The Ex Thing
Shtreimel2010Love & SexAt first all we did was hang out with our own. Fellow Chasidim on the fringe, men only. We didn’t know many women, and those we did know weren’t like us at all. With time we progressed. We met friends, friends of friends, and their friends too. A diverse group from different walks of life. Chris (a former Chasid named so by his roommate — a former Chasid too, obviously) introduced a friend from work one day, and it didn’t take long before she became part of our social circle. She was a natural. Jewish but secular, familiar enough to get the idea but without the cultural hangups. Then one day, during a skiing trip to the Poconos, high up in the mountains on a snowy evening, I noticed some cuddling in front of the fireplace. “Chris,” I said, “you guys together now?” I didn’t want to pry. It was just an attempt to figure out the boundaries. There’s no flirting with a friend’s girlfriend — it’s one of these goyim rules I’ve figured out some time ago. Chris just shrugged his shoulder.
“It’s nothing,” he later said when we were trying to figure out the bed situation in the inn we called home for the night. The next morning, as I walked through the shared door to the next room, I saw them in bed together. I acknowledged their smile with a smile of my own and walked out happy for them.
When I met Yanki, he was already going out with a girl. She was fun and feisty. Another natural to our group. They introduced me to the underground party scene in Brooklyn. Parties in abandoned factory buildings, private lofts, public areas, and where-not. Together we enjoyed many nights filled with fun along with intellectual conversations, wine, pot, and high spirits. I have known them for over a year together, when one day something happened between them. “They’re private matters, don’t be nosy,” I kept telling myself. But it did affect me. We can no longer all hang out together.
Matt is one of my goyishe friends whom I have recently come to know and admire. Matt is also Shevy’s boyfriend. Shevy was my friend way before I met Matt. It’s that simple, I thought, but Matt recently remarked that if “heaven forbid” he breaks up with his girlfriend, the natural order of things calls for him to disappear into oblivion. The problem is that Matt has turned into a friend by his own merit. We have hung out without his girlfriend on more than one occasion. According to Matt the breakup rules are simple: you remain friends with whom you were friends with first. As if life can be reduces to such simplicity. But Matt doesn’t get it. “A goyishe kop,” I tease him despite the looks his ex-frum girlfriend gives me, and he laughs along. My kind of guy. My kind of goy.
In the world I come from these things don’t happen. Socializing with the other sex — other than immediate family — is unheard of. Even casual contact is non-existent. Once a boy passes bar mitzvah he won’t even look his female cousins in the face, those very cousins he might have just played with the day before. Not much changes when one gets married. Men befriend men, and women befriend women. Some, on the fringes, do things that well… put them on the fringes, so to speak; but the majority adheres to the rules. Amongst my many friends within the confines of the ghetto walls I never befriended the wife of a friend. My wife’s friends aren’t my friends. My wife’s friend’s husbands aren’t my friends either. Those are boundaries we don’t cross.
On the rare occasion that a friend gets divorced the allegiance is clear cut. If the man in question is my friend he will remain my friend. If the woman in question is my wife’s friend she will remain her friend. On the rarer occasion that I am friends with him and my wife with her, everything still stays the same. I remain his friend, she remains her friend, and we get to share juicy gossip. It’s simple. Almost as simple as love, intimacy and procreation is in our community.
Chris eventually had a falling out with the woman he dated. One day she erased me from her Facebook account. Why me?! I sent her an email asking if everything was alright. She just naturally assumed that now things have to go back to the way things were before she met Chris. In hindsight she was right. At first there was an email or two, maybe a text message, but I haven’t heard from her in ages. She moved on. We all move on eventually. But when I enjoy a pleasant evening with friends with the ever-looming threat of complications it pains me. It pains me that I don’t get it, that I don’t get what every rank and file goy gets. It is Chris himself who always reminds mutual friends, only partly in jest, that breakups have to be decided by all of us, we can’t leave it up to the parties in question. It was also Chris that wasn’t too happy when I told him that a few friends and I went out one evening with his former girlfriend. “It’s just not right,” he said. And I still don’t know why.
The other world isn’t perfect, I always knew that. But this is one of the things that I still can’t get over. This, and the fact that jeans come with buttons in the front instead of a zipper, but that’s for another post.
64 Responses
I disagree that it is the “norm” among goys to de-friend your friends ex. I find that to be true when you are younger (HS/early 20s), but as you get older, that’s actually frowned upon and looked at as very immature.
This is the way it works in my circle of (non-religious jewish and non jewish) friends (most in their late 20s/early 30s)
If you are related to the person who broke up, de-friending can and probably will happen (like my brother’s ex’s always defriend me on facebook when they break up).
If you have established a friendship outside of their relationship, you stay friends. I know of one case of a (non-jewish) friend of mine who had established independent friendships with her SO’s friends outside of their relationship, and then was defriended after they broke up by a couple that she thought she was independently friends with. She was very insulted and hurt and thought the people doing the defriending were immature a-holes (which I agree with).
If the only time you ever talk/hang out with an SO is when your friend is around, and you are friendly with the SO but have never/very rarely had an independent conversation with them (independent of your friend) then some de-friending may occur- this is more of a gray area, but usually people don’t keep in touch with SO’s of friends that they never really got to know themselves.
Anyways the whole thing is very hurtful…i know when my ex fiance and I broke up, I got defriended (back then they just blocked you on instant messenger and took you off their friendster friends) by a few of his friends and was very hurt by it. At the same time I was somewhat peeved that a lot my friends stayed friends with him, but eventually I came to realize that this is because I just have higher quality friends.
AE — Good comment. I think the whole area is inherently pain- and hurt-filled, so defining so-called “rules” is definitely not easy.
I would add that in Chasidish society it may not be that simple either. Divorced couples may or may not choose to remain friends with former brothers- and sisters-in-law. But it’s often fraught with tension.
Shtreimel, have you been taking writing classes? This is wonderfully written, without a single error (except the word *reduces* instead of *reduced*, which I’m attributing to a typo).
I enjoyed the contents too, though I’m inclined to think AE is right. This, despite my lack of insider knowledge of “goyish” society.
I don’t think the de-friending issue is exclusive to the secular world. When my cousin got divorced, my relationship with his wife was obviously strained. I did do my best to not cut ties, and indeed he was hugely pissed when I helped her out with a problem she had.
Oh, and he let me know it. In person. To my face.
Guess we must not be really Chassidish.
What’s “SO”?
subscribing
I don’t how it is in the “secular” world, but on college campuses this issue is on steriods. Personally I find it silly that my roommate’s ex is always awkward around me now days, I mean, it’s not like she hurt me or anything.
Great writing Shtreimel.
It’s an issue of loyalty/solidarity. A bit infantile but the social norm.
e – I believe SO would be Significant Other.
As for the issue being secular, perhaps it is – insofar as friends go. But I do believe that the Heimish crowd has got a way to go before they learn how to accept exes into families. With divorce rates on the rise, and too many of them with children in the mix, it is about time we learn how to be friendlier towards the ‘other’ parent.
They’re there. Whether we like it or not.
I have to admit, the issue of family divorces didn’t cross my mind. I was never exposed to it personally (yet).
But, drawing from my own family, shall any of my wife’s sisters’ husbands get divorced I will remain friends with my brother in-laws even if technically ’she’ is family, not ‘him’. Similar to how you described it, Tzipi. It just reinforces my position – even with family divorces the sexes may end up aligned more than with family. (Thinking now, if any of my sisters shall get divorced I may indeed cut ties with the husband, but had they been more like me – had I been ‘friends’ with them in addition to being family it may have been different.)
Laura, you keep on acting as the anointed “critique la Creme’” here on the site, can you start contributing something and show if you deserve to be “Mrs. Critique?”
Shtreimel,
You may choose to stay friends with family divorcees, but friendship is mutual and the other guy may feel uncomfortable. I was good friends with my cousin’s husband. I still see him now and then and try to catch up, but he evades me like a leper. It probably makes him uncomfortable. It’s perfectly acceptable to continue a post-breakup friendship in Chassidic circles, but there is also plenty of reason why not to.
Insider, do you tell Forbidden the same thing? He does some pretty good critiquing himself. Besides, I thought it was de riguer to compliment everyone on this site.
In general in the blogosphere, I find it obnoxious how people feel the need to compliment every single damn blog post. If every single piece is “great,” then “great” becomes meaningless.
This is just a general gripe, nothing to do with Shtreimel’s writing, laura’s critiquing, or insider’s meta-critique.
Great comment e.
Exactly, e. Hence my tongue-in-cheek de riguer comment.
Great analysis e! Hope to read more comments from you in the future!
Laura, there is more than one error in the article, but out of respect for the great Shtreimel lets not be petty.
E, we can avoid losing the meaning for the word great, by attributing greatness to every post on this site and bashing every post on every other site in blogosphere.
Shtreimel, wonderful article!
I don’t see this issue as being relative to the secular/traditional schism. Rather, I think, it all depends on the nature of the breakup. If the breakup was venomous and hateful laden, and the parties involved became enemies its natural that friends would be expected to chose sides. If the breakup was humane and dealt with in a respectful manner, friends can still remain friends of both parties involved.
R&C — It’s not that simple. Breakups, as mature as they might be dealt with, can come with a lot of pain. Parties involved don’t have to become “enemies” to feel they need some distance from each other and, if only temporarily, sever contact. To then, say, watch your friends hang out with a girlfriend you introduced to them (get-togethers from which you would be excluded — even if by your own choice), can’t make you feel very good.
R&C,
The only relevance it has, in my opinion, to the frum/ex-frum world is that it doesn’t happen often in the frum world. I for one have yet to encounter it on the inside but have seen it more than enough by being exposed to the outside. That, I believe, was my point.
I think it is because the Orthodox world is so small, the availability of the girls is so small, you end up dating everyone! I know not every girl goes around the block, but if you marry a girl that “dated” in high school (whatever “dated” meant for her) chances are you know the guy.
A positive thing you can take from this at least is that your girl most likely won’t have slept with your friend
or even touched him, which is pretty offensive to most Orthodox.
Wow I actually found a positive…
HR. I didnt say they have to become enemies. All I said is, that in the event that the former friends become enemies in the process of the breakup, its natural that their friends would be expected to chose sides.
By “natural” I dont mean to justify it either, thats just the way we are. We dont look at it kindly when our friends pal around with our enemies. In a perfect world we should be able to turn a blind eye, but thats just the way we are constructed. We cant praise or condemn this human trait, its a “natural” product of being human.
rupture: Laura, there is more than one error in the article, but out of respect for the great Shtreimel lets not be petty.
I didn’t find more than one error (which I don’t consider an error so much as a typo) in shtreimel’s post, but I see two grammatical errors in this single sentence of yours.
Shtreimel- really? It doesn’t happen in the frum world? You were lucky enough to not have encountered it before, I have seen it one time too many. As some have mentioned before, it is the normative with spousal breakup. It’s also the routine in business conflicts, and sadly also in something as benign and juvenile as in “chasidish politics”. With the recent splits in the big dynasties, the utter childish approach we exhibit when we have differences in opinion has never been more pronounced. Don’t you know that parents don’t speak to their kids and vice versa because they “belong” to the warring party? Our utter inability to rise above pettiness is intensely reflective of the greater problems this beautiful god-fearing society is stricken with. Ultimately it stems from our lack of respect for the dissenting opinion, which is a direct outcome of religious fervor and zeal. (But this is not the gist of your article, and I don’t want to pirate the comment thread.)
Actually we have a lot to learn from the secular world in regards to spousal breakup. I think it is dealt with in a more humane fashion in the secular world than in the frum world. Of course it has to do with the fact that the ex.’s can still remain friends or at least be in contact with each other, which of course is impossible by us. Never the less a compromise has to be found. As someone has mentioned before, with the divorce rate in the rising a new approach is desperately needed. Our current approach is silly and destructive for all parties involved, especially if there are kids caught in the midst.
Laura: First, the rules of grammar don’t apply to comments. Second, if you took the leeway, time and effort to criticize me why didn’t you expound on my 2 grammar errors in the sentence? Ahhhh, you might say I didn’t expound on Shtreimel’s errors either, but I followed that with an explanation. I respect Shtreimel and I don’t think his article should be weighed on the merits of its grammatical correctness. You obviously don’t respect me, why should you? You don’t know my greatness, yet, since I haven’t written anything on this site yet, so would you care to expound?
“It just reinforces my position – even with family divorces the sexes may end up aligned more than with family.”
Interesting if the sex segregation in the frum community is so strong that gender ties are stronger than blood.
How common do you think this feeling is?
Can you guys stop bickering over the spelling & grammar of each article? It takes away the focus from the content, and it also risks making the writers become extra cautious. Of course a well-written article is more enjoyable and appreciative, but that shouldn’t be the focus.
Chana–I agree. 100% immature and futile, but sadly the typical way most people handle these types of situations.
Only in a utopia…
And, great piece Shtreimel.
Shtreimel,
I think the issue you’re describing is less applicable to the chasidic community for many reasons. 1) like you pointed out, we don’t befriend our spouses friends; therefore, we can’t really break up with them in the event of a divorce. 2) Most of our friends are either through other friends or just new friends we find. That said, a typical friendship is not as strong as a marriage, so if your friend is no longer close with someone you befriended through him, I doubt he’ll care whether the two of you stay friends. Furthermore, imo, men don’t take friendship as seriously as women do. We don’t “break up”, we usually cool off, grow apart, etc. (we’re not drama queens ☺), but that’s beside the point. Lastly, I do think there are unwritten rules when it comes to divorce in your immediate family. In my experience, most people will sever ties with someone who divorces your brother/sister, or any of your in-laws.
R&C,
It doesn’t happen *often*. The divorce rate is much lower and the girlfriend thing is almost nonexistent.
I’m talking strictly about having to choose between friends – I have seen friends bicker in business, often to the point of bitterness and total animosity. And yet, no one ever confronted me why I chose to remain friends with the other party. There’s no need to choose.
Sara, in this particular case we weren’t talking about blood relatives, but my wife’s sister. I may feel different towards my own sisters’ ex.
For all the talk about grammar – and I’ll ‘assume’ that R&C is referring to fragments rather than sentences; I’ll agree with those who say that it may not belong as a comment. I’m all for constructive criticism (and for obstructive too), but I prefer to chew it over in private. My email is out there. Feel free to drop a line.
English is my second language, or maybe even my third. I’m not sure where to place Hebrew (both, modern and ancient) in the grand scheme of things, and I can use all the help I can get. I have stubbornly refused, so far, to take writing lessons, or read books about writing, mainly because it bores me. But I have learned a lot from writing and interacting (one can go back to my first posts that are still out there), and I appreciate those who were part of the process.
Shtreimel- I was referring to fragments.
I agree that the focal point of the commentary shouldn’t be about grammar; it should be about the idea the writer is expressing. In an effort to whitewash my impeccable reputation, it should be noted that I wasn’t the one who raised the grammar subject. I also never intended it to be a drawn out, back and forth, dialogue. I only remarked on a preceding comment.
I didn’t want to do it, but since you appreciate “obstructive” criticism, I have to tell you that the proper word in context should be “destructive”.
If English is your second language, and you’re not sure where to place Hebrew, pray tell what is your mother tongue?
Don’t take any writing lessons or read books on writing, its fruitless. The most efficient way to improve your writing (which doesn’t need much improvement) is by just writing more. The more you write the better you get at it.
BTW, a frag is not a sentence : PP JK.
Shtreimel, your post made my morning. It’s rich and wise. I also sense a lot of growth in you and this whole community. From writing ‘cuz we’re losing our minds, to writing because it lifts us up. Yeyasher koach!
Shtreimel.
I understand what you’re saying. I understand that you were only confronted with this issue by being exposed to the secular world. But, I don’t think that the issue is idiosyncratic to the secular world. It’s a human phenomenon. It’s an issue that would raise itself in every conceivable reality where social interaction is a possibility. That you haven’t been exposed to this issue in the traditional world is only an anomaly; it’s not reflective of reality. True, certain vital components for this issue to be relevant is lacking in the traditional world, like the GF/BF component that you raised, but there are countless other social and interpersonal relation models where this issue reveals its ugly head. Again, you are lucky that you were never prompted to choose between two bickering former business partners. Sadly, the same is not true about me.
Listen, I think you would agree that if I really loved you (and I really do), and someone mistreated or assaulted you in a violent and brutal fashion that you would expect me to hate the assailant. Not only should you expect me to hate the assailant, if I truly love you I would expect it of myself to hate anybody that harms you. If two people love each other, hurting one person should effect the unscathed person just the same as it affects the victim. Since the victim is sure to be hateful towards his attacker the friend would be expected to exhibit the same emotion. Now, when it comes to breakups it all depends on the levels of animosity and vengeance that was present during and around the breakup. If one party feels that they were wronged and violated, whether physically or emotionally, by the other party in a profound way, it’s not so outlandish that they would expect their friends to sever contact with the other party. Ideally, true-friends shouldn’t have to be prompted to sever contact with a former friend that has hurt a closer friend, it should be the natural response.
It’s hardly aligned by sexes in chassidic circles. This is a universal, cross cultural rule of loyalty to friends and is no different among chassidim.
Shtreimel, that you should find yourself with a handful of male friends if you divorce isn’t a result of their loyalty to Your Gender, it’s because you were friends with them first (and only) in this segregated world just like you were friends first with Stephanie, and Chris and Jesus et al. In chassidic society you were friends with men first, so you get the men in the divorce! It’s the Rule of the First. When a chassidic couple parts, what was brought in by each party is divided in precision. Not only the furniture and jewelry and shirtzle is returned to whoever owned it first, but also the whole extended family, all the way to a second cousin. Each side gets sole custody of their family. There’s a woman I recently met, remarried, pregnant, the whole thing. Her eyes still fly around in her head nervously as she pretends not to see me because she was once married to a cousin yingerman I never in my life spoke to.
Irrelevant of relatives, I was under the impression (read, assumption) that the exes themselves cannot remain “friends” because of more stringent yichud rules that apply to exes. Anyone knows about this?
Shtreimel and others often remarked in earlier posts: fundamentalist thought teaches there is only ONE right way, not two, certainly not three nor four…Hashem is ONE.
One by-product of binary thought is that when a couple separates, one party must be in the wrong. It is so much less complicated when one party is in the wrong, so much easier to shun et defriend.
But a major cause for separation is incompatibility. No one is in the wrong. No need to defriend anyone, just open the champagne, the schnapps, and drink to new beginnings.
I don’t want to open the grammar discussion again, but I feel compelled to defend shtreimel’s honor.
For everyone’s information, there’s nothing wrong with fragments in creative writing. I can show you millions of examples, including those from Joyce Carol Oates and others in her league. Rupture was going by what we learn in the third grade when we’re just starting to write correctly. Shtreimel, you’ve gone beyond that.
Laura.
I’m still waiting for the 2 errors in my one sentence.
Why are you so stuck up on grammar? Is that the only topic you feel comfortable discussing? You feel that you have extensive knowledge on the subject and you can defend yourself appropriately from any potential attack? Have you ever tried gracing this precious community of commenter’s with your knowledge on other subjects? Maybe you might be able to drop an insightful comment here and there? You never know, you might be underestimating your mental, logical, and analytical skills. If you don’t try you will never find out. I implore you to drop the grammar discussion for real (don’t preface your next response that you wanna drop the grammar topic, and than go on a long diatribe about grammar)and test your hand at a real insightful topic. How about you comment on the issue Shtreimel is raising in his article? That might be a good starting point.
Oh and BTW, I was toilet trained in Kindergarten, doesn’t make it less important of a lesson. Actually the further I go back in time the more important the skills I have learned seem to become. I learnt to eat before I could think, to walk before I could talk, to talk before I could argue…..You see the most important lessons in life one actually learns at a pretty young age.
Does Joyce Carol Oates insert emoticons in her books? Do you take that from her too or is that your own innovation? If her books have emoticons, I’m an instant fan. I’m gonna go get them all, first thing in the morning.
Laura and R&C keep going at each other. I love the richness of the insults and the words you guys choose. It gives me pleasure – I’m not kidding. It does help that I love you both.
But, for heavens sake, if you can write so well why don’t you contribute a piece? Just please, do us all a favor, don’t kill style for grammar. Style rules. I’m talking to both of you.
Common Shtreiel, verbal spatting is tons of fun.If you have any Yeshiveh background, you should know that. You should try it once. Wanna fight?
How dare you compare me to Laura? Maybe she can contribute. I cant write. My profound and sagacious ideas don’t lend themselves to be transmitted into language form. They exist on a plane where language has no representation.
Amazingly you have artfully intergrated your last comment with the theme of the article. You claim to love us both, but since Laura has now become an unwanted adversary of mine, I expect you to cut off all ties with her. She might expect you to do the same in regards to me, so you have to chose. Its either me or her!
I say we should now announce a new contest, between RC and laura, let our esteemed audience be the judges on that! Both shall contribute and show the best of their talents thus a winner will emerge! Bring it on guys!
I’m game!
Laura, its time for you to show what you can! say it loud, say it proud, YES WE CAN! don’t hide now sweety, your time to shine has come!
Wow, an entire conversation revolving around me and nobody lets me know?
R&C, I’m not as spontaneous (or is it un-busy?) as you. Will you give me till Friday to think about this challenge? As for your own contribution, feel free to start working on it regardless. But for heaven’s sake, use apostrophes.
Ok, I might as well pipe in here on the grammar discussion. Indeed, Shtreimel, your piece is absolutely grammatically correct (except for the one typo). Every comma in its place — including those that belong inside quotation marks, every possessive with its appropriate apostrophe, only occasional use of sentence-ending prepositions, correct capitalization of all proper nouns, and good sentence structure. Sentence fragments? Well, they’re sorta excusable, gone the way of the split infinitives, sometimes frowned upon, but certainly found in many a fine piece of writing.
Oh, and need I mention that every word is correctly spelled? Bravo! Well done! A fine piece of writing!
Anyone else think this is patronizing?
My God, you people, one would think this is a fifth-grade English class. People don’t write articles to be complimented on their good grammar. Of course good grammar is important, as is spelling, as is knowing how to use word processing software. They’re tools of communication. While these are essential components of writing — and writers are generally expected to master them — good grammar doesn’t make one a writer. Even good diction doesn’t do it. A piece of writing should be judged by a) the strength of its ideas and b) the style in which they’re conveyed. No more, no less.
And psst, here’s a secret: in the publishing world, as long as your writing is coherent (and it has the above-mentioned criteria) you can make it. Occasional bad grammar? That’s what editors are for!
Time to stop with the personal assaults, unless that’s your only weapon. I wouldn’t be so mean to take away your last dagger. This challange is real. Time to roll up your sleeves and start doing some real work.
Apostrophies? Who is that? Is that the name of a revered Greek philosopher? I guess I was sick or played hookey in 2nd grade when they taught the fundamentals of apostrophies. Would you be so kind and show us all how its done properly?
I can’t start working on my piece until you agree to the challenge. We have to decide on a topic and write about it. We can’t write independantly, how then will a winner be decided. I’m expecting to be the clear and decisive victor in this battle. I don’t want no BS moral victories. I shall go on to the end, I shall fight on the seas and oceans, I shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, I shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, I shall fight on the beaches, I shall fight on the landing grounds, I shall fight in the fields and in the streets, I shall fight in the hills; I shall never surrender!!!!
BTW, the essays won’t be graded on the merits of grammar, apostrophies, spelling, or mechanics, just to be fair to you.
I feel something good is brewing here! Can’t wait to see the outcome! Thanks for the great idea, Insider!
Rebel, Its time for you to moderate the contest and take lead. Set the rules, give deadlines, set voting rules, etc. RC is pumped up, lets not let his enthusiasm wane…as Chaza”l say, “Mitzva Habu L’yudchu Al Tachmitzanu”…..
I don’t know, Insider. I think this is one brawl I’m staying out of. Fine individuals, the contestants, but I ain’t gonna be judgin’ this one.
H.R.
I agree with every word you said about writing and grammar. Let it be known that I wasn’t the one who raised the grammar topic. I also wasn’t the one who reignited the grammar furnace when it seemed to have cooled off. If you would only scroll back you would see that my component raised and re-incinerated. My first response was that there are some mistakes in the article, and I didn’t want to elaborate on them out of my utter respect for Shtriemel. True, the errors I was referring to, were fragments. I learnt to write in college. In college you are taught that a fragment or a run on sentence is the devil. A fragment or run-on on the finals meant a failing grade. Due to that I have developed a sensitivity to frags and run ons. I don’t consciously focus on them when I read, they wickedly dance before my eyes and irk me. I wholeheartedly agree that a writer should not be judged by his mechanics. Writing is the art of transmitting and conveying thought into written words. Since tone can’t be detected on a written piece of paper, mechanics and grammar are important too. But as long as the idea the writer is conveying comes through, is coherent and understood, I could care less about mechanics or grammar. I’m not one of those grammar Nazis we are all accustomed with from our school years.
To join the pedants’ club, here I go.
“my component raised and re-incinerated”
Did you mean my opponent?
“True, the errors I was referring to, were fragments.”
Nice run-on illustration you’ve got.
“Due to that I have developed a sensitivity to frags and run ons. I don’t consciously focus on them when I read, they wickedly dance before my eyes and irk me.”
Again, illustrating your point with a run-on sentence was clever.
And it should be ‘because of,’ not ‘due to.’
Thanks for showing your colors and your banner, Yoilish. In war it’s good to know who your enemies are. JK
You got me on “component.”
It’s not a run on, it just has an extra coma between “to” and “were”.
“Due to that”, is perfectly fine.
Again, no run ons in those 2 sentences, I’m questioning your understanding of the term.
I have said before that I don’t think the rules of grammar have to be adhered to in the comments section. Neither do I think that grammar is of utmost important in an article, but if you want me to defend that position I am willing to do so.
To continue the war metaphor, R&C, let me start by saying, with malice towards none. I like your comments on this site, and more than once have given them the stealth thumbs up, like all good enemies do. But I do think I’ve correctly identified a run-on sentence, although I was wrong with the first one, which is really a fragment, which is ironic, given its content. Your last comment contained yet another run-on. And so let’s review.
Fragment: “True, the errors I was referring to, were fragments.”
Run-on 1: “I don’t consciously focus on them when I read, they wickedly dance before my eyes and irk me.”
Run-on 2: “It’s not a run on, it just has an extra coma between “to” and “were”.”
I say: Turn those two comas into semicolons, and let’s go for a beer.
As you’ve probably noticed by now, I consider a comma splice a run-on sentence. If you don’t, that’s fine, but still ungrammatical, and according to most grammarians, a run-on sentence.
This stuff is giving me a headache. I say we all go for a beer and drop the subject – a subject I know nothing about.
If anyone feels they must tell me how many grammatical errors I just committed (and am committing) please email me. *sigh*
Drinks are on the house!
Thanks Yolish.
Sadly, even friends. are only allotted. the stealthy thumbs up. It would be. nice to know: who likes what. Maybe the administrators; and technicians of this site can figure out how to improve that. Why are we enemies? Did you steal my lukshen kigel??#$%^&**(
“Fragment: “True, the errors I was referring to, were fragments.”
-Not a fragment. Subject= “I”. Predicate= “was”.
Semicolon would work in run on 1, but not in run on 2. Run on 2 is definitely, by all means not a run on. I can see why you think run on 1 is a run on. I disagree, I don’t think it’s grammatically wrong, but it’s not an ascetic sentence, though a semicolon between “them” and “when” would make it a perfect sentence.
How many times do I have to tell you that I’m not a grammar stickler, and I definitely am not cautious to be 100 percent grammatically correct when I comment. Comments are meant to be the representative of the spoken word in written form. We speak in run ons and in fragments, so we also comment in run ons and fragments.
You’re right, I don’t consider a coma splice a run on.
Yeah Shtreimel,I prefer Corona with lime, but any beer that has a “run on” it is fine with me. I wont drink a fragmented beer though, you can be sure about that. I’m sick and tired of defending my sentences. For some reason it looks like have been nominated the patron saint of grammar and grammarians. I am not. I could care less about grammar. The only “grammar” I care about is the one that gets up on a chair by the “good-deed dance” and makes a buffoon out of himself.
Shtreimel,
Wonderful post!
Whenever I see a comment regarding the grammar, It reminds me of how my rebbe used to skip the “Dikduk Rashis”, and i skip the comment. Maybe that’s why my grammar is so bad!
One thing I noticed, is that when frummers breakup or get divorced, usually all hell breaks lose, and there is a WAR involved. Both families spew gossip and dirt on the other. As opposed to the secular world. I remember being shocked, when I heard from a BT friend, how his parents are divorced, and are still good friends, with one always helping out the other. This type of arraignment is almost unheard of in “heimishe” circles.
Okay, first of all, you’ve got to leave the jeans-button issue alone. I’m goyishe, and I have no clue what the problem is. You can unbutton the buttons and reveal only as much as you’d reveal with a zipper, right?
Additionally, I don’t think it is an immutable rule in goyishe culture that you can’t still be friends with an ex of a group member. Some goyim are just silly! If you’ve spent time with them away from the girlfriend or boyfriend in question, then they’re your friend, too. But then again, I’m exceptional in most ways, so you’re free to discount my statement.
“breakups have to be decided by all of us, we can’t leave it up to the parties in question”…
This could be a very true statement
Nice piece and i suggest we all keep breaking the rules. The Chhhain will keep us together.
Hey Shtreimel, to me those break-up rules seem to be more of an American thing (at least among secular people). If, let’s say, I was friends with somebody over here and eventually became even better friends with their partner and after their break-up either asked me to decide who to remain friends with, I’d call them psycho and obsessive. Then again, friends are considerate of freshly split-up couples so when socialising, you try to make sure that things will go smoothly (without either one or both) until emotions have calmed down. This can be tken to pretty extreme levels e.g. on my 23rd b’day, three friends of mine threw a surprise party for me, but they were also the only ones who attended as all others were caught up in some kind of “my ex might be there”-conflict.
Shtreimel, when do you have ADD, and when not… It would so much fun, having a contest between Laura and R & C.