Forum: Author Hangout

It was a drive quick home.
or
It was a quick drive home.

The first is dead wrong.

The second, correctly, has the adjective, quick, modifying the compound noun, drive home.

I wonder if they say the same when you make it less active and more passive to have:

It was a drive quick home.

or

It was a quick drive home.

Adjectives are not adverbs.

Never said they were. However, the change between active to passive should just change the word and not the word order.

You didn't merely change the sentence from active to passive. You changed the entire structure of the sentence, including the part of speech of the critical words. "Quickly" is an adverb. "Drove" is a verb. "Quick" is an adjective. "Drive" is (in this case) a noun. If you understand that an adjective is not the same thing as an adverb, why are you expecting an adjective-noun combination to work the same way and follow the same rules as a verb-adverb combination?

A simple switch from active to passive voice would look like: "We were driven quickly home."

EB, I assure you that every statement in BlacKnight's last post is correct.

You are not using terms correctly when you describe 'It was a quick drive home' as "less active and more passive". In fact, the regular tenses of verbs always have either the active voice or the passive voice. There's no 'more' or 'less' possible with either term.

I would describe that version of the sentence as being 'indirect'. It changed a sentence with a subject performing an action into one where an activity was merely described. I would grant, however, it is a type of sentence construction that should (often) be treated by authors with the same level of disdain as actual passive verbs.

I don't want to harp on it, but I am subjected to -- note, that's a genuine passive verb -- a whole lot of heartache here simply because people do not understand what some terms mean.

"Indirect phrasing" comes close, but it doesn't quite roll off the tongue.

The closest existing terminology I know of is 'filter verbs'. The way sentences are constructed is very close to those. But I dislike that term even more than 'indirect'.

It is ghastly, but if I had to choose an expression it would be 'redirecting verbs'. That at least seems to describe what passive verbs, filter verbs, and many 'It/There is/was' sentences all do. It at least seems to prompt to right question for all of those: have you chosen the best subject for this sentence?

The two instantly were in the kitchen making something from both of their repertoires.

Instantly, the two were in the kitchen making something from both of their repertoires.

or

The two were instantly in the kitchen making something from both of their repertoires

I definitely do not like the first. My ear -- and I do grammar by ear rather than by eye -- simply rejects it.

The third is what I consider natural order.

The comma in the second demonstrates that it is not the natural order; putting the adverb first EMPHASIZES the time.

I think this thread is counterproductive. It initiates a discussion about something for which there is no analytical answer.

And a reference which supports that ...

This is the opening sentence of a page titled 'Order of Adverbs' at thefreedictionary.com:

Because adverbs are used to modify verbs, adjectives, other adverbs, phrases, clauses, or even entire sentences, they are able to function nearly anywhere in the sentence, depending on their type and what it is they are modifying.

@Ross at Play

I think this thread is counterproductive. It initiates a discussion about something for which there is no analytical answer.

And a reference which supports that ...

This is the opening sentence of a page titled 'Order of Adverbs' at thefreedictionary.com:

Because adverbs are used to modify verbs, adjectives, other adverbs, phrases, clauses, or even entire sentences, they are able to function nearly anywhere in the sentence, depending on their type and what it is they are modifying.

Sir, I do not believe your quotation supports your conclusion.
"they are able to function nearly anywhere in the sentence, depending on their type and what it is they are modifying. "
Says that an adverb can go nearly anywhere IF that adverb has a sense that that placement justifies.

"They ran quickly until they collapsed," and they ran until they quickly collapsed," both are properly written sentences. They do not mean anything like the same.

'We drove home and he ran up the stairs quickly'.

Your analysis looks at sentences when you need to consider clauses.

Your example with two verbs has two clauses joined by a conjunction. They are:
We drove home
he ran up the stairs quickly

That is why 'quickly' must be modifying 'ran'.

To have 'quickly' modifying 'drove' it must be in the same clause. The full sentence could then be any one of the following.
* We drove home quickly and he ran up the stairs
* We drove quickly home and he ran up the stairs
* We quickly drove home and he ran up the stairs

I have not, in fact, been saying the natural position for adverbs is always at the end of sentences. I've been saying the natural order for sentences is subject, verb, object(s), adverbs. Things can change if there are no objects. Then you have the verb and adverb adjacent, and some adverbs are more natural before verbs while others are more natural after.

I think a lot of the confusion in this discussion - beyond the fact that adverb placement is inherently very confusing - is I've been stating where adverbs and adverbial expressions are usually placed, but the only examples others are considering are adverbs ending in -ly. There is much more flexibility about where -ly adverbs may be placed than other adverbial expressions. For example, would you consider putting the adverbs of place before the verb in the above examples in the same way you consider is acceptable for -ly adverbs?

I mean, do these sound okay to you?
* We home drove quickly
* he up the stairs ran
I think not!

Then - if you're interested - there's a Royal Order of Adverbs too for multiple adverb (or phrases) at the end of sentences. The typical order is manner, place, frequency, time, and purpose; with the more specific first with more than one in the same category. While a typical for those does exist, more flexibility tends to be possible before things start sounding off.

I've been spending all the profits on expansion and building, and we might continue to do that, but I want to drive us toward becoming one of the best law firms in Missouri meanwhile.

... I'm not sure if the meanwhile ... is for the whole sentence or just half.

As written, the meanwhile only applies to the part of the sentence beginning with becoming. That doesn't make sense. The OxD meaning of meanwhile is while something else is happening. But, if it only applies to the end of the sentence, then it's saying one event happens at the same time as something else - without specifying anything else.

The reason it only applies to that part of the sentence is that everything from becoming is a 'gerund phrase'. They function as a noun within the entire sentence. You can see that is so by replacing the entire gerund phrase with a simple noun phrase, e.g.

I've been spending all the profits on expansion and building, and we might continue to do that, but I want to drive us toward our primary goal.

Within the gerund phrase, becoming is its 'head' which functions as a verb that may have objects and/or be modified by adverbs. With no comma or other separator to end the gerund phrase, everything which could be connected to the head verb will be interpreted by readers as being connected to it. The components of the gerund phrase are:
* becoming: the head word, functioning as a verb
* one of the best law firms: a noun phrase, and the direct object of becoming
* in Missouri: an adverbial phrase defining place, modifying becoming
* meanwhile: an adverb defining time, modifying becoming

That meanwhile could be interpreted by readers as an adverb modifying becoming is apparent if it is replaced with another adverb modifying time. The sentence does make sense if it was replaced with 'later', i.e.

... but I want to drive us toward becoming one of the best law firms in Missouri later.

So, EB ... Yes, that is a crappy sentence. The only place meanwhile can make sense is in the position the author wrote 'but'.

I've been spending all the profits on expansion and building, and we might continue to do that, but I want to drive us meanwhile toward becoming one of the best law firms in Missouri.

I've been spending all the profits on expansion and building, and we might continue to do that, but I want to drive us meanwhile toward becoming one of the best law firms in Missouri.

That version, with 'meanwhile' after 'us', sounds wrong to me. It places an adverb in between the direct object of 'drive', 'us', and the indirect object.

The indirect object consists of the preposition 'toward' plus its noun phrase, the gerund phrase from 'becoming' to the end of the sentence.

I've been spending all the profits on expansion and building, and we might continue to do that, but I want to meanwhile drive us toward becoming one of the best law firms in Missouri.

You like that better?

You like that better?

No, I don't.

I don't think it's always wrong to place an adverb between the objects of a verb, or even splitting an infinitive as you just did. For example, your first attempt to annoy me has the same structure as '... I give this now to you'. I don't like that either but I couldn't say it was wrong.

I think it's the meaning of 'meanwhile' that is limiting the positions it may be placed. It specifies one thing happens at the same time as something else, and the natural place for something doing that is between those two things.

I think it's the meaning of 'meanwhile' that is limiting the positions it may be placed.

In this sentence, I'd also prefer 'meanwhile' as an introductory phrase.

I've been spending all the profits on expansion and building, and we might continue to do that, but meanwhile, I want to drive us toward becoming one of the best law firms in Missouri.

I'm sorry I annoyed you, but I was annoyed myself by your verbose reply to one of EB's obscure examples, which prove absolutely nothing.

Replace the noun phrase of the sentence with a simple noun. At best, cut off the preposition as well. Now you'll see what I mean, I hope.

'... but I want to drive us 'home'.

'Meanwhile' can be placed practically anywhere after the 'but', and it will be a grammatically correct sentence, hardly changing the meaning of it.

It's always the same. EB states 'in proper English, adverbs must be placed before the modified verb'. Then he gives some examples - preferably using adjectives instead of adverbs. If that doesn't convince anyone, then next he gives some other dubious examples, which have nothing to do with his primal grammatical allegation. It's damn easy to fuck up a long sentence, even without it becoming grammatically incorrect.

I don't doubt that at all. But what does it prove?

Your examples are obscure because they don't support your claim that an adverb must be placed before the modified verb. It's irrelevant whether another author wrote them or you invented them yourself.

I was annoyed myself by your verbose reply to one of EB's obscure examples

I would concede to having provided more details than needed in that post - but 'verbose' is not quite the same thing.

Verbose to me suggests using more words than necessary to explain details. I generally put in efforts trying to find succinct ways to express the detail I choose to cover. I'm not perfect at that but I think I'm better than most. It's not always easy when I'm trying to be precise in my explanations. And I'm not just trying to identify grammatically correct or not. Within the span of acceptable grammar I try to identify what are preferred and poor style choices.

Note that some of my answers to EB are not really intended for his enlightenment - which often seems like a lost cause. They're often intended for the the benefit of others who may appreciate my posts.

Still, considering how you two are getting on, I'd gladly send you both a jerrycan of petrol and a box of matches.

Others have already said all there is to say about your first examples. I only commented on your last example.

In your first revised version of the sentence in question, you simply dropped the 'meanwhile' and the issue altogether. Solving exactly what?

In your second improved version, you made two sentences out of the original one sentence. That surely solved the problem of a long sentence. But what does it have to do with the 'correct order of words'?

No, I didn't miss it. You made 'meanwhile' an introductory phrase, applying to the entire clause after the comma. Do you think an introductory phrase is an example of a word order issue?

I read those two phrases as having different indications.

Thanks. I think you've noticed a point that is very important.

As best I can figure out, the preferred placement for adverbial words/phrases is not only tricky, but they may be divided into two distinct classes: adverbs ending in -ly and other adverbial words/phrases.

I think ... the other types of adverbial expressions always modify the verb of the clause which contains them. That means they may be some distance from the verb without any ambiguity about what they are modifying. That is definitely needed because there may be multiple adverbs all modifying the same verb. Those adverbs are usually placed at the end of the clause, but if particularly important they may be shifted to the front.

I think -ly adverbs are different. Firstly, they can modify other parts of speech besides verbs. Also, it seems they always modify the following word/expression. Surely that's the reason behind the existence of the rule about there being no need to hyphenate compound adjectives containing an adverb ending in -ly!

I can now see some logic in what EB says he was taught about the placement of adverbs. Perhaps the real point his teachers were making was it's always safe to place adverbs ending in -ly before a verb when that's what they are modifying. It would be wise to adopt that as a routine practice because doing otherwise may risk an ambiguity if an adverb ending in -ly was unwittingly placed before some other part of speech those adverbs can modify.

That would mean what EB's been saying is sound advice, except that he's been missing the point it only applies to adverbs in -ly, rather than all adverbs.

I've come around to the view there is something worthwhile in what EB says he you were taught - but he's missing an important detail. I suspect that details is it only applied to adverbs ending in -ly.

I'll keep an eye out for relevant examples and reopen this thread if I think I've discovered anything worth mentioning.

Meanwhile, EB, I suggest a rewording of "your rule" which is less likely to provoke negative responses here:

The safest position for adverbs ending in -ly which are modifying a verb is immediately before the verb.

I wish you'd use smileys when making jokes :(

That was NO JOKE!

It was a carefully considered statement of what I believe is important advice for authors who care about the clarity of their writing.

I made clear that it was an interim conclusion of my analysis. I will continue trying to verifying it, but I feel comfortable stating it now because I'm pretty confident following it will not cause harm, even if I have not yet figured out the complete story.

But you put an adverb ending in -ly immediately after a verb

... and provided an example of why my point is important.

The 'immediately' is immediately before the 'before' it modifies. :-)

Or, if I'm not trying to be a smartarse and look for the most confusing wording possible ...

That's because 'immediately' modifies 'before' rather than 'is'. It is placed before the word it modifies.

— He ran quickly. —

The "ly" adverb is after the verb it's modifying and just fine there.

One of numerous exceptions to this "rule" which I'm sure do exist. Obviously, one of them will be that when -ly adverbs are adjacent to the verbs they modify, some feel more natural after the verb despite the fact that most feel more natural before. That would be more likely when sentences are so simple there's nothing else the adverb could be modifying, thus no chance of ambiguity.

And, the -ly adverbs are still adverbs. There will surely be many occasions when it sounds better to place them in the usual position for (other) adverbs, i.e. at the end of a clause or at the start if they are particularly important.

Frankly, I don't give a damn if others here are more interested in finding nitpicks than learning something new. I think I'll start responding "So what?" to every post purporting to disprove the theory by quoting one exception.

The safest position for adverbs ending in -ly which are modifying a verb is immediately before the verb.

I was clear above that I considered this "rule", which is definitely not a rule, as a work-in-progress.

I have had some more thought on it.

It is wrong to have used the word 'safest' in that statement. I would that statement to:

It is usually safe to place adverbs ending in -ly which are modifying a verb is immediately before the verb.

There's usually another safe place too, along with any other adverb (phrases), after any objects of the verb, at the end of the clause.

I suspect there are no rules for whether or not before the verb sounds better than at the end of the sentence. I think that will depend on what adverb and/or what verb are being used.

-Ly adverbs will usually be the first if multiple adverb (phrases) are present at the end of a clause. That's because they usually define manner, and according to the Royal Order of Adverbs, adverbs of manner usually sound natural before those of any other category.

I said above that it seems the verb 'be' is an exception, and -ly adverbs generally sound better after any form of 'be' verb. I suspect the reason for that is simply that 'be' verbs can never be modified -ly adverbs. I think you can never describe the manner that something exists; you can only ever say 'It is' ... I'll have to think more about that one.

I suspect the reason for that is simply that 'be' verbs can never be modified -ly adverbs. I think you can never describe the manner that something exists; you can only ever say 'It is' ... I'll have to think more about that one.

I thought, "What about 'I would happily be ...'?", for example, 'I would happily be shot for saying that'.

That's not using the 'be' verb. 'Shot' is a past participle, so the 'be shot' in that is a passive tense of the verb 'shoot'.

Maybe just stop making up grammar "rules".

In this case, I did not make up the rule: it was something EB's teachers taught him.

His statement of what he was taught is surely incomplete, but I believe there is something valid in what he was taught. That is what I'm trying to figure out: how to narrow down the conditions in his previous statement to the point it becomes a valid description of some tendency.

I certainly wouldn't consider it a "rule". I've already cited a reference on this thread which explains why the placement the adverbs is so complex there is nothing that could be considered a rule, at best, there can only be general tendencies. I think examining those general tendencies, and in particular why they exist, is a topic worthy of discussion here. I would like to discuss it constructively. I expect a deal of nitpicking but I won't waste my efforts combating those.

We have about a hundred total people, so we should be okay.

I agree that is poor grammar. I don't think the noun phrase 'a hundred people' should be divided like that. I think that entire phrase needs to be modified - as both of your suggested alternatives do.

We have about a hundred total people, so we should be okay.

You found another erroneous sentence and you might even call it a 'word order mistake', but do you seriously believe the author was taught to place 'total' between 'a hundred' and 'people'? No one, not even the author, would regard this as anything but a simple mistake.

Yet he does this sort of thing consistently, nor is he the only author to do this type of what I was taught is an error.

I don't know which story and author you are referring to, so I can't comment on that. Are you deducing from the frequency of the mistakes that the author and maybe others as well, don't view your given example as an error?

We all have a concept in mind that we are trying to put into words. Sometimes the words we write do not convey the mental concept accurately. If we focus on the mental concept when proofing instead of what we wrote, it is easy to miss that the written passage doesn't convey the mental concept.

That is pretty much the answer I was looking for to respond to robberhands post just above yours. It is true that most readers interpret most sentences in the way the author intended. I don't think it's a particularly difficult task for authors to construct sentences which actually mean what they intend ... but it needs some care when proofing.

I don't want to doubt your suspicion but would like to know at which place people colloquially babble nonsense.

but would like to know at which place people colloquially babble nonsense

It's called real life. People actually use sound and communicate face-to-face, rather than by text message. ;)

AJ

Total, we have about a hundred people, ...

We have about a hundred people, total, ...

We have total about about a hundred people ...

I'd accept all these as 'colloqially okay'. Practically the only place where you can't place the 'total' is between 'a hundred' and 'people' because the result is nonsense, regardless whether it's a story, real life, or a text message.

The fish and drinking animals are subordinate only to the spring-fed pools,

I've thought about this, but fish and drinking animals can be found not only at pools but also in/at creeks, so I guessed the sentence was meant as enumeration of shelter, water and food resources in the area.

HM.

I guessed the sentence was meant as enumeration of shelter, water and food resources in the area.

You need a three-element list for that kind of meaning, so the form shows the function. Something like:
"We knew where all of the caves were, and the spring-fed pools, and where the fish were and animals came to drink."

I don't think that's quite correct. The fish and drinking animals are subordinate only to the spring-fed pools, not the caves.

I think that's what the author intended with the placement of the comma, but it leaves the first clause with no verb. I think that meaning is shown by:

We knew where all of the caves were, and the spring-fed pools where fish were and animals came to drink.

That is also one word shorter than the original, and therefore cleaner, stronger and whiter, and with healthier gums.

I think this is even better:

We knew where all of the caves were, and the spring-fed pools with fish where animals came to drink.

Even shorter:

We knew all the caves and the spring-fed pools with fish, where animals came to drink.

Even shorter:
We knew all the caves and the spring-fed pools with fish, where animals came to drink.

ETA: The following paragraph contains a mistake. The words 'complex subject' should be 'complex direct object'.

Your extra cuts are an improvement. But that sentence has a complex subject, 'all the caves and the spring-fed pools with fish'. It means the animals came to drink in the caves too. I think it needs to be:

We knew all the caves, and the spring-fed pools with fish where animals came to drink.

It is valid, and generally correct, to place multiple prepositional phrases, i.e. 'with fish' and 'where animals came to drink', at the end of a clause without any commas or conjunctions.

It is valid, and generally correct, to place multiple prepositional phrases, i.e. 'with fish' and 'where animals came to drink', at the end of a clause without any commas or conjunctions.

I concede, the comma was a mistake. Why not just leave the sentence without any comma?

We knew all the caves and the spring-fed pools with fish where animals came to drink.

Why not just leave the sentence without any comma?

The comma is needed to identify the scope of the prepositional phrase 'where animals came to drink'.

Consider the sentence without that phrase.

You could have:

We knew all the caves and the spring-fed pools with fish.

Everything after the verb 'knew' in that sentence is direct object the verb. If you simply tack the prepositional phrase on the end it applies to everything in the direct object.

Placing a comma after 'caves' creates a complex sentence with two clauses joined by a conjunction. The parallel means the second clause begins with an inferred 'We knew all'. When the prepositional phrase is tacked on the end it is now restricted to the second clause. .

I guess you're grammatically right. Personally I don't care about grammar where logic dictates the correct meaning of a sentence. Animals don't drink at caves and no comma can change that.

Putting a comma before the 'and' would signify an independent clause.

Please quote some reference to justify that claim.

AFAIK, some "authorities", but not all, insist that a comma is needed with two independent clauses joined by a coordinating conjunction, but that style does not insist that two clauses joined by a comma and a coordinating conjunction implies the second clause must be independent.

I have respect for the two reference sites you cited, grammarly.com and getitwriteonline.com.

I agree with what you say, and they suggest, as the general principle: commas should usually be used when joining two independent clauses with a coordinating conjunction. Both sources note the comma may be omitted when the independent clauses are very short.

I also agree that a comma is not needed when the second clause is not independent because the second clause is implied to have the same subject as the first.

I cannot agree that is mandatory for informal writing. Many here bemoan that the rules of formal writing force writers to use too many commas. I find the exact reverse of that is true. I often feel obliged when writing formally to omit commas before coordinating conjunctions which I would generally use. I always find it hard to bring myself to omit a comma before 'but'.

I cannot think of an example where a writer would be forced to disregard that principle when it is only the subject being implied in the second, independent clause.

I do not think that holds when both the subject and verb are implied in the second clause. I think the sentence we were considering is one where the writer is forced to disregard the general principle.

The reason in this case is that the second clause implies the same subject and the same transitive verb, i.e. both clauses have an object of the verb. With no comma to separate them, the two objects are joined by the coordinating conjunction and become one complex object of the verb. The sentence no longer has two clauses, but one.

That would still usually be okay. That does not create any problems unless there are other phrases which only apply to one of the two components of the complex object.

I think our example sentence is a rare exception. In this case, without a comma to separate the two objects of the verb, this sentence has only only one clause, and it would mean animals go to drink in both the caves and the pools.

We knew all the caves, and the spring-fed pools with fish where animals came to drink.

dealing with cases where the rules mean that however you punctuate a sentence, the meaning is unclear

I see no point in arguing anymore if you cannot see that the comma merely serves to prevent the creation of an unwanted compound object.

It (the sentence) is a list of 3 known locations. The use of an Oxford comma might make the sentence clearer.

You need three elements performing the same grammatical function to use Oxford commas. That is not so in the version of the sentence you made that comment about, i.e. when robberhands suggested:

We knew all the caves and the spring-fed pools with fish where animals came to drink.

There are only two locations mentioned in the sentence, 'the caves' and 'the spring-fed pools'. The phrase 'where animals came to drink' is not a location. It is a descriptive phrase providing added information about a previously mentioned location.

Grammatically, the two locations are mentioned in clauses within the main body of the sentence, The "third location" is a subordinate phrase dependent on another clause. Thus, there are only items in the list so no Oxford commas.

http://www.grammar.cl/Notes/Adverbs.htm

I had a look at that site. It's intended to help those learning English as a second language, and as such, may tend to oversimplify matters. It tends to describe some things as rules which "always" or "never" apply. While generally correct, I doubt things are as black or white as the site implies.

Accepting that caveat, I think you have found the "missing ingredient" when EB has stated he was taught that adverbs cannot be placed after a verb. I suspect what his teachers tried to teach was that adverbs cannot be placed between a verb and an object.

I note that the site also says elsewhere that the verb 'to be' is something of an exception. It says that adverbs of frequency are usually placed before the verb, but for the verb 'to be' they are placed after.

I posted to that thread and deleted my post almost immediately. I wonder if a bug caused the thread to get deleted.

Thanks SB. I think there is a bug but it's okay now.

I just made a test post to that thread and it reappeared on my Author's Hangout display.

To Lazeez, I think there is a bug somewhere in the system and it appears that it may be triggered by someone deleting the last post on the thread.

'Though' can be used as a conjunction as well as an adverb.

Conjunction: Though I think he's out flying today.

Adverb: I think he's out flying today, though.

Both sentences are gramatically correct.

You would expect the next sentence to be related to the phrase before though and part of that sentence.

I would not expect the next sentence to be related, I'd expect the prevoious sentence to be related.

Merriam-Webster online:

though, adverb - used when you are saying something that is different from or contrasts with a previous statement.

Example: He's been quiet. Not for long, though.

I would not expect the next sentence to related, I'd expect the prevoious sentence to be related.

I don't think either of you is wrong. I think you're both saying that though with it's usual meaning belongs between two related statements.

That's not the point. 'Though' always regards a previous statement, never a following one.

'Though' always regards a previous statement, never a following one.

That's not the same as what you said before. Both 'regards' and 'related to' mean in a specific direction, while 'related' means the same in both directions.

I would not expect the next sentence to be related, I'd expect the prevoious sentence to be related.

That's what I wrote as comment to EB's:

You would expect the next sentence to be related to the phrase before though and part of that sentence.

I give up. My point was that the meanings of 'related' and 'related to' may be different.

Then how do you interprete EB's statement?

You would expect the next sentence to be related to the phrase before though and part of that sentence.

Now take these three sentences:

He's been quiet. Not for long, though. We went home when he spoke again.

According to EB, he'd expect 'though' to be related to 'We went home'. That's the point I object.

Then how do you interprete EB's statement?
You would expect the next sentence to be related to the phrase before 'though' and part of that sentence.

That would make sense to me if 'next sentence' is replaced with 'next statement', i.e. "part of" the current sentence.

I think he made a typo there.

He's been quiet. Not for long, though. We went home when he spoke gain.

I think that is okay. I explained above why I think the comma before 'though' changes it into an exclamation, rather than its more common use to identify how two statements are related.

The first two sentences (Yes, even the one without subject and verb) are from Merriam-Webster, not EB. I added the third sentence to make my point and I made the typo to miss the 'a' in 'again'.

The first two sentences [are not from] EB.

I realised that. The reasons I 'explained above' apply equally to his example and your new example: a comma then though to end a sentence is okay because it becomes an exclamation.

Merriam-Webster

I looked at that and dictionary.com. Both suggest its primary use is as a conjunction but it may also be used as an adverb.

I'm not comfortable with the example as an adverb in Merriam-Webster.

It's hard work. I enjoy it though

That's basically the same as the first example EB says he objects to. I dislike both without a comma before though.

Perhaps this is an Australian thing? It sounds wrong to my ear as an adverb at the end of a sentence, though Merriam-Webster says that is okay.

I'm neither an Australian, nor an US American or a Brit. I don't mind 'though' at the end of a clause but prefer to set it apart with a comma. Not because I think of it as an exclamation but rather watch it as a successive phrase - as opposed to an introductory phrase, which is set apart by a comma as well. No idea whether there is a proper grammatical term for what I just called a succesive phrase.

You may continue hating Merriam-Webster undeterred.

He's been quiet. Not for long, though.

These sentences are also from Merriam-Webster, and here they placed a comma before 'though' without any apparent reason or explanation.

Agreed.

"It's hard work. I enjoy it nonetheless."

That sounds fine to me. Nonetheless is only an adverb and sounds fine at the end of the sentence.

I concede the way I use though is not as dictionaries define it. I think I only ever use it with its more common usage, as a conjunction, and it just sounds wrong to me when used as an adverb.

No idea whether there is a proper grammatical term for what I just called a succesive phrase.

I think the correct term is "parenthetic phrase". They are not always enclosed in parentheses. They may also be closed in pairs of commas or dashes, and one end of those pairs can be the start or end of a sentence instead.

The term covers any diversion away from a main clause of a sentence, including exclamations, asides, and nonrestrictive appositives. The point is both the start and end of the diversion must be identified by punctuation.

Example: I think he's out flying today though.

I agree that though, with a meaning similar to however, cannot be placed as the final word of that statement.

I would view it differently with a comma before the though. To me, the primary statement would then have been ended and the though would be an exclamation with a meaning similar to resignation.