I would think that there probably shouldn't be a space before the exclamation point.

That's some heated debate you're getting in...

:) It appears to be proper grammar when writing in French to leave spaces after the exclamation points and question marks so I can understand how this happened. Leaving such a space may not be a big concern on Tatoeba when implemented into English grammar; it's not my call to make that judgement here. The reason I left a comment simply to point out my observation here was because I was reading another English sentence with a comment from an admin or corpus maintainer who fixed it because the contributor apparently left a space after a question mark. That's all there is for me to say here. Thanks for replying to me cueyayotl and I'm sorry if I offended you in any way sacredceltic since that wasn't and isn't my intention.

>I'm sure if it really mattered, all instances could be easily changed with a little programming.

In virtue of what rule ? By what authority ?

@slyfin

I don't know what age you are, but maybe you still have books from your grand or grand-grand parents ? They're not that old. Maybe your grand or grand-grand parents are still living and cherishing them. It's where they learnt, and maybe where YOU learnt your own language.
Please open them and see for yourself...

https://books.google.fr/books?i...ickens&f=false

Would be funny to see you use extra-long sentence spacing, as was used in the centuries prior. This would look wonderfully ugly on Tatoeba!

It seems hypocritical, however, that you embrace the now-unusual long spacing in English, yet refuse to do so in French, even though that's apparently the norm for Canadian French, but I've never seen you respect it. You always act as if long spacing is objectively superior, which is not the case.

I don't "embrace" it especially. I just like challenging false certitudes and I just find ridiculous that people always bicker on that point, although they don't have the background, and know nothing of typographical rules and history around the world.
Before lecturing, people should bother learning.

But, as I already wrote many times, here, don't you find it ridiculous, that a generation of young people, who represent but 20% of the pyramid age in our western countries, come and tell us that the way our grand-parents wrote and read their books is now obsolete ? I learnt English in old Dickens books. I can't see why they should be obsolete now, especially since English typography has no rules. Who the hell has decreed that Dickens Publisher was wrong all the time ?!? Please do tell me !
Many English-speaking areas of the world, including Mauritius and India, sometimes use spaces before double points, in their English editions, as you can see in their papers or magazines, if you just make the effort to open them.

I'm also fed up being told that "just the French do that", because it is plain wrong. Just open books from around the world and see for yourself.

Speaking about Canadian French, you should just shut up, because you don't know anything. ALL publishers from French Canada use spaces before double-points. Just open ANY book published in Quebec to make sure...
Yes, I know, you're going to unearth some thesis or report, or maybe some article from some English-speaking Canadian writing or publishing in French who doesn't put the spaces. But that just proves the French Canadians are under cultural pressure, but that doesn't make a rule.
I read Canadian books all the time, and they have the spaces where they should be, as had the British, German, Italian, Romanian, editions before the invention of the typewriter (not so long ago...)
I showed, in an earlier debate, that the brothers Grimm, who invented modern German Grammar, used the spaces in their German grammar books. Just open one ! The original edition is available in Google Books.

And yes, long spacing is indeed superior for people who learnt reading with it (as did your grand parents, probably). It makes texts more READABLE.
For instance, it helps, through a simple glimpse, to know whether a sentence is a question, when you start reading it, so you know what tone to adopt if you read aloud. Without the spaces, question or exclamation marks get visually blurred among high letters. That simple.

So I can't see why you're all being so agressive against something that :
1) your grand-parents were happily doing. Yes, it's part of your heritage that you now contempt and boo.
2) makes sense from a very practical point of view.

On the other hand, the two reasons why these spaces were suppressed in US and British publishing, ie gaining time and paper with typing, or using up less memory in early computers, are both ridiculously obsolete, since devices memories are now limitless and they're almost free, and our text processors can automatically insert the needed spaces.

So, what's wrong with you people ? Really ?

The long-spacing-makes-text-more-readable bubble has no proof and basis. Just like language, what you grew up with is typically the most confortable to you. People who grow up reading books with short spacing get naturally used to it and have no trouble whatsoever. "?" and "!" stand out well enough unless it's an ALLCAPS text, in which case they may simply be made bigger.

My point is that you fight for freedom when it suits you, such as the freedom to put spaces the way you like them to be, but would vote to ban short spacing any day, and are oppressive against short spacing in French. You strive to write the way you deem superior, even if the 'modern recommendations' would deprecate it, yet are frustrated when others do so in French.

Please produce a reference to a French-speaking book published by a French-speaking publisher that doesn't use what you call "long spacing". I've never seen one in my 53 years lifespan.
Until then, I have no reason to vote against or for, and this is but a utopian hypothesis from yours...But of course, I would vote against, because this would impair my reading (if not yours, but that's YOUR problem, I can't care less. I express MY opinion, about MY reading standards, and in MY sentence. I never came to debate YOUR reading standards. Feel free to read upside-down or mirrored, if you want...)

Again, tell us why this makes you want to fight so hard ? What is the deep reason ? Is it reasonable ? What would your grand-parents think if you were to tell them that the way they wrote was wrong all the time ? Why do you want to fight so hard for saving a space here and there ? Are you some lobbyist for retired typists or against the expansion of computer memories ? Tell us what drives you, that must be fascinating to hear, because I would never contemplate myself writing so much about somebody else's detailed writing standards.

It's actually really weird to see how hysterical people here get about punctuation. My first contact with Tatoeba was some hysterical fit by a group of former administrators who freaked out because I had forgotten to put "full stops" (they meant dots) at the end of my sentences. Seriously, is this reasonable ?

I don't care if you choose to use long spacing for your sentences - it doesn't make them worse, so do as you see fit - but then if I wrote a French sentence using short spacing, you would bash me for not conforming to (France) French official standards and demand a change, and that's where I see inequality.

As for Canadian French leaving the space before ?! out, I've found some references: http://www.btb.termiumplus.gc.c...info0=6.13#zz6
http://66.46.185.79/bdl/gabarit...p?t1=1&id=2039
http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/f/44167.html
...and various instances of people pointing out that putting a space before ?! isn't customary in Canadian French. Findind book examples would be difficult for me, but I'm sure you can do it.

>I don't care if you choose to use long spacing for your sentences

Yes you do very much, seeing the lengths you're going to for that matter !

>but then if I wrote a French sentence using short spacing, you would bash me for not conforming to (France) French official standards and demand a change, and that's where I see inequality.

That's where you're entirely wrong, because YOU HOLD NO ELEMENT OF PROOF that French publishing EVER used short spacing, when I PRODUCE ELEMENTS of the contrary in English (And German, and you name it...)

>As for Canadian French leaving the space before ?! out, I've found some references

No you have NOT ! Please PRODUCE a FRENCH CANADIAN PUBLISHED BOOK by a French Canadian publisher, with a renowned publishing house (not some obscure alienated production...) ! It's easy ! Just do as I do : dig Google Books ! They just scanned almost every book on this planet since the invention of printing !

What you produce are rules, translated in French (which is one of the 2 official languages of Canada, so translation is requested at the federal level...) of typographical rules applying at a Federal level in CANADA (not in French Canada). These rules just DON'T APPLY to French publishing in CANADA, and as a matter of fact, they are NOT applied in French-speaking publishing in Canada !

Again, I'm asking you, what is your problem ? Is that just that you hate that written English has no offical rules ? Or that Dickens and the Grimm brothers used to insert spaces before question marks ? And why is it that you resent that so much, since you're not even anglophone ?

1. It's no good to dismiss what other people say they mean. Chances are, they know it better than you do.

2. The fact that official 'Guide du rédacteur' of Canadian French govt. recommends no spacing before ?! tells us that this is allowed. No more facts are needed: this is officially allowed, and you're no authority to ban it. Even if this is used for some official correspondence rather than books, the point still stands that it is allowed.

3. My problem is that I like short spacing and am annoyed that you wouldn't let me use it in French for petty reasons. :) I'm obviously used to seeing short spacing in English, but I shouldn't be roused if you rather enjoy long spacing, since it doesn't have any meaningful effect.

@cueyayotl

Stop behaving like you're some kind of prison ward here. I'm unimpressed. And this is my sentence, nobody forces you to come read the comments on my sentences.
And YOU come crying on my sentences, not the other way round - and doing so, you're spreading your prejudices against the French who are supposed to do this and that, based on a supposed expertise you would have about French typography and their unique bad behaviour, when of course, you are also completely ignorant of the subject.

I live in a free country where I can express my opinions. I think Ooneykcall is lecturing on a subject, the French language and its typography, that he is ignorant of. I'm quite sure he never reads a Canadian book in French. It is ridiculous to want to lecture natives on language aspects you don't know anything about.
He's picking a fight for just the pleasure to fight.

I'm fed up of all these brats posing as experts of all the world languages. It is really boring.

You may think whatever. I'll simply make sure to reciprocate, so be aware that from now on I will simply disregard your suggestions as distrustful, just as you ignore others. Have a good day.

My suggestions regarding my native language that I've been speaking for 53 years are certainly more relevant than yours about this same language that is your 4th, according to your profile, and that you admit you don't practice anymore...

There is absolutely no place for reciprocation : I never expressed any opinion on the writing standards of your native language...

Whether you regard or disregard my comments is perfectly indifferent to me. It's always been, since you're no expert nor fluent in any of the languages I'm interested in . I can't remember commenting one of your sentences. If I look at your record, you've got 6 sentences in French, and 3 of them are unnatural and I didn't notice earlier, so I really can't care less.

But you'll stand corrected if you err, don't you worry...

Stop posing as a know-it-all of all languages. At your age, it makes you a laughing stock. Just learn (and learn modesty along the way)

Why are we fiercely debating French punctuation rules in the comments of an English sentence? I mean no disrespect for the French language, but this is an English sentence, so French punctuation rules are not all that relevant in this case.

As far as I know, using the "espace fine" rule in English is rare and considered non-standard in any country with a considerable amount of native English speakers, so its use qualifies as non-standard English, and must be indicated as such. I have added a "non-standard punctuation" tag.

@Raizin

if you want to be exact, your tag should read : "non-standard punctuation since 1 century, although it has been the standard punctuation since the invention of printing (5 centuries before...), and the reason for the change is stinginess on paper and typist's work-time"

I consider otherwise that your tag is a gross simplification, and subsequently, a lie.

A century is a heck of a lot of time when it comes to language standards in the modern time.

Only about a Century ago it was still standard Usage to capitalize every Noun in English, which People stopped doing for similar Reasons of arguable Laziness. And both the Engliſh and the French Language (as well as many other European Languages) ſtill uſed to have a Diſtinction between the long and ſhort S (ſ and s) only about two Centuries ago (uſing the s only at the End of Words, and the ſ elſewhere). And not long before that, the u and v were ſtill conſidered to be Nothing more than Variations of the ſame Letter (vſing the v at the Start of Words, and the u elſewhere). Theſe were alſo the Standard ſince before the Inuention of Printing.
(In fact, the U and V had been the same letter for over two millennia before we decided to make the vowel/consonant distinction. Even Julius Caesar's name was written ɪᴠʟɪᴠs in his time.)

And written Korean from a century ago looks absolutely nothing like modern Korean. Back then people still wrote Korean with Chinese characters (which is now considered extremely old-fashioned), and the modern Korean script was hardly used until a few decades later.

To Celtic, anything archaic is by definition superior.

I’m sorry, sacredceltic—and I’m talking not to you as a person but to the things you have written in this very comment section—you are just behaving like an obstinate little kid. And your claims on how experienced and taught you are and how long you’ve speaking this and this language … only make it more ridiculous. But I won’t tell you to shut up; I was taught not to do so by my parents and teachers.

I’m not a big expert on the history of typography, but I think I’ve seen enough to be able to say that inserting spaces before exclamation & interrogation marks and colons isn’t really *standard* in the English language as a whole in the time we live in now. Raizin’s tag might be a simplification, but it is not at all a lie; the sentence just does use non-standard punctuation. (Altough I’m not a native speaker of English nor an old-school Frenchman, so my statement probably doesn’t have any value for you, right?)

I think that whoever is mentally capable to learn English to a decent degree is also intelligent enough to recognize that typography isn’t a stable field and that the standards of typography have changed in the past centuries (and are changing right now), as do languages themselves. Since Tatoeba tries to catch *mostly* the modern forms of living languages—let’s say, the forms from the first two decades of the 21st century so far—I think we should use those typography rules that are proper to this age.

We do have archaic sentences here on Tatoeba—and they’re just tagged “archaic”. You could, of course, tag them like, “barely used before 1913, archaic since the 1980s”, but tell me: is this really what an average language learner needs? Isn’t just indicating that this word or phrase is archaic—isn’t that sufficient?

I’m trying to believe—and I hope—that your proposal of the exact tag (“non-standard punctuation since 1 century, although it has been the standard punctuation since the invention of printing…” etc.) was just an irony, although from some things you’ve written in this comment section … I’m not sure whether you’re being serious or not.

I don’t know you, but you really seem like a slightly hypocritical man who—just as Ooneykcall wrote—is for freedom where he himself needs it.

And if you really, really insist on having this tag of yours attached to this sentence—although I find your behaviour just childish, ridiculous, absurd and childish again—I beg you to at least change the word “typew” to “typewriter”. There are people out there who might be confused by this abbreviation.

>A century is a heck of a lot of time when it comes to language standards in the modern time.

Well, certainly not for English or French. I have no idea about the Korean case. It's just 3 generations. That means, I learnt my language in my grand-parents books and they and I speak the same language. I'm sorry if you're unable to understand or read your own grand-parents. A pity, in my view. Yes I know, young people will tell me that they have nothing to learn from such useless old people as their grand-parents, because everything is on Wikipedia, now, and all is so new that the past is just useless. Time will just prove them wrong.

As for myself, I consider it a total disrespect to my family traditions that I should write otherwise than my grand-parents did.
Unlike what cueyayotl believes, disrespect doesn't consist of disagreeing with somebody or telling them that their knowledge of a topic is ridiculously poor to argue, but definitely consists in telling people that their very identity is bullshit, like you're doing now... I find your telling me that they way my grand-parents read and wrote is now obsolete quite offensive.

A century is also a very short period in the history of printing, which was invented in the 15th century, almost 6 centuries ago. That means the now obsolete stinginess for spaces that prevailed during the age of typewriters and of tight computer memory limits has prevailed for only 1/6th of that history. To put things in perspective, that means English has thus been written with long spacing 5 times longer than with short spacing.
In a distant future, defenders of sparing spaces might look like the last remnants of the mechanical era, finally defeated by technology. Who knows...

@lipao

Since you're calling me "hypocritical, childish x2 and absurd", you'll get special attention from me.

>Since Tatoeba tries to catch *mostly* the modern forms of living languages
>let’s say, the forms from the first two decades of the 21st century so far

Where did you read this ridiculous assertion ? Was "modern" ever defined on Tatoeba ? Do you mean to exclude elders along with all Dicken's readers ?
I was born in 1962 and learnt my language during the 20th century. Does that disqualify me ? Do you mean to exclude 80% of the age pyramid ?
Soon a ban on Internet for 20th century-educated people ? What kind of Nazism is that ?

>"proper to this age."

Do you think you're "proper" writing this ?

>I beg you to at least change the word “typew” to “typewriter”. There are people out there who might be confused by this abbreviation.

Well, there's nothing I can do about tags lengths on Tatoeba. Would you believe it ? it was truncated by the service. Not my doing...Make sure to engage your brain before putting your hands in gear, next time, because people will believe that tags are not the only attributes abbreviated in your case...

@ooneykcall

>To Celtic, anything archaic is by definition superior.

Caricaturing me doesn't help your...cause ? (why is it ?) in any way.

If you're interested in the sentences I wrote in French, they span all eras from my childhood to now. Some are typically 2010s, so that proves you wrong.
And please stop insulting people by calling them "archaic", since your definition of "archaic" is a century. Some eminent contributors of Tatoeba have/had (some are dead now) almost twice my age...
And I'm supposed to be the big bad offensive wolf here...Phew !

The word "archaic" doesn't correctly apply to people, and I never said anything to the contrary. I didn't call you archaic, that would be really silly.

You do give credit to modern language sometimes, but often seem to be critical of it, while I've never seen you be critical against "old school" language.

Speaking of tags, however, they are designed as convenient labels for people to group sentences in a way that is relevant to many learners. The label you put cuts off early, rendering it useless in practice. It would therefore be in general interest that it were changed to something short enough. Would 'pre-typewriting punctuation' appeal to you? It would then be clear that that punctuation, namely long spacing, was in wide use before typewriters but has become non-standard by now. The latter statement, while you may not like it, is a fait accompli since modern English style guides, if they mention spacing at all, recommend short spacing, so long spacing is now effectively "non-standard", as in, not complying with the standard that is accepted by the majority of speakers. Doesn't mean you can't use it. So there is nothing wrong with the 'non-standard punctuation' tag, since it reflects the reality.

ps. looking all the way back to XVI century is a bit of a stretch, though. That's far back enough that most languages changed visibly since then. Including French, I think – you wouldn't say you'd understand XVI-century writing as easily as modern French?

>The label you put cuts off early, rendering it useless in practice. It would therefore be in general interest that it were changed to something short enough.

Well, it's news to me that Tatoeba is LIMITED. Not limited when it comes to offending people over 25, though ! I thought those brillant brats had thought it all !

>I've never seen you be critical against "old school" language.

Why should I be ?

>So there is nothing wrong with the 'non-standard punctuation' tag, since it reflects the reality.

I never challenged it, actually. It's fine by me. It is just to YOU that is creates a commotion...

>you wouldn't say you'd understand XVI-century writing as easily as modern French?

Well, you would be astonished ! I can read the original Rabelais and have a good laugh !

What's wrong with 'pre-typewriting punctuation' that you need to put such inconvenient tags? Tags are designed for other people to make use of, not just for you.
---
See, that shows you're biased in favour of old language and against modern language, easy.
---
I take it the answer to my last question is negative, since you neglected to answer it directly. See, I didn't ask whether you could read it - I was quire sure you could - but whether it is every bit as easy to understand as modern French, which I'm quite sure it isn't.

>>A century is a heck of a lot of time when it comes to language standards in the modern time.
>Well, certainly not for English or French. (...) It's just 3 generations.

I mainly said that because a great number of languages have significantly reformed the way they are written in the past 50-200 years, especially after World War II. Korean being an extreme example of that.

> As for myself, I consider it a total disrespect to my family traditions that I should write otherwise than my grand-parents did. (...) I find your telling me that they way my grand-parents read and wrote is now obsolete quite offensive.

Well, in my view languages just evolve, as do the people speaking them. Rules change, words are used in new ways, new words are created and adopted, old words fall into oblivion... and there is nothing wrong with that.

But I did not realize you value tradition so much. I am sorry for disrespecting you and your family. That was not at all my intention.

>See, that shows you're biased in favour of old language and against modern language, easy.

Define "old language", please. If you mean to say, like lipao, that "old language" is the language of people born before 2000, which means that 90% of people in my country speak and write "old language", you're just making yourself sound like an idiot.
If you insist on doing it, you should request Tatoeba to create special languages for the teenagers. But I doubt there will be much in there that is not identical to standard languages.
I'd actually be interested in the experiment.

Rendkívül érdekes hozzászólásokat olvashattam itt.
Ajánlom mindenkinek, hogy olvassa végig, és gondolja át.
Szinte minden hozzászólásban van igazság!
Hagyományok tisztelete, őseink nyelve, nyelvújítás, tipográfia,
generációk, könyvek, számítógépek világa ...
És: A vélemények megmutatják, hogy mennyire különbözők
vagyunk! Más nyelven beszélünk, másként gondolkozunk!
Így azután megállapítható, hogy a Tatoeba mondatai
változatosak, színesek, mint mi emberek is!

A nyelvek élnek. Éljenek a nyelvek!

Lingvoj ne estas ĉizitaj en ŝtonon. Lingvoj vivas pere de ni ĉiuj.

Köszönöm, mraz !

: )

@sacredceltic

You misunderstood me. First of all, I didn’t actually even want to define some exact time period, I just wanted to write “modern forms of languages”; but I could really imagine yourself responding then: “Define ‘modern’!” So I just took “the first two decades of the 21st century” pretty much casually.

Anyway, by saying “the language from first two decades of the 21st century” I didn’t mean only the language of those born after 2000, but the language of *all* people living and speaking and writing in the 21st century. My point is that Tatoeba should *theoretically* accept and not tag as archaic any correct original sentence that was spoken or written (by a native speaker) in the 21st century so far—as long as the speaker or writer didn’t make it sound archaic deliberately (which is by the way something I could suspect you of, but I haven’t read many of your sentences in the languages I know).

But of course, I’m am of no authority, this is just my opinion.

So I am not at all saying that just because you were born fifty years ago, you speak “old language”. Just if you, by some accident, took Rabelais’ writings or your grandparents’ old correspondence from 1914 too seriously and used their now-rarities in your daily expressions, then I think I would have the right to say you speak “old language”.

Although 90% (this is just my humble estimation, do not want any source) of the expressions used for example by your grandparents were just identical to modern expressions (so by that definition of mine, to those used in the 21st century); and they should not be considered archaic.

And about the long-tag thing … yeah, I admit that I am indeed stupid, at least as long as you consider not being skilled with computers stupidity. I didn’t realize that tags have limited lenght while writing my previous comment, if you think this is a sign of stupidity—please; although I thought it was actually you who cries over the bully of those not being into all the modern stuff.

@lipao, olvastad a hozzászólásomat?

@mraz

Promiň, Ernő, úplně ti nerozumím, ale jestli mi chceš naznačit, že už plácám blbosti a abych už byl taky zticha, tak ti rád vyhovím :) Hezky jsi nám tu diskusi završil, nejspíš tím měla skončit.

You spelled " Dickens' " wrong

"Punctuation that prevailed the longest in English"

Slavery has existed for 9,000 years, and been outlawed almost worldwide for only a hundred years or so. Does that make it right?

@DJ_Saidez

Your parallel with slavery is gross.
The question is not about right and wrong, not even about tradition, the question is about readability and the obsolescence of what caused - briefly - the move to less readable forms of typing : typewriters, stingy printers and low early computer memories.

I guess I was too quick in enemizing others. A result of the polarizing environment of today's world.

All I'm saying is that the majority of native speakers don't use it like that, and they don't seem to have a problem with that.
And if/until that changes, that won't conform with Tatoeba standards for English.

I'll let more qualified people decide how to go forward with this.

Funny that no-one (including myself at the time) picked up on the mistranslation of 'heureusement' as 'hopefully'. Should be 'fortunately'. But the German says 'hoffentlich', which means 'hopefully'. So we've got an entangled error here.

What about usage ? I remember you were a strong proponent of it on another thread...
Usage is where languages diverge...
Funny you are unaware of it and still being an “advanced contributor “ on a translation website...