Is it okay for a Catholic to practice Yoga?

[PRmerger]

“Not at all” should not be set off by dashes given its grammatical role in the rest of the sentence.

This is incorrect.

Please see this book and this book for a correct exposition on the use of dashes, to avoid making the above error.

As a matter of style, parallelism is to be preferred. For example, instead of saying, “make a post that mentions yoga and to correct” etc., one ought to say “make a post that mentions yoga and corrects” etc.

Perhaps. I don’t begrudge you your style preference. I have my own.

Subject elision is ungrammatical when subordinating conjunctions are used, and are to be avoided as a matter of clarity when the grammar is ambiguous (as is the case with verbs in English, given the lack of conjugation, which makes subjects necessary for unambiguous readings).

The above is nonsensical so this book may be helpful for you, Baelor. It’s a bit more advanced than the first book I suggested.

And I noticed you visited my profile page. Thank you for your interest in me. You seem to be a fan because you keep coming back—on multiple visits! :tiphat:

 

[PRmerger]

But does that upset on their part make our borrowed and tweaked pagan customs any less worthy or truly Christian? Should we rename the squillions of institutions with the word ‘Pontifical’ (derived from Pontifex) in their names? Should we ban the carol ‘the Holly and the Ivy’? Ban the carrying of brides (actually on health and safety grounds that’s not a bad idea ? Or rename all the planets or months of the year?

Indeed.

Christ came and sanctified a pagan world.
Christians come and sanctify pagan concepts.

 

[PRmerger]

I await my thank-you.

You know, Baelor, I have had exactly 2 conversations with you. The first one was in a thread that was deleted after you were bombinating about some perceived error you were (incorrectly) imputing to me. And here, again, you are creating some imagined error in my posting.

This type of dialogue, when errors are being fabricated by one party (for some weird reason), is inutile.

Best, I think, for both of us to ignore each other.

You may, of course, continue to visit my profile page.

 

[Baelor]

This is incorrect.

I was, in fact, correct. The purpose of dashes is most frequently to set off independent thought.

One can conduct a Google search on dashes.

The following site may be of help. It states that dashes set off independent clauses, lists, or statements that add emphasis but are still grammatically independent, which your statement was not.

Or this site, which states the same thing. Or this site, again listing acceptable uses of the em dash, of which yours is not one. Or this one, again listing possible uses which, predictably, do not include yours. Perhaps this site is more to your liking; it too states that you are wrong. You may prefer this one, which disagrees with you.

You used the em dash to mark off words that are grammatically necessary for the meaning of the sentence to be complete. The statement is not parenthetical. The statement is not a list. The statement is not a summary of the sentence. The statement does not mark a single atypical break in the reading that must be emphasized.

The dash is emphatic. It is a stronger form of other punctuation, such as a colon or commas. Note that what you set off with dashes is unable to be set off with other punctuation. That is an indication that your use was incorrect.

I thank you, however, for taking the time to type “grammar book” into the Amazon search bar; I now know how to do the same with “dash use” into the Google one. I await a quotation from those books affirming that your usage of the dashes is correct.

Perhaps. I don’t begrudge you your style preference. I have my own.

Your own was likely the result of your inability to keep your train of thought throughout the sentence, hence the extremely jarring syntax of the sentence.

The above is nonsensical so this book may be helpful for you, Baelor. It’s a bit more advanced than the first book I suggested.

Maybe I should have used plainer English.

Subject elision is the omission of the subject in sentences or clauses. In some cases, it is permitted, as in the imperative. It is most definitely not permitted in subordinate clauses, and arguably not even in coordinate clauses.

Perhaps an academic study of English language versus pop grammar books would be of benefit to you. May I also suggest taking Latin courses?

You know, Baelor, I have had exactly 2 conversations with you. The first one was in a thread that was deleted after you were bombinating about some perceived error you were (incorrectly) imputing to me. And here, again, you are creating some imagined error in my posting.

Our last conversation ended when I demonstrated that you erred significantly and you stopped responding. Given the petty joy that you had exhibited in attempting to weasel out of a room with no doors, it seems clear what the reason for your subsequent silence was.

You may do as you wish.

 

[PRmerger]

In retrospect, I regret posting the link to the children’s grammar book. It was insulting and unnecessary.

I guess I came back from my vacay a little more feisty than before I left!

And to all good readers on this forum: I apologize for taking this thread off onto a grammar tributary.