Talk:Eats, Shoots & Leaves

message: Overly Critical
For a book which has been widely acclaimed and been a big bestseller I find it strange that this article contains such heavy criticism, including one from a comedian.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.125.14.247 (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Shouldn't this redirect to the more complete Eats, Shoots and Leaves article? The book's title actually does have the "&," though.
--Waiting4beckett 16:05, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I searched for this phrase expecting a short history / analysis of the joke, perhaps also a list of all its variations. I might also have expected it to include links to book titles it has inspired! It doesn't seem right to me that the article should be about a book that post-dates the joke by (in my experience) 30 years. Shouldn't the article about the book includes its subtitle "A zero..."? SeanCollins (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With Wikipedia article titles, shorter names are preferred.  Until there is enough information to create an article about this joke, then this book is the article that will occupy this article-title. — Val42 (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: The New Yorker review is no longer available online.  Remove link?John2429 20:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is the reference list on this article protected? The review is still available at http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/06/28/040628crbo_books1 but it seems I am unable to put it back in. --Roddie Digital 10:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been added. --195.137.68.138 22:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review link 

message: I was amazed to find a plethora of grammatical errors in Eats, Shoots & Leaves. And I do not like ampersands in prose! LoopZilla 17:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar and syntax 

message: The ampersand (&) is an often over-used abbreviation for the word and. Its use should be limited to a few situations.
This is the first sentence of All about ampersands. The article then asserts:
Do not use an ampersand in general writing simply to abbreviate the word and.
LoopZilla 08:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I believe that ampersands in titling are acceptable. Dweller 11:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And much more to the point it's how the title of the book is spelled. Flapdragon 02:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say it's necessarily "how the title of the book is spelled" because, typically, decisions concerning abbreviations, casing, &c are made by the designer or editor, not the author. -- Ampersands are used in titling and headlines in order to save space, & because the book designer may want the added calligraphic flourish.  Depending on different bibliographical conventions, book citations may preserve the ampersand or spell it out as "and". -- I can't see why anyone should get fussed about ampersands (outside of contexts where they're obligatory, like the names of law firms), but then I can't see why people get fussed about any other abbreviation or mark of punctuation either. --ND 03:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ampersands 

message: What is the JFB there for?
:No idea. I've removed it. Recury 18:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. -Toptomcat (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smileys (JFB) 

message: There is a common joke in Australia about how Australian males are like Wombats. Why? The Wombat eats roots and leaves. The Australian male eats, roots, and leaves. Whereas roots refers to has sexual intercourse (in Australian Slang) in the latter example. May be there is a connection between this analogy (or: example of the importance of punctuation)and the title of the book?
How  abouta list of examples where punctuation affects the meaning? Example: Women without her man, is nothing. Or:Women. Without her, man is nothing.--Soylentyellow 22:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Wombat: Eats, roots and leaves

message: In my copy (American) of Eats, Shoots, & Leaves, the quote is "If Lynne Truss were Roman Catholic I'd nominate her for sainthood." So I will add "Roman" to the article; it seems too important to leave out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Istillcandream (talk • contribs) 04:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frank McCourt's foreword 

message: The title of this book really, really bothers me. Why? Because I hate when people don't use a serial comma. I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned.
--Cleveland Rock (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you think would be the appropriate place to mention your hatred of people who don't use a serial comma?  Surely not in the title of this book.  I think she was looking to produce a more general overview of punctuation, rather than a discussion of one person's stylistic passion.  But I could be wrong.--NapoliRoma (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Roger Casement#Capture, trial and execution for an example of what can happen due to the presence of a comma.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in the title 

message: Some page history that used to be at the title "Eats, Shoots & Leaves" can now be found at Talk:Eats, Shoots & Leaves/Old history. Graham87 14:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old page history 

message: At least references 3 and 4 are now dead links.213.127.210.95 (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Refs. 3 & 4 tagged for attention. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead links 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Eats, Shoots & Leaves. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930015620/http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/News/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand=enonline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED16%20Nov%202006%2008:51:54:233 to http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/News/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand=enonline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED16%20Nov%202006%2008%3A51%3A54%3A233
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I’ll start by mentioning that I’m not familiar with British or Australian or really any other form of English other than American English. Therefore, I don’t know the different grammatical rules & whatnot. However, from what I can tell, the 2nd section (beginning with “There is one chapter”) has a confused use of serial commas & semicolons. Rather than explain each (mis)use, I’ll offer a revised version:
“There is one chapter each on apostrophes, commas, semicolons, and colons; exclamation marks, question marks, and quotation marks; italic type, dashes, brackets, ellipses, and emoticons; and the last one on hyphens.”
I’m not sold on “...and the last one on hyphens [sic]” because to me, the final semicolon acts as an introduction to a new complete phrase rather than a continuation of the list. Since the sentence begins, “There is one chapter each on...”, one would expect all the parts of the list to agree with the introduction. To say “there is one chapter each on bluh & bluh & the last one on hyphens” sounds awkward. Adding something as simple as the word “is” renders the final phrase as not a fragment of a larger sentence, but a complete phrase. This is OK if you instead think of the final semicolon as a separation between 2 sentences. E.g.: “There is one chapter each on bluh & bluh. The last one is on hyphens.” But since the 2 phrases are simlar enough, they can be joined with a semicolon in between.
In summary, add ‘is’ between “one” & “on” to make things that much easier to read. Dfcorrea00 (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar within the article 

message: Hello all- An anonymous editor at 72.130.75.27 has been repeatedly adding what I view as an inappropriate and distracting comma after the word book in the sentence  The editor invokes a guide on appositives as justification, but my read of that guide runs counter to the editor's; I see the title of the book (in the sentence in question) to be what the guide calls "restrictive", as it adds essential information to the noun book. If the section were discussing a series of books, each published in a different year, I would use such a comma, as it would place stress on the year. But that is not called for in the sentence as it appears here. Despite not wanting to engage in an edit war over this, I have reverted the IP edits. Given the topic of the article, I thought it worth the effort to keep our punctuation in good order. Eric talk 12:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The test is whether the sentence works without the title of the book. It does. Therefore, the title of the book is an appositive. For example, if I have only one brother, his name is an appositive. (My brother, Bob, is sick.) His name is not necessary for the sentence to make sense. If I have two brothers, the name is not an appositive. (My brother Bob is sick.) As Truss wrote only one book in 2005, the book title is an appositive. The sentence makes perfect sense if you leave out the book title. It has nothing to do with Valspeak, as you suggested in your edit summary. 72.130.75.27 (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, as I think I make clear above. I get the "brother Bob" point, but I don't find it applies here. Not that I think it matters in this case, but the reader does not necessarily know this was the only book of hers from 2005, and that knowledge should not be a prerequisite for reading the sentence. Eric talk 19:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That's at least part of the point. By using the removing the comma, you are sending the message (through the grammatical structure) that Truss had more than one book that year. By leaving the comma in place, you signal to the reader the reader it was Truss's only book of 2005. Look at the example here on Natasha's son: . The comma provides essential clarity. For someone who doesn't think this comma matters, you've sure invested a lot into it. 72.130.75.27 (talk) 02:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Re my investment: You are forcing me to think about something I would not normally spend this much time analyzing—which I at first mildly resented and now grudgingly appreciate. It seems we read commas differently. I do not interpret the presence and absence of this comma the way you do. My default is to omit commas when they provoke a pause that would not be spoken aloud. The way I read that sentence, the presence of the comma would cause the reader to "hear" emphasis on 2005, which might almost provoke an expectation of a subsequent sentence that discusses another book from another year. But since the topic of the sentence is Truss' acceptance of the criticism, and not what book came out in what year, I would not pause between book and Truss. Maybe someone else will weigh in here? Eric talk 13:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Truss explicitly says that commas are about grammar, not pauses. You keep making them about pauses. You must not have read her book. 72.130.75.27 (talk) 07:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole "it works without the phrase" is a matter of style. Whether one wants to make the title an appositive is a matter of editorial choice: there is nothing wrong with the phrase "in her 2005 book Talk to the Hand", and inserting the comma means an emphasis on the year, which IMO is unnecessary and distracting. Drmies (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You must not have read Truss's book. That's not what she says at all. 72.130.75.27 (talk) 06:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I implied that I was citing Truss or that I subscribe to her views. Eric talk 14:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Not at all. But I do find it ironic that an article on a grammar guide should be ungrammatical. I'm the only one here citing grammar experts. 72.130.75.27 (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comma disagreement in Reception section