Talk:Eats, Shoots & Leaves

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

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)[reply]

Article title[edit]

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)

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Review link[edit]

The New Yorker review is no longer available online. Remove link?John2429 20:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
This has been added. --195.137.68.138 22:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar and syntax[edit]

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)[reply]

Yes, I found some mistakes too, although I didn't have a notepad to hand when reading it. I think they should be included. I might re-read it and include them. Damiancorrigan 23:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tag-line on the book's cover is missing a hyphen: it should be The Zero-Tolerance Approach to Punctuation. To refer to a "Tolerance Approach" doesn't make sense, nor does a "Zero Approach"! 62.56.104.146 19:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it isn't. Zero tolerance is spelled without a hyphen, and, as no commentators are named lambasting the title in the article, as well there being a [citation needed] in place, I have removed the sentence from the Criticism section.71.51.53.206 (talk) 07:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, what is with the first sentence in the overview? Is the bad grammar a joke?... The "and" right before "quotation marks" doesn't make one bit of sense. In addition it's an incredibly ugly run-on sentence. Might I recommend a list of chapters to replace the run-on? I would fix it myself, but given the poor writing I can't tell if: "exclamation marks, question marks, and quotation marks, italic type, dashes, brackets, ellipses, and emoticons" is referring to one or two chapters (or something else?). Did the writer of this bibliography even read this book?...76.171.93.45 (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this conversation ‘ended’ years ago, but I’m here to revive it. As it appears in dictionary.com, “zero tolerance” is a policy (a noun), whereas “zero-tolerance” is a modifier (adjective). Look no further than the Wikipedia page Zero tolerance & you’ll see hyphenated & unhyphenated forms. However, I also understand that the point is that the criticism isn’t cited, so this was really just a belated point of order that doesn’t effect the decision. Dfcorrea00 (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ampersands[edit]

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)[reply]

For what it's worth, I believe that ampersands in titling are acceptable. Dweller 11:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And much more to the point it's how the title of the book is spelled. Flapdragon 02:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

The joke[edit]

The "eats shoots and leaves" joke with which I'm familiar is much simpler. The book in question was a dictionary rather than a wildlife manual, and it was not badly punctuated; it was simply misinterpreted. The punctuation problem in that case is that some people leave out commas, and the sentence was interpreted as if a comma had been left out. Since apparently the joke doesn't appear anywhere in "Eats, Shoots & Leaves", shouldn't the simpler form of the joke be in this article? It almost seems as if the joke has been modified to more directly suit the purposes of this book. —Deadcode 17:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed several articles which include some tangential piece of information which requires the use of 'adult' (as in 'not appropriate for youngsters') language or themes. A recent example is the alternate version of the title joke recently added to this article. Is the benefit of adding such material worth the downside of making an article (and therefore, Wikipedia in general) unsuitable for young users? This is an area of policy with which I am not familiar; I would appreciate the input of admins and more experienced editors. Special-T 15:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored --Keolah 00:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be noted somewhere that this is an older joke, which the writer adapted to sanitise it. The joke needn't be written out in full, it could just be mentioned that the same punchline is used as a reference to the Panda being a poor lover. It'd be good find a reference for this Alan Davies 23:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The writer didn't adapt it, though I believe she added the "badly-punctuated" bit. I had heard both versions of the joke long before the book came along. Damiancorrigan 18:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The joke is printed on the back cover of the dustjacket of my copy (UK edition) in almost exactly the form it appears in the article. Mhkay (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The joke in the article is very different from the version printed on the back cover. And main difference is not 'the "badly-punctuated" bit' ! The joke in the article is very cruel. the version printed on the back cover is just funny ! Look here: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FdfTKVG0KfE/TyBpXVDHK6I/AAAAAAAACzE/Y4LwV5eTizc/s1600/Panda+BC+ESL.jpg and here: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7khpQf8u5M8/Tbyx5eMdJoI/AAAAAAAACRU/JP9stWpCVHw/s1600/Eats%252C%2BShoots%2Band%2BLeaves%252C%2BBack.JPG Frankly, i've got no idea for the reason why this charming joke was crippled ("maiden virtue rudely strumpeted") ? i believe that original text should be restored. Arteau (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The article's text has a punctuation error anyway ("the confused surviving waiter" is a surviving waiter who is confused, not a waiter who is both surviving and confused). I am modifying the joke in the article according to your back covers. Current article text preserved here for comparison:
A panda walks into a café. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and proceeds to fire it at the other patrons.
"Why?" asks the confused, surviving waiter amidst the carnage, as the panda makes towards the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.
"Well, I'm a panda," he says. "Look it up."
The waiter turns to the relevant entry in the manual and, sure enough, finds an explanation. "Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."
Zaslav (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth is the word 'joke' linked to an article on the meaning of the word 'joke'? At this rate every single word in every single Wikipedia article could be a link: 'the' on the meaning of definite articles, 'meaning' on the meaning of meaning, and on and on....213.127.210.95 (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it is excessive. Unlinked per WP:Overlinking. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smileys (JFB)[edit]

What is the JFB there for?

No idea. I've removed it. Recury 18:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really a chapter on smileys anyway??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.74.200 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. -Toptomcat (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wombat: Eats, roots and leaves[edit]

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)[reply]

Hebrew[edit]

I read in the book that Hebrew did not have punctuation, and that leads to Bible translation problems. Masoretic Hebrew texts did have punctuation, its just that most people don't understand it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.203.174.171 (talk) 23:47, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Frank McCourt's foreword[edit]

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)[reply]

Error in the title[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Old page history[edit]

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)[reply]

Dead links[edit]

At least references 3 and 4 are now dead links.213.127.210.95 (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refs. 3 & 4 tagged for attention. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tone[edit]

I added the {{editorial}} template here in view of the editorializing tone of statements such as "Truss bemoans the state of...", "Her goal is to remind..." "In keeping with the general lighthearted tone...", etc. Any help rewriting the article with more factual language or providing better in-text attribution for subjective statements would be appreciated. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I removed it.
If, after more than one year, neither you nor anyone else knows how to "fix" it according to your standards I think it's safe to remove this template.
Truss does "bemoan". That's an objective statement about her subjective language style.
Her goal is to remind - again that's an objective assessment of the critical consensus about her purpose. --BushelCandle (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar within the article[edit]

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)[reply]

I'd adapt your revision to the following. "There are four chapters: apostrophes, commas, semicolons, and colons; exclamation marks, question marks, and quotation marks; italic type, dashes, brackets, ellipses, and emoticons; and finally on hyphens alone." Cross Reference (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comma disagreement in Reception section[edit]

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 In her 2005 book Talk to the Hand, Truss acknowledges some of the criticism, obliquely admitting that much of it is warranted. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: [1]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eats,_Shoots_%26_Leaves&oldid=1196344025"