Help me with this grammar question please

[lorisparkle]

My knowledge of grammar is pretty poor and I am a bit confused by this question........

Tick the option which is punctuated correctly.

"It's time to leave Ian." said Lesley.

"It's time, to leave Ian." said Lesley.

"It's, time to leave Ian." said Lesley.

"It's time to leave, Ian." said Lesley.

My confusion is that I think there should be a comma and not a full stop after Ian. I have had a look on the all knowing google, but can not find a definite answer.

Many thanks

But why not? Is the standard reply ...no reason why a sentence cannot start with and or but

Not starting a sentence with 'and' or 'but' is an old grammar rule. You wouldn't do it in formal writing but in informal writing it's fine.

Oxford commas - (the last one in a list: apples, bananas, and pears) is standard in US English but began in the UK. It's correct, but so is no comma - it's just a style option. So long as a document is consistent, that's the main thing.

http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/01/can-i-start-a-sentence-with-a-conjunction/

Thanks for your replies. I thought I hadn't dreamt this rule up, it's one thing I remember from my school days. Interesting that the rule doesn't apply for informal writing.

http://grammarist.com/grammar/conjunctions-to-start-sentences/s/*^
"Conjunctions to start sentences
If anyone tells you starting sentencence with a coordinating conjunctionion (and, but, for, nor, or, so,yet) is incorrect, hand them any piece of professional writing and have them take a look. In literature, journalism, speeches, and formal writing of all kinds, using these conjunctions to start sentences is more than just acceptable; it’s ubiquitous. Open any book, even one with technical, scholarly, or otherwise formal writing, and you are likely to find numerous examples. There are exceptions, of course, but these are rare. That there is some sort of rule against sentence-beginning conjunctions is an old myth that never seems to go away despite the fact that it is not at all borne out in the writing of actual English speakers."

Cat, "none" does not refer to "not any", it refers to "not one" - thus the verb should be singular.

Different cat here, but the other cat was correct. More exactly, it can be either.

"None of the answers are correct" is the more common usage I'd think, with the verb agreeing with the noun in the of-phrase, plural, "not any".
"None of the answers is correct" implying "not a single one", singular.
or
"None of the grammar in this thread is correct", verb agreeing with noun, singular, "not any".

data.grammarbook.com/blog/singular-vs-plural/none-were-vs-none-was/

Absolutely no full stop after Ian!

Since here are a lot of grammar experts here, can I ask a question?

I've noticed a lot of " should of" "would of" "could of" recently.
I thought it was "should have" "would have" "could have" ?

Is it correct usage or some sort of slang/dialect?

Irvine Yes, you are correct. The reason for should of is it's a misunderstanding of the contracted form of should have, "should've", which sounds the same as 'should of'. The neglect of grammar over the last 30 years means that people simply haven't been taught enough about contractions and how they work.

Thank you, kesstrel.
It's very interesting. Even my native language has changed so much over the years. Something I was taught grammatically wrong is accepted these days. Language is such a difficult and profound subject, even we use it everyday.

Poor Ian