just watched the Youtube video<,> Kennedy Addresses the Nation on the Cuban Missile Crisis

< Previous | Next >

AntiScam

Senior Member
Arabic
Hello,

I guess the first sentence is correct while the second is not. The sentence cannot be appositive since there is not a noun or a pronoun that can be renamed or added information to. "the Youtube video" does not qualify. What do you think?

1- I just watched the Youtube video Kennedy Addresses the Nation on the Cuban Missile Crisis, but I'm not sure I heard him say Cuba as Cuber

2- I just watched the Youtube video, Kennedy Addresses the Nation on the Cuban Missile Crisis, but I'm not sure I heard him say Cuba as Cuber
 
  • Englishmypassion

    Senior Member
    India - Hindi
    Both the sentences are correct except for the missing period at the end of each and quotation marks around "Cuba" and "Cuber". The second sentence will be spoken in a context where the listener already knows what video the speaker is talking about: it's already a specific video even before the title is mentioned; that's why the title is in appositive case/extra information.


    "I just watched" is usually said in AE -- BE is more likely to use "I've just watched".
     

    AntiScam

    Senior Member
    Arabic
    Very interesting, Englishmypassion. I didn't think of the context you've mentioned. Sounds so tricky :confused: I want a second voice:idea:, no offense!:thumbsup:
    Thank you very much.
     

    RedwoodGrove

    Senior Member
    English, USA
    The second sentence will be spoken in a context where the listener already knows what video the speaker is talking about.
    I was following you up to this point. How do you mean this? The setting off of the title with commas is an orthographic convention that may or may not be adhered to. It provides clarity and may be required in certain contexts.
     

    Englishmypassion

    Senior Member
    India - Hindi
    Thanks a lot, RG.
    Sorry, I don't think we can/should put a title in parenthetical commas if the listener doesn't already know what video/book/movie, etc we are talking about-- I mean if it's not obvious to the listener from the context and the title is necessary to distinguish that particular video/book!movie from others-- unless we want it to be extra information. Am I missing something?
    Thanks a bunch.
     
    Last edited:

    RedwoodGrove

    Senior Member
    English, USA
    Am I missing something?
    No, I doubt you're missing something. I just haven't heard of that distinction--which isn't to say it doesn't exist. In my mind, using parenthetical commas (another new term) is just something I was taught to do.* I always think of myself as being lazy if I don't. But we're going back a few years... ;)

    You have to realize that the amount of grammar taught in California schools and colleges in my era was approaching zero. I started learning grammar on my first day of German class.

    *That is to say, it was supposed to be required for titles.
     
    Last edited:

    Englishmypassion

    Senior Member
    India - Hindi
    Thanks a ton, RG.
    I am well aware that native English speakers are not taught so much grammar at school and university/college as non-native speakers are. However, that doesn't at all prevent you from having the edge you have over us non-native speakers. (I really envy native English speakers and to be born in an English-speaking country in my next life is my greatest wish, though I don't believe in life after death. :p)
     
    Last edited:

    RedwoodGrove

    Senior Member
    English, USA
    But Redwood, would you put commas in the sentence, "I read the book Dracula when I was 16"? I'd find it quite strange.
    I'm saying this is what I was taught to do quite a while back. I realize that conventions change. Also, this particular construct doesn't come up very often and I probably didn't notice variations in how it was done. Italics change the picture and make the parenthetical commas unnecessary. I'm just going to have to go back, take a look at some old books, and re-think my opinions. In earlier times, say a hundred years ago, comma use was much more abundant and the rules were assiduously applied. I will say though that I've seen a lot of old books where the comma use appeared pretty erratic.
    Thanks a ton, RG. I have added a short but very important clause (highlighted) to my post above.
    I am well aware that native English speakers are not taught so much grammar at school and university/college as non-native speakers are. However, that doesn't at all prevent you from having the edge you have over us non-native speakers.
    Thank you, EMP. Let's hope that a middle ground for standards will be found. I actually think that so called non-native speakers will end up being a large part of who maintains the quality of English. :)
     

    velisarius

    Senior Member
    British English (Sussex)
    "I read the book Dracula when I was 16."
    "Our new reader, Dracula, is popular with the students."

    I guess that in both sentences "Dracula" is in apposition, but in the second I would set it off with a pair of commas.
    The difference seems to be that in the first sentence the title is essential information. In the second, the title is added information,
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top