Dr. Shades's spelling and/or grammar lesson of the day

[High Spy]

Dear participants:

Please have a look at the following sentence:

Comparing me to the Red Pillars is like comparing your average Mormon to Nazy Germany.

ITEM #1:

• PILLAR: A structural column used to support weight, typically inside a large building.
• PILLER: Not actually a word, but meaning "one who pills," if the word "pill" is idiosyncratically used as a verb for "take a pill" instead of a noun.

ITEM #2:
Nouns are typically capitalized only when they're proper nouns, i.e. specific people, places, or things. "Red pillers" isn't the name of a specific formally named organization, therefore the two words shouldn't be capitalized (unless the first word is the first one inside a sentence, in which case it alone will be capitalized).

ITEM #3:

• NAZI: A member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
• NAZY: Not a word.

ITEM #4:

• NAZI GERMANY: The name of a country and its corresponding political system that existed from 1933 to 1945.
• NAZI: A member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Therefore, a human being can only be correctly compared to the latter, not the former.

Therefore, the above sentence should've been written:

Comparing me to the red pillers is like comparing your average Mormon to a Nazi.

Now go ye and sin no more.

Me spell checker and auto completer on my iPad doesn’t suggest certain non-pc words, such as said subject word of this post.

[Dr. Shades]

Me spell checker and auto completer on my iPad doesn’t suggest certain non-pc words, such as said subject word of this post.

Then don’t rely on spell-checkers and auto-completers. Read your sentences out loud and correct them if they sound funny.

[Res Ipsa]

Have a look at the following sentence:

I have never heard of Bill Gothard so looked him up and was repulsed.(ewe!)

ITEM #1:
There should be a comma before the word "so" when it connects two independent clauses (i.e., two phrases that otherwise consist, or should consist, of complete sentences).

ITEM #2:
The second clause lacks a subject. Specifically, we are not told who looked up Bill Gothard. It was most likely the sentence's author, so the word "I" should've been placed between the words "so" and "looked."

ITEM #3:

• EWE: A female sheep.
• EWW: An expression of disgust.

ITEM #4:
When a sentence ends with material within parentheses, the original sentence's end punctuation must come after the final parenthesis.

Therefore, the quoted sentence should've been written:

I have never heard of Bill Gothard, so I looked him up and was repulsed (eww!).

Now you know better, so go ye and sin no more.

With fear and trepidation, I suggest that you should reverse the order of items one and two. Until a subject is added to the second clause, it is not an independent clause and needs no comma.

[Res Ipsa]

Me spell checker and auto completer on my iPad doesn’t suggest certain non-pc words, such as said subject word of this post.

Then don’t rely on spell-checkers and auto-completers. Read your sentences out loud and correct them if they sound funny.

Reading aloud reveals a multitude of grammar sins, especially when someone other than the writer does the reading. I always do a final proof on memos, briefs and letters by having the computer read the text to me.

But not message board posts, as anyone who reads my ramblings knows.