This is what I'd consider the "end game" to learning grammar style. Before learning style, a writer would think through their ideas and the structures of their sentences based off of what sounds the best to the reader. It turns out that what sentence structure sounds best to the reader is not something unexplainable, but is something one can learn and study. After learning grammar style it is much easier to structure sentences properly or find out what is wrong with a sentence (double clauses, run-ons).

Viewing grammar as style adds great appreciation to plays, novels, and poems. After taking this class, I've gained greater attentiveness towards the grammar and speech of characters I've read in novels. Character's such as Anton Chigurh from No Country For Old men, having an incredibly unique grammar style, appeal to me even more than before.

Ernest Hemingway and Virginia Woolf use two very different styles of sentence structures. The first and most obvious difference is the length of said sentences. Hemingway uses very short sentences while Woolf uses very long sentences. Another difference between the writing styles of Hemingway and Woolf is Hemingway's use of the past participle. The entirety of "The Old Man and the Sea" is written in the past tense, while "To the Lighthouse" is primarily written in the present. Woolf clearly does not like to use periods, and this is evident in "To the Lighthouse". Woolf's lack of periods causes the reader to feel almost overwhelmed, or, such as claranoble said, feel as if you are receiving the boy's thoughts in real time.

The first major difference I can distinguish between the two is the formatting they use. "Enter Sandman" by Metallica was written in the 90's and because of this does not use the verse to chorus formatting that almost all modern music uses. Despite the differences in formatting you can pretty much tell where the verses and chorus' start just based off the sentence structure and repetition of Metallica's song. The sentence structure of "Enter Sandman" is also much less complex and more demanding than "Mirrorball" which gives it more of an aggressive tone.

This is just silly. White supremacist's refer to themselves as white, and so does the entirety of the white population. I guarantee you Black supremacist's refer to themselves as "Black", just like Asian supremacists would refer to themselves as "Asian".

This is exactly what I was thinking. People use the word "black" as a replacement for the longer nouns "African-American" or "African". If used as a replacement for a longer noun (that is normally capitalized), I think it is justified to capitalize said noun. I think the same can be said for the word "white". Nobody refers to white people using the racially correct word "Caucasian", even on medical forms and sign up sheets it asks if you are "white", not "Caucasian". I think it would be just as justified to capitalize "white" as well, since, like the word "black", it is socially accepted as a non-bias racial description. However, I think words like "brown" and "yellow" are not socially accepted as non-bias racial descriptions and as a result would not be used or debated.

I was about to make a comment regarding the non gender-neutral aspects of "you guys" however the latter of the sentence explains my concern. It is very strange that in a time where "he" and "she" are being regarded as inappropriate due to their gender assigning roles, that a word like "guys", an exclusively male pronoun, is used more. Perhaps some pronouns that used to be gendered are now becoming gender-neutral, thus making it acceptable to use them.

I remember when this word was a dialect and teachers in my class (South Carolina) around 2010 would discourage students from using this pronoun. It is kind of strange how back then it was not in the dictionary, however, now that it is, my teachers no longer discourage it's use.

This is seems like a lazy solution to the problem stated. The coma and semi-colon are equally debated among academics and replacing one fickle literary symbol with another is only moving problems around and doesn't resolve any future problems that may occur. I think in situations such as court, it is incredibly important to set firm, understandable rules for punctuation such as colons, semi-colons. and comas, and it amazes me that even in 2018, these debates are still happening.

This event shows precisely why we need a set of rules or a system for grammar. If grammar is used in the court of law or in science then each individual grammatical symbol needs a thorough explanation so that the meanings of such laws or scientific studies cannot be misunderstood. If everyone has their own rules for colons and semi-colons then several different conclusions could be met from reading the same text.

Morris continuously emphasizes correcting the grammatical mistakes of Latin conversions such as the writings of Murray, Kirkham, and Shakespeare. It is important for these mistakes to be corrected because these authors are incredibly important among the literary community and their works are often studied in school systems. As it is Morris' goal to create a grammatical system for the semi colon and colon, it is important he makes sure that older works fit into this system as well.