Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In all stackexchange sites, there is an edit summary field provided when you try to edit a question or an answer. I find myself frequently writing there the following:

"edited title, added a tag"

or

"edited title, added two tags and edited body for clarity"

Here are my concerns:

  1. Are the above two statements grammatically correct?
  2. Should I replace the comma with a semicolon?
  3. Are there any fullstops required in any of the two statements?
share|improve this question
    
If you're concerned with "grammaticality", you might start by considering the fact that there's no subject for the verb[s] in your examples. –  FumbleFingers May 19 '13 at 15:07
4  
Commas are fine, semicolons are fine, end-stops (periods) are fine. The point is to say as briefly as possible, not as grammatically as possible, what you did & why. Your comments are understandable. That's all that's necessary. The character limit is about 160 for those comments, so write sparingly but clearly. I'd say "fixed title; added two tags; corrected spelling, punctuation, syntax, grammar for clarity", or whatever I did. I used two semicolons because the final list has commas. –  user21497 May 19 '13 at 15:15
    
@BillFranke Thanks for identifying the difference between comma and semicolon there. –  Regmi May 19 '13 at 15:17
    
Careful about separating lists containing elements including commas with semicolons. I use that approach, but some others don't approve. :-) –  jbeldock Jun 9 '13 at 23:10
    
The above are not "statements" in the grammatical sense. They are fragments sufficient to convey the idea in a concise way. Rules of punctuation may apply as for usual sentences. Do not use a period (full-stop) because there's no sentence as such. Why do you think you need a semicolon? –  Kris Jul 4 '13 at 9:57
add comment

2 Answers

It is perfectly grammatical in spoken English to omit a topic subject when it is clearly inferrable from context. e.g.,

What happened to Thomas?
Got turned down again by Janice.

This convention is non-standard in most types of written English, but in proofreader's comments it is more than acceptable (to actually explicitly write the subject would sound odd).

share|improve this answer
add comment

The examples given are grammatically non-standard, because the subject and a determiner are missing (it would have to be "I edited the title and added a tag" to be standard). But that's why a linguist would talk about "standard" and "non-standard", not "correct" and "incorrect". Although they are non-standard ("not grammatically correct", if you like), they're absolutely fine as they are in the current context (and far better than the verbose "correct" versions).

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.