I don't know about everyone else, but I find this kind of hypertext, with each section on its own page, infuriating to read. When you are done reading a section, there is no simple way to "turn the page" and go to the next section. You either have to scroll back to the beginning or use the back button.
I understand that this is mostly a reference text, and few people will read it cover to cover, but I still think that "show me the next piece of contents" is an operation that should be supported natively.
My late father was well versed in this writing style - even though he never held a government role
Journalists and particularly paper editors (he was deputy editor in chief of a famous magazine owned by the now defunct Federal Publishing) in the 80s and 90s.
He and other editors had to adhere to it in overly government focused articles (not necessarily for propaganda, moreso for consistency)
I truly believe there were no soft power intentions behind this sort of thing, it was difficult to find these particular resources pre-internet so they were essential pre late-90s
> The Oxford comma can prevent ambiguity in complex sentence lists. For example, use the Oxford comma before the last item if you’re using a defining phrase applicable only to that final item.
> A defining phrase is essential to the meaning of the sentence. The following examples show how the Oxford comma can affect meaning, using the defining phrase ‘for stockfeed’.
Seems like it provides a clear cut framework for when to use it?
Your argument rests on the assumption that the serial comma is demonstrably preferable, that it is foolish not to use it in all cases. It is possible that the authors of this advice are better placed to asses whether their audience is comfortable with nuance and context. It is how Australians learn to read and write.
It was first published in 1966, so seems probable. Thankfully prose and the core structure of language is slightly less volatile than the JS ecosystem.
I did a training course on this the other day - loved how passionate the trainer (who worked on the ASM) was about the correct application of quotes within quoted passages
Eric Partridge ("You Have a Point There") disagrees. Single or double, quotation marks are inaccurate if the words are not strictly quoting.
Before the age of widespread international computer-mediated communication, authorities generally agreed on a rule of starting with one and alternating to the other for quotations within quotations. Many agreeing that starting with single quotation marks was the U.K. rule and starting with double quotation marks was the U.S. rule; with the U.K. switching to double quotation marks for quotations within quotations and the U.S. switching to single.
One U.K. authority that I have from 1985 describes U.K. use of double quotation marks in primary position as "fighting a rearguard action" in the U.K., with only The Times sticking to it. Everyone else used single quotation marks primarily, back then.
However, the influence of CMC has put a lot of pressure on the then U.K. habit. Today, after decades of Usenet, Fidonet, the World Wide Web, et al., the top articles on BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66007017) and The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/24/wagner-troops-...) use double quotation marks, and the pendulum has very much swung the other way, with the U.K. norm of the 1970s now being the rare exception.
However, the rule of switching for quotations within quotations still holds, and headlines quite often still use single quotation marks, even though article bodies will use double ones for the same quotation. This latter is observably the case on the BBC News and Guardian sites right now, to use the same examples.
You're absolutely right about British newspapers using double quotes nowadays, but British books still use single quotes, as far as I can tell.
An interesting question to ask, and a harder one to answer is: what kind of quotation marks did people use in handwriting at different points in history? I'm not totally sure about this, but I think there's a long tradition of people in Britain using double quotation marks in hardwriting, in particular, for school. So I suspect that there is a long tradition of the choice of quotation mark being context-dependent. So using single marks in books but double marks in newspapers isn't as strange as it might seem.
Yeah, looks like they either copied or took inspiration, either of which I have no complaints about. GOV.UK is one of the few things about the UK I can praise.
Some of this stuff is good, but golly gosh some isn't.
Transitive verbs use the example, 'A director buys his lunch' to show that the action passes to the object.
It makes no sense. Did the lunch buy itself?
The page introduces an intransitive rule to cover up all the cases in English where subject-verb-noun generates sentences where there the noun ending is not involved in the verb.
The guide overloads the meaning of the English word 'mood' to carry all the intended meaning of the speaker. You are literally ordered around by a 'mood' in this style guide.
More loveless, heartless, unrecognizable clone work from the AU gov.
The wiki article states that they are an expression of attitude and modality.
The Aus gov style guide states the mood conveys meaning.
The top-down imposition of meaning via a mood, forces the intent of the speaker into the listener, simply because they have that mood.
Leaving a grammatical mood as an attitude of the speaker, is much more desirable. Relating to grammatical moods as an attitude leaves open the door to possible changes in the relationship.
The wikipedia article for transitive verbs, refers to the 'direct object' as an object being acted upon. The action stays with the man performing a verb. The object is just an object. This is fine.
The Aus Gov style guide states a transitive verb is when the action of the verb "passes" from the subject to the direct object. That makes no sense.
The man performing the action is a 'subject' and through some unexplained nonsensical magic, the action passes into 'his lunch', when he buys it.
As if the lunch could perform it's own actions, or could receive a man as a subject.
In reality a bag of chips is just an inaminate object and cannot 'host' verbs. The man buying the chips is the source of the verb and retains the ownership of the verb, like wikipedia states.
I don't see the issue the previous poster had either.
I went to the source to find the context and linked it here for others, but it hasn't (for mysellf at least) shed any light on what they were objecting to.
I understand that this is mostly a reference text, and few people will read it cover to cover, but I still think that "show me the next piece of contents" is an operation that should be supported natively.