Why does nobody understand that "..." is an ellipsis (not 4 or 5 dots)?

Question

I see people everywhere putting a million dots on the end of a phrase when EXACTLY THREE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis) dots is an ellipsis.

Yahoo screwed up the link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis

Answer 1

Actually, the ellipses are three dots to ebridge a sentence. If you are ebridging the sentence at its end, then you put a period on the end of that, therefore, you will have a total of four dots.

But, you are correct. An ellipsis is a set of three dots. Quite frankly, I don't think anyone cares. People who are constantly on the internet and texting have a tendency to b.s. their way through grammar. They really don't care as long as their point gets across. My husband calls me the "Grammar Nazi" because I am always correcting peoples' grammar here. No one really cares though. I just silently curse the school system for not having higher standards for their students and curse their parents for not having higher standards for their children.

Hope this helps!

Answer 2

I question your premise.

Everyone I know who intends to use an ellipsis does so by using three dots. But I know lots of people who believe they can convey new (or subtly different) forms of punctuation with the use of 4, 5, or more dots. None of them are trying to use an ellipsis; few or none of them have ever heard of an ellipsis.

It is not unreasonable for people to try to invent new forms of punctuation when old forms are inadequate. With the advent of SMS-ing and IM-ing, this new form might end up filling a gap; if so, it may also in time merit adoption by more formal written language. Let's watchfully and nonjudgmentally wait a few decades and see how things turn out.

Answer 3

great reproduction & paste activity. i've got have been given heard those arguments all interior the previous, and that they are nevertheless bogus. those are no longer "first century" money owed, yet 2d century. yet I dgress. Roman historians "concept that Jesus existed" by way of actuality's what CHRISTIANS (who already existed by ability of utilising that element have been conserving). The Romans additionally believed that there replaced good right into a god of conflict referred to as Mars too. The Annals, as you your self admit, replaced into revealed in one hundred fifteen CE. The Gospels have been already in bypass by ability of utilising then. Tacitus is in trouble-free terms repeating what he heard from Christians on the time. As for Pliny the greater youthful, decrease back, study what you revealed. How is that this documents for Jesus residing one hundred years interior the previous? we've songs approximately Santa Claus too. Does that propose he exists? And as for the the two trite Suetonius argument: are you conserving that Jesus wasn't crucified, yet incredibly expelled? by ability of no ability techniques the certainty that once decrease back, he's writing approximately an experience a minimum of 0.5 a century after it exceeded off. Oh, and lookup the type between "Chrestus" and "Christos".

Answer 4

Summer S is correct. I also am called a Grammar Nazi. I don't think this is fair, since usuing correct grammar and a decent vocabulary is not in any way similar to killing six million Jews. I prefer to be called a cunning linguist.

Answer 5

You are probably seeing it in the same place where spelling is horrible and proper grammar rare: The internet.

Answer 6

SUMMER S....

it's "people's grammar", not "peoples' grammar". the word "people" is plural and does not need the s-apostrophe - but i'm sure you already knew that.

gotta love the triple dot....

Answer 7

Thanks for straightening me out about that.