A Haiku is a Japanese lyric verse form having three unrhymed lines of five, seven, and five syllables, traditionally invoking an aspect of nature or the seasons.
Well, that said, heres the rules:
1) The Haiku must be original (no plagarizing)! 2) It must fit the weeks theme 3) It must be submitted before the deadline 4) It must be submitted for the contest (no using works previously written) 5) One Submission per user 6) The Same User cannot win twice in a row (but there welcome to submit!)
Hopefully oneday the winner could get a merit...
The Deadline will always be a Wednsday, so the deadline for the first theme will be Wednsday, September 2. The theme is The Pond
You might want to change that to "swollen snowflakes".
See? I dont need to put comas after and before finnaly, because if I do it, it wont make any sense
That doesn't make it any less gramatically incorrect. In this case, "finally" is a nonessential clause and should be seperated by commas. Alternately, you could say, "Winter is finally here" or, "Finally, winter is here".
That doesn't make it any less gramatically incorrect. In this case, "finally" is a nonessential clause and should be seperated by commas. Alternately, you could say, "Winter is finally here" or, "Finally, winter is here".
"Finally" is not a clause. It contains neither a subject nor a predicate. It only functions to modify "here," so there shouldn't be commas around it. I agree though that the wording is awkward and would flow better if switched around.
You're both right. Finally can be used as an expressive independent clause, such as in an exclamation. The structure of the sentence and the location of finally will render whether comma use is appropriate.
Finally! Winter is here. Winter, finally, is here. Winter is finally here.
You're both right. Finally can be used as an expressive independent clause, such as in an exclamation. The structure of the sentence and the location of finally will render whether comma use is appropriate.
Er, no. "Finally" is not a clause at all, much less an independent one. It can stand alone, but that does not make it an independent clause.
And it's not necessary to put commas around it as if it were an appositive.
You're right about it not being a clause, but it is still a nonessential parenthetical expression, which requires commas.
This isn't like those examples though. "Finally" is a single adverb that modifies "here." Yes, it is nonessential, but that can be said of all adverbs. But if we are assuming that there must be commas, what makes "Winter, finally, is here" and "Winter is finally here" so different that the commas may be omitted in the latter clause? "Finally" is nonessential in both cases.
This is why I was baffled when grammar became a criterion. Consideration of flow should hold much more weight unless there are clear grammar errors.
I suppose it's because the subject and verb are not disrupted by it in the second version.
Unfortunately, this sounds more like a matter of preference. This is not an actual rule (at least not one that I am aware of), and it would be quite unfair to participants if an objective set of rules were considered subjectively by judges. Subjectivism is necessary in judging, but if grammar is going to be a criterion, you should understand everything about grammar, especially with something like comma placement, which is minor but precise. Otherwise, nitpicking would not only be petty but also potentially unwarranted. Matters are only made worse when people subvert grammar rules to achieve specific effects.
Unfortunately, this sounds more like a matter of preference. This is not an actual rule
It's a rule. I happened to guess correctly. He created an interrupted sentence structure by placing the modifier between the subject and the verb. link
It's a rule. I happened to guess correctly. He created an interrupted sentence structure by placing the modifier between the subject and the verb.
I agree with what the link is saying, and I agree that "Winter finally is here" is poor wording, but nowhere does it say that there must be commas surrounding the interrupting modifier. The author just writes that these interrupted sentences are weak, which does not mean grammatically incorrect (and therefore in violation of a rule). All of the improvements in the examples involve switching words around. Putting commas around the interrupting modifier does not resolve the interruption. Isn't that what you're trying to make a case for? Furthermore, if you read closely, the author writes, "Although you can often get away with interrupting the structure of the sentence with a short (one-word) modifier, adding a longer modifier significantly worsens the sentence."
