Weekly Short Stories Contest and Company! discussion
Writing and Publishing
>
Grammar and Composition
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
M
(last edited Jul 10, 2012 10:26AM)
(new)
Jul 10, 2012 10:25AM
This is a thread for people to discuss grammar (parts of speech, sentence types, subordinate word groups), grammatical problems (such as with modifiers, subject-verb agreement, parallelism), punctuation, mechanics (spelling, abbreviations, hyphenation, etc.), and composition (writing effective sentences and paragraphs), and the many other things that have to do with grammar or composition.
reply
|
flag
Okay, M, we were discussing on Facebook, some weeks back, about a particular verb form that I was totally ignorant about. We didn't really get into it much then, so do you think you could elaborate on it now? (I don't have time to dig through my Facebook right now, otherwise I would just type the actual verb form name.)
I don’t remember what it was. I’m up at the office, where there’s high-speed Internet. I’ll log onto Facebook and see what it was.
I found a post in which I was talking about the subjunctive mood. It’s the mood that expresses the conditional or wished for. In the indicative mood, you’d say, “It’s fair weather. We’ll go the beach.” In the subjunctive, you’d say, “If it were fair weather, we’d go to the beach.”Another common problem I come across is absence of the past perfect tense, as if the writer is unacquainted with it. In past tense, you’d say, “I went to the beach.” Past perfect expresses a time before that: “I had gone to the beach.” In some of the stories posted, it can be difficult to tell when in the past an action is taking place.
It isn’t wrong to use a simple past to relate an action that happens before another action, as in “Alex ran because she heard Frank’s maniacal laughter,” but it implies causation or a closeness of the action. If the actions aren’t close in time or immediately related by causation, past perfect gives the reader a clear sense of that: “When the forest had been tamed, the pioneers turned their efforts to farming.”
Okay, that makes sense. Excellent examples, by the way.I took over my English teacher's class once when he was trying to explain the difference between an apposotive and a restrictive clause. We were spending so much time on the subject that I got annoyed and used Venn diagrams to illustrate the point.
I can’t help but be curious to know how you explained the distinction, why a diagram was necessary, and why you felt a Venn diagram served the purpose as well as conventional sentence diagramming.In which of the following sentences does the italicized clause contain an appositive?
The idea that came to me seemed brilliant.
The idea that Mulroy is a thief is ridiculous.
I’ll give the answer, since no one else seems to be around. The italicized clause in the first sentence is an adjective clause, in which that is the subject. The clause functions as an adjective, so how can it be an appositive, which functions as a substantive?The italicized clause in the second sentence is a subordinate clause, in which that is a subordinating conjunction and Mulroy is a thief is an appositive noun clause. (The subject of the sentence is idea, and Mulroy is a thief is the idea.)
In a case such as this, one of the ways to figure out whether that is a relative pronoun or a subordinating conjunction is to substitute which. It works when that is a relative pronoun, as in “The idea which came to me seemed brilliant.”
On the other hand, an appositive usually has adjectival aspect, if only because in renaming or restating, it can’t help but describe what it’s in apposition to. So an argument could be made that the italicized clause in the second sentence is an adjective clause, even though structurally it’s a noun clause introduced by a subordinating conjunction.
I wonder about the situation Edward reports. This sort of grammatical hair-splitting, in which there is no useful answer, isn’t the kind of thing I’ve ever had to waste time on in an English course. I’ve never had a student arrogant enough to try to take over a class, either--though teachers I’ve known and who brooked no disrespect would have put such a student in his place or would simply have thrown him out.
Yeah, it was a rather ill-advised move, but it was less arrogance and more anger. I hated that class and found spend twenty minutes of several different classes on a comma appalling.This was the distinction we spent so much time on:
"All black men that are slaves ..."
"All black men, that are slaves ..."
The first one restricts "black men" more. (Black men (that are slaves)) The second one adds information about "black men." (Black men/slaves) Adding the comma changed this law I'm paraphrasing from referencing only black men who were slaves to defining all black men as slaves.
Actually, the professor thanked me for diagraming the distinction afterwards. It was rather irritating being thanked by someone who annoyed me for two and half hours a week for sixteen weeks.
Actually, it had occurred to me that you had done it to help out. That seemed more in character with what I know of you. I remember the business about restrictive and non-restrictive “interrupters,” as it was fashionable to call them when I was in college. The academic community is about grammar the same way women are about houses. They can’t be happy unless they do some occasional remodeling, though things are just fine the way they are and after the make-over the underlying framework remains unchanged.
M what a funny and nearly perfect description of the 'academic' process: fixing what ain't broken. LoL.
Maybe that's why I hated college. I don't fix things even if they are slightly broken; I always wait until they're unworkable to do anything about it. My philosophy in life comes from Finding Nemo: "Just keep swimming, just keep swimming ..."Anyway, I probably paint a nicer portrait of myself online than in real life. I'm a very critical person (I wouldn't object to being called judgemental), rather lazy, and have a very annoying voice (as I discovered when I recorded a conversation with my friends). Although it is true that I have no enemies except a woman who is so judgemental that I look like the most tolerant person in the Midwest.
Oh, side note: I'm only making a few comments because I'm just stopping by in the library for a short while everyday; the internet in the house is off.
When I'm revising After Dark I'll be sure to come here if I'm uncertain about a certain grammar point.
I was never good at grammar, or at anything else that requires analytical, especially abstract, reasoning. Logic completely defies me. I learned as much traditional grammar as was necessary for me take sentences apart, and that didn’t happen until I was in college. Oddly, I learned Latin grammar at the same time, and my approach to grammar was heavily influenced by that.
My policy towards school and grammar was, "Do a great job once in a while and everything will be fine." Grammar and English were actually pretty easy, but I never felt the need to try hard. So, I ended up being the genius dunce.
English is the only course I never need to try hard on. Grammar comes naturally to me after being explained once, which is weird. Spelling works the same way, but less so. And all I need to do to keep an A is to come up with a brilliant creative writing topic every once in a while.My seventh grade language arts teacher was amazing, though. She really pushed all of us, and was able to track every student's pace to challenge them individually. I really do miss her.
M wrote: "I was never good at grammar, or at anything else that requires analytical, especially abstract, reasoning. Logic completely defies me. I learned as much traditional grammar as was necessary for me ..."It may be because Grammer is illogical. It has so many rules and yet at the same time it seems to have no rules and there will always be that one person who points out your every mistake.
Oh, grammar is logical in its individual aspects, but each individual aspect was developed at a different point in time, under different cultural understandings, and often by accident. No one or one group of people created the English language. Language, unlike math, is a relative matter; as long as most of the people in your sphere of contact understands you, the rules work.In other words, language, by its very nature, is a mess - a beautiful mess, but a mess nonetheless.
Though, if you want a simple language where the same rules apply 90% of the time, I recommend Latin.
Only one problem. Latin's a dead language.
No, it isn't. It is the official language of the Vatican, it is used to communicate with tens of thousands of people around the world, and it has words for things like automobile and iPod. In what way is it dead?
Over here, it is. I swear my dad is the only person in San Jose who knows Latin. My mom likes to joke that it's a dead language, but she says it so sincerely I sometimes forget it isn't really. Sorry.
Don't apologize until you need it.I keep trying to learn Latin, but I get swept up in a lot of other activities long before I make my way to it.
Apocryphally, Winston Churchill was once told he couldn't end a sentence with a preposition. His response? "That is the sort of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put." The page I found that on also explains how you can end a sentence with a preposition in English; that rule is actually a Latin rule arbitarily applied to English.
I think of Latin as a dead language. It’s no longer the first language of the people of any country. In that way, it’s unlike Hebrew, which became nearly extinct as a spoken language only to be revived as a living language (thus, a modern language).
It's not the first language, no, but it is the official language of Vatican City (which is considered it's own country, though with a citizenship of 1,000 and a birthrate of 0). Since they have to communicate with people all over the world, they usually send letters and give speeches in Latin. It seems fairly reasonable that if a priest ever came into contact with another priest of another country, they could attempt a conversation in Latin.
Here is a question from Paulina on English structure. I've reposted it here from the Chat thread.I just have a few quick grammar/punctuation questions about writing dialogue. I tried looking this up online but I haven't really found any really specific answers. owl.english.purdue.edu did manage to help a lot. Anyway, I know when something like "he/she said" is put after dialogue it would look like this,
"Okay," he said.
but what about when the word after the dialogue is a verb that doesn't essentially mean "said?" Out of these two, which one would be the correct one?
"Okay," he smiled.
"Okay." He smiled.
Also does anything change when the dialogue ends with a question? Out of these two, which one would be the correct one?
"Okay?" he said.
"Okay?" He said.
Thanks for any help
The ' "Okay," he smiled. ' one trips me up a lot. I do it like that without thinking, but have recently read that it is incorrect. Which may require a lot of editing on my works.With the question mark, I'm almost certain that the first one is correct - but, then, I seem to have gotten a few grammar rules wrong as it is. Guess I should actually study the subject some ...
The first one is correct for the question mark.
I have no problem with: “Okay,” he smiled.or
“Okay,” he shrugged.
or
“Okay,” he laughed.
It’s implied that he says it while smiling or shrugging or laughing, or right before.
I don't have a problem with it either, M. For the same reason.
Although, arguably, he could be shrugging in Morse code. Three left shoulder raises, pause, left shoulder, right shoulder, left, pause, right, left, pause, left, right, left, left, stop.But yeah, I think it is implied that he's doing the action in conjunction with the words.
M, I would usually write it as "Okay," he laughed.
since to me, I usually imply that whatever verb (smiled for example) that is written right after the dialogue is being done at the same time as the dialogue is being said. Writing it as
"Okay." He smiled.
implies to me that the person is smiling after speaking.
However, I'm going to look up said-bookisms like Belly suggested. Also, if I have dialogue between people in writing go back and forth a bit, I only use words like said, asked, etc when its appropriate, for example when the dialogue first starts, if one character had something really long to say and the audience might need clarification on who is speaking next, or if there are more than two characters speaking at a time.
Edward, sometimes I find various grammar websites and they tell me slightly different things or they just talk about broad topics and not small details so I don't know which way to write it either or I end up forgetting.
Also, thanks Kat and everyone for the help!
I've just never studied grammar unless I came across a sentence I actually wasn't certain how to clarify. I have two people who know a lot more about grammar than me who can help smooth out some points.Actually, I should said that I've never studied English grammar; I've studied Latin grammar. Hilariously, I've learned a lot more about English from studying Latin than I have about Latin.
Could it be said ""Yes" he said smiling."?
Paulina, when it comes to grammar, you’re better off to buy an old textbook. They’re cheap. Pick one up at a library sale or a Goodwill store. You'll do yourself a favor to make sure the author has a Ph.D. in English and teaches (or taught) at a reputable university. Diane Hacker’s The Bedford Handbook for Writers (St. Martin’s, 1994) is a pretty good one. Warriner’s English Grammar and Composition is an excellent reference to have onhand. John Warriner had only a master’s in English (from Harvard) and was a high-school teacher. So he’s an exception.
The only grammar studying I did was looking stuff up online if I wasn't sure the exact way to write something or punctuate something lol. I browsed a lot of websites and read a bit about whatever topic I needed (if I could find it, which sometimes I could not). Also, learning another language can sometimes help you learn about other languages because you tend to see new things about your original language you never thought about before. I speak more than one language and learned a third one in school so I know how different grammar can be sometimes. Direct word-for-word translations never work well lol.Christa, I have no idea. It seems like it would be right to me, but I've been told
"Yes." He smiled.
is the correct way, which would make
"Yes," he said smiling.
seem incorrect but it seems correct to me which would then make
"Yes," he smiled.
also correct.
I have no idea now lol.
M, thanks for the advice. I might just go to the library when I have a chance to see if they have any manuals I could look at or I'll find a bookstore that might have it for cheap.
I also think that The Elements of Style is a valuable resource. In no small part because it is short, practical and provides exceptions to the rule.Like M and Kat and Edward I do not have a problem with either form of 'smiled.' And in my defence I'll cite Shakespeare who not only violated just about every so-called rule of grammar, but made fun of the language police in Loves Labours Lost.
Good language, regardless of 'rules,' is about clarity of expression and the ability to evoke understanding and stimulate the imagination.
Guy, thanks for the book suggestion, I'll try to find it next time I'm near books. Also, yes Shakespeare definitely broke a lot of rules lol.I think a well developed plot, good characters, good writing style, are way more important than a mistake or two, but unfortunately small mistakes can make a writer seen incompetent so I want to try to avoid these mistakes.
Sheridan Baker’s The Practical Stylist (Crowell, 1973) is old now, but if you come across a copy of it for two bits or a dollar, you might find it worth your while to look through. Baker is fun to read! He served on destroyers during the war and afterward was an English professor at the University of Michigan. I don’t have his book on Hemingway, but I need to get it.Earlier, I said I’m not bothered by such constructions as “Okay,” he smiled. I’ve merely gotten used them, the way I’ve gotten used to badly used participial phrases, as in Hanging up the phone, he rushed out the door. He can’t be hanging up the phone and rushing out the door at the same time. It isn’t particularly good writing.
Yes, I like The Practical Stylist too. A copy of it sits in my shelves.
Thanks M. I'll read some of those guides everyone suggested and hopefully I'll get all of my questions answered lol.
Hi M!I need a mentor to help me with my big hiccups concerning grammar, punctuation, ect. One big problem I have is run-ons. How can you tell a run-on has occurred (besides the obvious). Also how could you separate a sentence like this from a story: ?
She was taught how to do this many times but was always hesitant about how to do the most mundane tasks that many took advantage of doing with the precious gift of sight.
(To explain in context, character with a disability is changing sheets on her bed).
I’m not sure what you mean by the second question, but I’ll attempt to answer the first.A run-on sentence is a couple of independent clauses (clauses that can stand as complete sentences) that have been stuck together without proper punctuation or without a comma and a coordinating conjunction.
Dissecting sentences isn’t one of my talents, but here goes.
The sentence you posted, stripped down to its bare bones is She was taught but was hesitant. It’s made up of a subject and a compound verb (the second of which takes a complement). Though the sentence is complicated with modifiers, except for a potentially unclear reference it’s a fine sentence. It isn’t a run-on sentence.
There’s a nice rhythm:
She was taught how to do this many times but was always hesitant about how to do . . .
What was she taught? How to do this. My supposition is that the phrase is the retained object of the passive verb.
Further suppositions:
The object of taught is how, which in this instance is a noun equating with the way, the manner, or the method. An infinitive phrase to do this modifies how. (What kind of method? A method to do this.) Thus the infinitive phrase functions adjectivally. The object of the infinitive is this.
The awkward placement of many times makes the reference unclear. Is it something she was taught many times; or is it that what was she taught was how to do it many times?
Without going into detail:
The complicated prepositional phrase about how to do the most mundane tasks modifies a predicate adjective, hesitant.
An adjective clause, that many took advantage of doing with the precious gift of sight, modifies tasks.
