun while writing this. I'm excited to see if the rest of the article is equally as entertaining.

I'm curious if any of you have any strong opinions about grammar rules - whether there's a rule or punctuation mark you want to get rid of or one you want to add. I have a surprising strong opinion on a punctuation mark I want created for certain types of questions, and I wanted to see if anyone else does.

This seems really unnecessary at first glance, but it actually makes a lot of sense. Constitutional law is obviously a major contributor to the outcome of court decisions. We've all heard of “Commas save lives” (I ate, Grandpa. vs. I ate Grandpa). Normally context is enough to decipher the original meaning, grammar and even word choice can affect the outcome of cases. The next section has an example of where grammar made a difference and had to be ruled on by the state supreme court. I'm including a link to a legal case that hinged on the definition of the word "chicken” that I found interesting.