Turning the lightbulb on with comma's

[llllynne]

:hat

O.K. writers. HELP! I have the Elements of Style but I am still having trouble with my comma's. I can't afford to take a writing class just for that. So I need your help. Maybe it can help a lot of us in the process. I understand the use of "series comma's."

example: Red, white, and blue.

Where the comma goes before the word "and" as well.

I am having trouble with the other uses of "and." When to include the comma before it, and when not to. Please include your examples with your findings, it will be appreciated. Thanks.

[pianoman5]

American style does use the comma before the final item in a series, as in your example, although English/Commonwealth style traditionally does not. I think it is best to, because it is never wrong, and omitting it can sometimes lead to unclear meaning.

Here's a link that might help you, with plenty of straightforward examples.

Comma use (http://www.uhv.edu/ac/grammar/commause.html)

[katdad]

You need help with apostrophes more than commas.

"commas" = plural, more than one comma.

"comma's" = possessive, as "The comma's tail is too short"

Forget Strunk & White. Get a copy of the Chicago Manual of Style. Best 25 bucks you'll spend.

Comma placement in lists: Add the comma before the 'and', like:

Red, white, and blue.

This is American-preferred. British preferred omits the final comma:

Red, white and blue.

[sc211]

Good points. For myself I know I'm supposed to take out that last comma in lists, but it's never made sense to me - it can be confusing and throw off rhythm to boot.

For other uses of commas, you could check out some of Gary Provost's books, like Make Your Words Work. And yeah, the Chicago Manual is the Bible, with the size to match.

Here's the one that gets me:

I was walking down the street, and, just as I turned the corner, there was a loud crash.

Is it better to take out the middle comma?

I was walking down the street, and just as I turned the corner, there was a loud crash.

Actually I think that is right because it's joining two sentences, the second one with what that link calls an “introductory phrase.”

Where you'd brace the "and" with commas is in something like:

She went to Berlin, Moscow, and, for the summer, Paris.

Where there's no independent clauses, but a clarification put in the middle.

Right?

[maestrowork]

I was walking down the street, and, just as I turned the corner, there was a loud crash.

This is grammatically correct, I guess. But it reads choppy for me. Writing is about rhythm, too. Sometimes I cringe when I see authors writing sentences like that, which are grammatically correct but stutter...

I'd probably infuriate grammar gods and goddesses but doing this:

I was walking down the street and, just as I turned the corner, there was a loud crash.

OR

I was walking down the street; just as I turned the corner, there was a loud crash.

[Oklahoma Wolf]

I'd probably just split the sentence into two:

I was walking down the street. Just as I turned the corner, there was a loud crash.

[XThe NavigatorX]

Regarding the comma in a series...

I like ice cream, steak, and Rolos.

I like ice cream, steak and Rolos.

You can use either version. Just be consistent. Chicago style uses the comma before the and, AP style doesn't.

[llllynne]

:hat

I know the series "apostrophes" are easy to me. Its the rest I need help with. Thanks for your input. Oh brother, there are so many variations. Lets keep it going though. I am learning a little bit already.

How much of this do we even have to worry about. When we write our manuscripts will they throw it in the garbage if all this isn't correct?

[pianoman5]

Consider this, written according to British style:

There were a number of balls in play; green, white, purple and black, red, blue and white.

Is the last ball white, or blue and white?

If you put a comma before the final 'and', the meaning is unambiguous.

[Writing Again]

Restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses:

A restrictive clause is one that would change the meaning were it left out. This clause restricts the meaning to what is being discussed.

The peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

If you were to leave out "and jelly" then it would be a peanut butter sandwich, so you do not use commas.

If you are talking about two sandwiches:

Of the two sandwiches the one on the left is thicker.

This restricts the meaning to the sandwich on the left and so no commas are used.

However:

The two sandwiches, both made this morning, are fresh.

The clause between the commas does not restrict the meaning in any way. It can be left out and make perfect sense.

The two sandwiches are fresh.

The nonrestrictive clause, "both made this morning" just tells you how fresh they are: Therefore you set this clause off with commas.

There would be no comma in:

I made one sandwich this morning and one this afternoon.

[reph]

Writing Again, I know from previous threads that you have your own way of understanding grammar. Some of what you wrote doesn't fit the standard way of analyzing sentence structure.

A restrictive clause is one that would change the meaning were it left out. This clause restricts the meaning to what is being discussed.

The peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

If you were to leave out "and jelly" then it would be a peanut butter sandwich, so you do not use commas.

"And jelly" isn't a clause at all. To be a clause, a series of words must contain a verb.

If you are talking about two sandwiches:

Of the two sandwiches the one on the left is thicker.

This restricts the meaning to the sandwich on the left and so no commas are used.

"Of the two sandwiches" isn't a clause; it's a prepositional phrase. Actually, a comma is correct in that sentence.

"Of the two sandwiches, the one on the left is thicker."

The two sandwiches, both made this morning, are fresh.

The commas are correct here, although "both made this morning" doesn't qualify as a clause. The following sentence contains a nonrestrictive clause: "These two sandwiches, which Ann made this morning, are fresh." The following sentence contains a restrictive clause: "The two sandwiches that Ann made this morning are fresh."

[llllynne]

:hat

Hey Reff, thanks for taking the apostrophe out of "commas." I didn't know how.

Regarding the other stuff.
You guys are supposed to help me, not confuse me more! Lol.

Can you simply it so I understand what you're doing?

[maestrowork]

Illynne, I am no expert, but I think the way to see where to use or not use a comma lies in sentence structures and also the rhythm. For example, in the case:

Of the two sandwiches, the one on the left is thicker.

"The one of the left is thicker" is a complete sentence. So you need to separate it from "Of the two sandwiches" with a comma.

I am no expert, and I don't know what I'm talking about.

It's not totally wrong, IMHO, to omit the comma. Again, since "I don't know what I'm talking about" is a complete sentence, it's good to use a comma to separate the sentences. But you don't have to, since "and" connects the two sentences.

I went to the store and bought a newspaper.

Here, "bought a newspaper" is not a complete sentence. It lacks the subject "I," which is supplied in the first sentence ("I went to the store"), so you shouldn't add a comma there.

A comma also puts a pause in your sentence:

I came down the stairs, so you don't have to climb up.

Without the comma, it's still good. But the comma adds a pause and hopefully reads better.

As others have said, the comma before the last item on a list is optional -- you'll be fine as long as you're consistent.

The following two sentences mean different things with and without the comma:

She ate a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
She ate a peanut butter, and jelly, sandwich.

The first one: "peanut butter and jelly" together describe the sandwich. It's a type of sandwich.

The second one: "peanut butter, and jelly, sandwich" means it's really just a peanut butter sandwich... oh by the way, there's jelly in it, too.


I could be wrong -- as I said, I'm no expert. Consult the style and grammar guide when in doubt.



p.s. my last sentence above also can be confusing:
Consult the grammar guide when in doubt -- no comma needed.

When in doubt, consult the grammar guide. -- needs a comma.

[llllynne]

:hat
Maestrowork, maybe I am making it too hard. I thought there were rules that needed to be followed concerning conjunctions and clauses.

Set me straight you guys, please. Thanks.

[reph]

To take out the apostrophe in the subject line, I used–ta DAAA!–the Delete key.

I can't think of a reason anybody would write "She ate a peanut butter, and jelly, sandwich."

Strunk and White say to use a comma in a compound sentence (two independent clauses: "I am no expert, and I don't know what I'm talking about") unless the clauses are short and similar: "I'm no expert and neither are you." At least I think they said it in some edition or other. I can't find it in the Strunk and White I have now.

On an earlier question, where the example was "I was walking down the street, and, just as I turned the corner, there was a loud crash," S & W do it like this: "I was walking down the street, and just as I turned the corner, there was a loud crash."

I'm afraid I can't simplify comma use. Get Strunk and White.

[maestrowork]

These two sentences are similar in the use of comma:

I was walking down the street, and just as I turned the corner, there was a loud crash.

The conjunction connects two sentences: a) "I was walking down the street; b) Just as I turned the corner, there was a loud crash. So use a comma (but not two).

I am no expert, and I don't know what I'm talking about.

Same thing here. Thus, the comma. Although, as Reph and I pointed it out, the comma can be ommited if the two sentences are short: I'm no expert and I don't know anything.

[anatole ghio]

"I was walking down the street and, just as I turned the corner, there was a loud crash".

Despite grammatical correctness, I prefer this over "I was walking down the street, and just as I turned the corner, there was a loud crash".

I know this can be construed as splitting hairs and one might as well argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, so it is important to emphasis that as writers, our whole identity consists of evoking an idea or emotion based upon the way that words can evoke an idea or an emotion.

So to get back to the example above and why I believe example one is better suited to writers, if not grammatically correct as per S&W.

So much of what we do must find the balance between engaging the readers emotions and the readers intellect. For the most part, anything that does not draw attention to the process of reading, will be aimed at the readers emotion. Anything that draws attention to the act of reading, will tend to be processed by the readers intellect.

So the example with the comma after the and, brings the reader in because it gets processed as one thought. The narrator walked down the street and heard a crash while so doing. This idea is qualified by what the narrator was doing while walking, but the mind will still structure it as one idea because the emphasis is on the whole sentence.

The second example will bring the reader out because each image must be processed individually. Instead of one idea, we are presented with two... walking down the street and what happened after that. The reader must pause between the comma and mentally distinguish the next section as a different idea. This brings the reader out of the moment at a point when the reader should be going more into the scene.

I'm sure there can be a counter argument to this... there is very little that can be written in stone to what we do, though I would favor the first example if I had to choose.

- Anatole

[pianoman5]

Good point, Anatole, and while I've never analysed the reason why it works in your thoughtful way, I think you're right.

Every style guide I've seen says the comma should always go before the 'and', but in speech we commonly break and pause after the 'and', to effectively paraphrase the following non-restrictive clause.

I've seen plenty of examples of it in the works of good authors, so they've obviously manage to elude the depredations of their editors and preserve the rhythm of their writing voice. I get the impression that once one is well established as an author, anything goes, because the power balance shifts and the number of people who feel qualified to mess with your work dramatically declines.

[Zane Curtis]

It strikes me that we're all doing this the hard way. We're taking a complicated sentence and trying to break it down into its component clauses. It would be far easier, I think, to take a simple sentence and to build upon it. So let us put the sample sentence in the simplest possible language (the Dick and Jane version, if you like). Let's change the sentence:

"I was walking down the street, and, just as I turned the corner, there was a loud crash."

to

"I walked down the street. I turned the corner. I heard a crash."

I've changed the wording. In my opinion, the awkwardness of the original comes, not from the commas, but from the passive voice and the useless adjective. A loud crash? Give me a break. Have you ever heard a quiet crash? When I line edit, I delete all adverbs and adjectives that don't pull their weight. It could be that you want this sort of casual voice for your first person narrator, but I wouldn't. It sounds too much like all the other slush on the slush pile.

Now we have a simple sentence to work with, we can see how we might use commas. There are really only three uses. First, we use commas to separate the elements of a list (and like others here, I prefer the American style, which is clearer). Second, we can use a comma and conjunction to join two simple sentences together and create a compound sentence. Our example becomes:

"I walked down the street, I turned the corner, and I heard a crash."

I would probably further simplify this by dropping I from the second two clauses:

"I walked down the street, turned the corner, and heard a crash."

I feel this is superior to the original version of the sentence. It has a distinct rhythm. The original has the rhythm of a drunk, white man dragged unwittingly onto the dance-floor by a girlfriend.

Third, we can use a comma to separate a subordinate or adjective clause from the main clause of a sentence. So our example might become:

"Walking down the street, I turned the corner and heard a crash."

Here I'm using the rule that you can drop a comma from a compound sentence if the clauses are short. We don't need to write: "...I turned the corner, and heard a crash."

So, that's about it. I recommend that, if you have trouble, you should start with a simple sentence and build it up, rather than start with a complicated sentence and try to break it down. It works for me. Beware, though, I'm talking here about line editing. For a first draft, I put all the fussy grammar and punctuation aside and concentrate on finishing.

[anatole ghio]

I would probably further simplify this by dropping I from the second two clauses:

"I walked down the street, turned the corner, and heard a crash."

I feel this is superior to the original version of the sentence. It has a distinct rhythm. The original has the rhythm of a drunk, white man dragged unwittingly onto the dance-floor by a girlfriend.

Third, we can use a comma to separate a subordinate or adjective clause from the main clause of a sentence. So our example might become:

"Walking down the street, I turned the corner and heard a crash."

Ha ha! While the rest of us were arguing over the viability of the example sentence, you simply rewrote it so that it read better.

So much for that...

I have to say I like your first example better, if only because the last one begins with the action instead of the subject, which can sometimes confuse the reader... but even then, your last example is clear and probably wouldn't be confusing, given the context of what led up to it.

- Anatole

[sc211]

The original has the rhythm of a drunk, white man dragged unwittingly onto the dance-floor by a girlfriend.

I love that - I wrote that original bit and I actually have been that drunk, white man dragged unwittingly onto the dance floor.:D

So yeah, the passive verb and "loud crash" are poor writing - it was just something off the top of my drunk, white head to put commas in.

I liked anatole's emotion/intellect bit. And it's always amazing how much can go into a single sentence. Even if we're the only ones who know.

[reph]

Another example where comma placement serves an expressive function: "I was walking on 40th Street and, you won't believe this, I ran into Joe from Mrs. Cassell's third-grade class back at Springfield Elementary." This might occur in dialogue. You could also use dashes to set off "you won't believe this."

[llllynne]

:evil

Now Reph, if we can just get the apostrophe out of the main title.

I don't see anything wrong with saying a loud crash. Of course it would be dumb to say a quiet crash. A loud crash compared to just a crash though, is a difference. It makes you visualize more drama to the loud crash.

Regarding the commas. You guys are telling me that you don't need to pay attention to conjunctions and clauses. You don't have to know all the rules regarding conjunction and clauses.
You are going more on feeling and flow. I don't know if that is the correct way to deal with commas, but is what I am gathering from your posts.

Are we doing this wrong?

[Zane Curtis]

So yeah, the passive verb and "loud crash" are poor writing - it was just something off the top of my drunk, white head to put commas in.

No need to explain. That's the sort of sentence we all write in a first draft, when we're struggling to get the ideas onto the screen. :hat

[Zane Curtis]

I don't see anything wrong with saying a loud crash. Of course it would be dumb to say a quiet crash. A loud crash compared to just a crash though, is a difference. It makes you visualize more drama to the loud crash.

It's subjective of course. There will always be some leeway over what is a meaningful distinction and what isn't. Personally, I prefer to make my adjectives work harder.

[pianoman5]

You guys are telling me that you don't need to pay attention to conjunctions and clauses. You don't have to know all the rules regarding conjunction and clauses.
Aw, Illlynne, we've obviously confused you! Nobody's saying that.

Like all the other 'rules', first you have to understand them. Then you can flagrantly flout them in your writing when it suits your purpose, but at least you'll know you're doing so, and you'll know why.

[reph]

Like all the other 'rules', first you have to understand them. Then you can flagrantly flout them in your writing when it suits your purpose, but at least you'll know you're doing so, and you'll know why.

I was going to say something like that. pianoman saved me the trouble.

[AncientEagle]

The Chicago Manual of Style says, referring to the serial comma, that it should appear before the conjunction when a conjunction joins the last two elements in a series. A paragraph earlier, though, it says something I consider even more to the point: "Effective use of the comma involves good judgment, with ease of reading the end in view."

While I use the "serial comma" because it feels and sounds natural to me, it is good to keep in mind that many newspapers routinely excise it, while most (I believe) book publishers just as routinely require it. It is also good to keep in mind that sometimes writers' guidelines specify which way the comma is preferred by the publication being pursued.

[llllynne]

So give me some conjunction, clause rules pianoman5.

Then I will be more educated.

I have a hard time believing that someone is going to go through their whole manuscript and change all their commas.
Just to give the manuscript to a different publisher.

[Writing Again]

Most mistakes in grammar are comma errors.

Use them to set off independent clauses.

He likes pink, she likes yellow.


The comma always comes before the conjunction in formal grammar (Perhaps not in dialog) -- Conjunctions are sometimes called the fanboys: for, and, nor, but, or, and sometimes yet and so.

Be careful to avoid the comma splice:

The phone rang, she answered it. ( I use a semicolon -- The phone rang; she answered it -- Petty, I know, but important)

Use commas for clauses:

Introductory clause:

Exhausted, he sat down.

Use in a series:

He ate apples, oranges, bananas, and grapefruit for lunch.

You do not have to put in the last comma before and but I always do unless the items go together. To me there is a big difference between:

He ate apples, peanut butter, and jelly for lunch.

And:

He ate apples, peanut butter and jelly for lunch.

Nonrestrictive clauses: Any clause that can be subtracted from the sentence and still retain its original meaning.

reph, who uses formal grammar, is not always easy for me to understand.

Appositive -- A word that has never been adequately defined to me, but which means "When two words or groups of words identify the same thing."

John, the man standing there, is well dressed.

The city of San Francisco, which resides in its own county of the same name, was once known as the Barbary Coast.

I just think of an appositive as a nonrestrictive clause -- It makes thinking simpler.

A comma separates contrasting thoughts:

She likes cats, not dogs.

Addresses and dates:

On Haight Street, San Francisco, California, during July, 1950, the hippie movement gained momentum.

To set off parentheticals -- To me just some more nonrestrictive elements: However, moreover, etc.

Her dress, however, was short and to the point.

Direct address:

Hey you, come here.

Yes, dear.

A noun or pronoun plus a participle is called an absolute phrase, whatever that is supposed to mean: In any case if you have a phrase with and "ing" word and a noun or pronoun you need to set it off.

The night being dark, he used a flashlight.

Interjections:

Aha, he cried.

And of course in quotations:

"Do you mind?" she asked.

"Depends on what you tell me to do," he replied.

[reph]

I have a hard time believing that someone is going to go through their whole manuscript and change all their commas.
Just to give the manuscript to a different publisher.

It doesn't go that way. When writing, you use the series comma or not, depending on what kind of work it is. You'd use the comma in a book manuscript on an academic subject because university presses use it. You wouldn't use it in a newspaper story, because newspapers don't.

If you're writing, say, a romance novel, find out whether romance publishers in general use that comma before you type the ms.

When the publisher's policy on commas is the opposite from the way an author has done it, the copy editor makes the changes.


Hey you, come here.

This needs a comma after "Hey," too, to set off "you" from everything else. The same post has several departures from regular punctuation practices, but I'll stop there.

[pianoman5]

Illlynne, I sense a desire on your part for a short cut to proficiency with the writer's basic toolkit, and I regret to say there isn't one.

If you want to avoid the potentially brain-hurting process of learning about appositives and adjectival clauses (and who doesn't), one option - which is a long cut rather than a short cut - is to read a lot. If you read quality authors and absorb (both consciously and unconsciously) the way they use language and structure to communicate with readers, you may pick it up sufficiently for it to become second nature when your write. (Which you also need to do a lot of).

The shortest cut, I suspect, is to read, learn and inwardly digest good old Strunk and White, a mercifully small book. Once you've mastered that you won't go far wrong.

My favourite source for matters grammatical is Dr Jack Lynch of the English Department at Rutgers. His well-maintained and hyperlinked pages are here. (http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/index.html)

For me he strikes an ideal balance between the conflicting forces of tradition, academia, progress, and common sense, and he does it with a light touch and plenty of good examples.

This quote of his encapsulates much of what we discuss on these boards.

The one unbreakable rule: Whatever works works. All that's left for you is to figure out what works. Most of us will spend our lifetimes on that puzzle, and the so-called rules are the closest thing we have to a solution.

[mr mistook]

The best advice, from what I know, is that a comma is a soft period (hence the tail). In the grand scheme of literature, the comma is a "yield" sign - it signifies a pause. You don't need to throw in a comma where the reader will naturally assume a pause. You only need a commas where such pause will clarify your meaning, and/or your pacing.

Inedpendant clauses in the same sentence are normally joined by a conjunction, and very often that conjunction is preceded by a comma (as shown in this very sentence). But in certain cases, you can begin a sentence with a conjunction (as I've done in this sentence) or, on the other hand, you can roll across a conjunction without a comma and state your next clause.

It all has to do with the timing. A period denotes a complete thought. A comma, tossed into the mix, gives you the freedom to incorporate detail into such a thought. What differentiates a comma from a dash, in my mind, is that the dash has specifically to do with further description of the last noun - a noun that may need some butressing.

parenthesis are authorial assides (or so I understand) and should not be abused. The lovely elipsis... she's an ephemeral creature. She can denote wide... gaps... of time, or in a quotation she can signify the presence of a broader text.

I wonder somtimes, if the poor semicolon has become obsolete - a vestigial tail of extinct syntax. Can the semicolon still serve; as the lead to a list, a colon with a heart, a winky eye for emoticons?

Punctuation is a slippery subject.

[MacAl Stone]

Semicolons will never be obsolete. At least not in MY world.

[reph]

Semicolons are good, but you have to put a complete independent clause on each side; an independent clause is a clause that could be a sentence by itself. (Self-referent statement.)

Dashes can come in pairs, and they have more uses–far more uses–than just elaborating on the preceding noun. (Another self-referent statement.) I like dashes and semicolons. I think fiction has more use for dashes than for semicolons, which suggest an academic atmosphere.

[mr mistook]

Dashes can come in pairs, and they have more uses–far more uses–than just elaborating on the preceding noun.

And yet, in your own example, the dashed phrase modifies the plural noun, 'uses'.


Semicolons will never be obsolete. At least not in MY world.


Why not? Give us an example.

[sc211]

I second pianoman. I've read up on grammar, but when someone says "split infinitive" or "prepositional H" or whatever else, my eyes glaze over and my mind chugs to a halt. I gotta see it on the screen. The example. And then I get it.

I thought I was cheating in this, not doing my homework, but Stephen King says the same in On Writing.

My best advice to you would be to pick up your favorite novel and write out every variation of comma use you can. Listed items, clarifications, rambling sentences, whatever else. Type them up and look at them and see how they relate. Take the commas out and see why it doesn't read as well.

Good exercise there - type up a couple of pages of the novel, print it up, then take out all the commas, print it up again, put away both pages for a couple of days, and finally take out the comma-less one and try to put them back in the right place.

In the end, though, if there were any hard and fast rules, people like Uncle Jim and Dorothy Parker wouldn't make remarks about spending a morning putting in a comma and spending the afternoon taking it out.

[Writing Again]

This needs a comma after "Hey," too, to set off "you" from everything else. The same post has several departures from regular punctuation practices, but I'll stop there.

"Hey, you, come here." is correct, I accidentally dropped the first comma.

reph, I don't mind being disagreed with; and to my mind grammar is hardly an exact science; also I learned grammar back when teachers still made an effort to teach it in the schools, although I fought with them every step of the way because they would never explain it in a way that made sense to me or any other kid in the class. I do mind being called an ignorant idiot, not that the epithet might be inappropriate, just that it reminds me too much of teachers talking to me in school.

Which is another thing about grammar, accepted usage does change over a period of twenty years or so. If you don't believe me look at how often grammar books such as the Chicago Manual of Style are updated.

[Writing Again]

A good question is, "How much grammar do you need to know as a writer?" and the answer is "Surprisingly little."

If you write in the "modern" preferred style of short, simple sentences; two sentence paragraphs, and don't try to describe multiple separate actions occurring at the same time; your choice of sentence structure is much simpler.

Nowadays you don't even have to avoid the problem of sentence fragments -- simple to do if you master colons and semicolons -- because sentence fragments are tolerated.

Just learn what a high school student should know about grammar; not what they do know, they probably know nothing; and you will do fine.

[anatole ghio]

Quote: A good question is, "How much grammar do you need to know as a writer?" and the answer is "Surprisingly little."

I agree with this. Grammar (for a writer of prose) is only important so far as it helps you to express the idea that you want to express, and it doesn't detract from your writing. If the audience that you wish to communicate with doesn't have the faintest notion of the rules of written grammar, then you only need to obey the conventions of spoken grammar... as long as what you do doesn't stand out.

If you wish to communicate with an audience versed in those rules, or if the use of language is important to your written voice and your audience isn't as versed in those rules as you are, then you must convey a knowledge of those rules in order to maintain the trust of your readers in your elevated voice. If you are writing in an elevated style and do something that seems to involuntarily contradict the authority of your voice, you then risk losing the confidence of your readership.

- Anatole

[Writing Again]

My favourite source for matters grammatical is Dr Jack Lynch of the English Department at Rutgers. His well-maintained and hyperlinked pages are here.

Hey, thank you, pianoman.

[reph]

And yet, in your own example, the dashed phrase modifies the plural noun, 'uses'.

Nope! It modifies the adjective "more."

A good question is, "How much grammar do you need to know as a writer?" and the answer is "Surprisingly little."

You don't need to know any grammar if you already construct sentences correctly. A good cook doesn't need recipes for every meal. I picked up "how English goes" from reading, before I went to school and studied grammar. The lessons in English classes were all about avoiding mistakes that I wouldn't have made anyway.

The study of grammar gives you names for parts of sentences and rules for sticking them together. Things that look like this are independent clauses, things that look like that are dependent clauses, those other things over there are prepositional phrases. You may do X and Y with independent clauses, but don't do Z with them. Grammar merely describes the structures found in correct English as people speak it and write it. If you know how, you won't need to be told. The mistakes will just look wrong to you.

I recognize that children have different learning styles. Maybe some learn better from explicit rules than from examples, and that's why English class is necessary?

[maestrowork]

English is my second language. I learned by examples, not by studying rules. Some may say that I get a few things wrong, but in most cases, I think my grammar is decent.

[llllynne]

:rollin

Thanks "ALL" of you. Thanks Writing Again for all of your examples.

I could use more examples with rules. That would help.
Since we are on the subject can we talk about colons and semicolons as well? Looks like some of you would like to discuss it, and I know I definitely would.

Sorry if my name is confusing, I had to put to 4 l's in front of lynne instead of 1. All the others were taken.

:rollin

[reph]

Since we are on the subject can we talk about colons and semicolons as well?

Sure, but it would be useful to narrow it down. What do you want to know about them?

The same books and websites that offer guidelines about commas will tell you about colons and semicolons.

[Writing Again]

Colons often show that a list follows and semicolons often separate groups of items separated with commas.

We watched them coming down the aisle: She was tall, walked confidently, and was dressed brilliantly; he was short, walked with studied sexuality, and was dressed as though by a blind man at a flea market.

Sometimes colons are used to show several things happening at the same time.

Ralph turned to look at Mary: Mary was holding a pistol pointing at his stomach: John, entering the room, stopped: The three stared at each other, none willing to be the first to move.

[Euan Harvey]

@ Pianoman

Good link -- thanks.

[maestrowork]

Ralph turned to look at Mary: Mary was holding a pistol pointing at his stomach: John, entering the room, stopped: The three stared at each other, none willing to be the first to move.

What? I've never seen colons used this way.

Anyway, colon is also used to dictate quotes that follow:

She stood up straight and announced: "They are here."

[katdad]

I omit commas sometimes from sentences deliberately, to make them slightly "run-on" and to therefore imply a hurried or panicy mood. Here's an excerpt from my new novel (just mailed to my agent). Do you see the techinque, and do you agree/disagree?

"The second T-38 was only yards above the tarmac, tracking the first plane’s path. Then it inexplicably and suddenly rose, slipped sideways, lost altitude quickly and slammed flat onto the runway. An enormous fireball burst from seeming nowhere and tumbled along the tarmac, rushing and billowing. The last plane tried to pull up to get away, but it was too close and was swept into the destruction. Fragments of metal and plastic and pieces of things I didn’t want to recognize bounced into the air and scattered across the ground, flashing and sparking.

Someone was screaming. The crash trucks were already rolling and Trent was shouting and the screaming continued until I realized it was me."

[reph]

Maestro commented:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph turned to look at Mary: Mary was holding a pistol pointing at his stomach: John, entering the room, stopped: The three stared at each other, none willing to be the first to move.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

What? I've never seen colons used this way.

I haven't, either. This isn't a standard use of colons.

I think of the text before a colon as an announcement that something's coming and the text after the colon as the something. What follows a colon fulfills a promise or a prediction. At a colon, you sort of hold your breath briefly. You're waiting for something.

For instance, up there, I said "Maestro commented:" Then I quoted Maestro's comment. The reading process goes like this: "Maestro commented, colon." Maestro said something. What was it? I'm waiting. Let's see. [Tension.] "Ralph turned to look at Mary . . . What? I've never seen colons used this way." Ah, that's what he said. [Relaxation.]

Even the colon after the salutation on a formal letter has the same effect.

"Dear Outraged Customer:"

Yes? That's me, all right. What are they going to do about that vacuum cleaner they sold me that squirts organic carrot juice wherever it goes?

"In response to your complaint, we are issuing a full refund and replacing your Model 1609B with a new . . ."

Whew!

----------------

katdad, James Joyce omitted commas to great emotional effect in Molly Bloom's famous "Yes" speech.

(Edited twice. ezboard is doing funny things with my punctuation marks.)

[maestrowork]

Hemingway also omitted commas to create run-on sentences to great effect.

I (while no Hemingway) do that sometimes as well:

I skip over a large puddle of turbid water and hop around and look up and see the darkened sky. Rain sprays my face and it's as chilly as the deep null in my heart and I just wish I had not come back.

The above passage is about anguish, and I use run-on sentences without proper use of commas to create that effect.

[llllynne]

:b

Wow. Thanks guys. You have taught me that in writing we don't have to follow the rules if we want certain results.
That is what I was getting caught up on. I was afraid if I didn't to it "correctly," that an editor was going to follow behind and have a fit, or toss my manuscript to the side.

I feel better now. Regarding Colons and Semicolons. More examples please. I am more confused than ever. In writing a business letter, is it appropriate to use a colon after the first line? Is a semicolon ever used? The colon examples given don't explain anything to me.

One more thing following in the next post following...

[llllynne]

:p

Katdad, I see what you are doing with your commas. That is what I was doing in my writing before I started worrying about it. So I relate with what you are trying to do.

On another side note. (maybe I should have just used a colon or semi colon). Does anyone know what the name of the large helicopters that they use in military operations? The helicopters that carry many people? I am using one in my manuscript and don't know what it is called. Thanks. 8o

[reph]

In writing a business letter, is it appropriate to use a colon after the first line?

Yes, this is the older way, illustrated in the "Dear Outraged Customer" example. Many people use a comma now instead. The colon is more formal.

Is a semicolon ever used?

No.

The colon examples given don't explain anything to me.

Well, I tried.

[mr mistook]

Here is what my style guide has to say about the semicolon:

It serves as a higher-level comma; it connects clauses, as a period does not; and it does not imply any following exemplification, amplification, or description, as a colon generally does.


It gives all kinds of specific examples of ways to use semicolons in various situations, but the above quote pretty much sums up the core 'logic' behind semicolons.

The same guide says this about colons:

The colon is usually a mark of introduction, indicating that what follows it—generally a clause, a phrase, or a list—has been pointed to or described in what precedes it.

[Vomaxx]

The Boeing CH-47 Chinook is, or at least was, a large transport helicopter for US and NATO forces. It has a payload of 21,000 lbs.

[maestrowork]

Colon: to precede a list or an announcement or a clarification.

Examples:

To Whom It May Concern: (in a formal letter)
She announced: "Here they come."
Please study the following instructions: ...
Mary has four daughters: Abby, Bea, Cecile, and Diane.


Semicolon: to separate loosely related but separate clauses, or to separate a list of related clauses.

Examples:

He arrived at 9; she arrived at 10.
He considered the following options: killing his wife; fleeing town; joining a gang; or taking dance lessons.

[AncientEagle]

Right. The Chinook is still the main workhorse troop and cargo carrier, at least for the Army. Marines have a couple of others, the names of which escape me.

[Medievalist]

Maestrowork wrote:
<blockquote>Semicolon: to separate loosely related but separate clauses, or to separate a list of related clauses.
Examples:
He arrived at 9; she arrived at 10.</blockquote>
That's a good example. The catch is that they need to be independent clauses; that is, they need to have a subject and a verb or "predicate," and the potential to stand alone as a sentence. A semicolon is an alternative, in broad terms, to using two periods (one at the end of each independent clause). The value of the semicolon is that it connects, syntactically, two related ideas. This example:
<blockquote>He considered the following options: killing his wife; fleeing town; joining a gang; or taking dance lessons.
</blockquote>
Is not quite right; those should be commas, not semicolons since they are not independent clauses. Think of the colon as an equal sign, and the semicolon as a linch pin joining two independent clauses that are semantically related.

[llllynne]

8)

Thanks. I do appreciate your trying to explain things to me and I am becoming more clear on it. More examples on the use of colons and semi colons will be helpful. Please keep them coming.

Thanks also for the info on the helicopter. Is there a nickname? .............or if I say a chinook (a generalization), will that be enough. Should I give the model number, or is that unnecessary?

See how smart and helpful you guys are!!!:D :lol

[Writing Again]

Standard use or not; I use semicolons to connect two or more complete sentences that are closely connected in concept.

He nibbled the salad; she slurped the soup.

His eyes were blue; his sister's were green; their mother's hazel.

Or connected in time.

The door opened; Jane turned toward it; Steven rose from his chair.

Sometimes with a conjunction.

He was a cynic; she an optimist; however when they kissed they were in love: Unfortunately they were both married to someone else.

I use to use sentence fragments because they gave more punch to the thought; then I discovered I could retain the punch and still pull the fragment into the sentence: Like this.

Dashes work so well -- To set off a thought -- Don't you think?

Some people believe you have to have two sets of dashes just as you have to have two parenthesis -- Don't believe it.

People may laud Hemingway's short and simple sentence style, but I love the complex sentence: it is where language breathes and flows; It is when language takes you to nuance and tone: It is what a pallet of color is to a painter; working wondrous shades to sets of words: In effect it imparts a bit of poetry to prose.

[maestrowork]

I'm sorry, Writing Again, I really don't know where you learned to use colons that way. I've never (in any publications or literature) seen that use. Did you invent it yourself?

[katdad]

I use run-on sentences without proper use of commas
Yes! We both apparently do the same. I find it's a good way to express panic, or at other times a mixed-up mood where your character is in a fugue state.

In my normal fiction, being hardboiled American private detective, I tend to use short sentences and therefore languid expressive comma use is minimal. Semicolons are anathema. And a colon is not to be countenanced! Get thee to a nunnery! (or should it be a "colonery"?)

[katdad]

before I started worrying about it
Are you obsessing about teeny English composition problems? Maybe you should loosen up and let it flow. You can always go back later and formalize your writing if it seems too goofy.

Remember that in modern fiction, sentence fragments are okay, and you have considerable leeway otherwise in punctuation and syntax. That doesn't make it wrong. It simply is the latitude permitted in modern fiction, and isn't an error per se.

That range is broad, however. "Reserved" fiction, the formal "literary" style is less forgiving. When I write the rare mainstream short story, I'm far less experimental. But here's an excerpt from an upcoming mystery novel, the end of one chapter and the entirety of another. It demos my occasional staccato style:

=============
(end of Chapter 22)

I stopped for the red light at Washington, and Kate leaned over and kissed me deeply.

A guy had been riding my bumper so I waved him around while we were locked in the embrace. I was really in no hurry because Kate and I had all night. And we were in love.

The gunfire was over before I even knew it had begun.

(Chapter 23)

Throughout the next few days, parts of it came back to me in disconnected snippets like those quickly cut scenes in a horror movie, illuminated by lightning flashes.

Car pulling beside us.

Rattle of rusty muffler, stink of fumes.

Ski mask.

Shotgun barrel.

Burst of flame.

Blood.

And more blood.

=====================

[llllynne]

It sounds like you enjoy writing. I thought starting a sentence with "And," was a huge no, no though. It is just me?

:hat

[Writing Again]

I'm sorry, Writing Again, I really don't know where you learned to use colons that way. I've never (in any publications or literature) seen that use. Did you invent it yourself?

Not smart enough to invent, my friend, I had to steal it like the low class trash I am; from places educated people are too proud to actually read: Such as some sentences picked at random from one of my favorite books that follow.

I'm curious if anyone recognises the author or the work -- I highly recomend it as a start in learning how to use colons, semicolons, dashs -- I recomend it as the place to begin your study of the complex sentence.

Mademoiselle Baptistine was a long, pale, thin, gentle creature; she realized the ideal expressed by the word "respectable"; for it seems that a woman must needs be a mother in order to be venerable. She had never been pretty; her whole life, which had been nothing but a succession of holy deeds, had finally conferred upon her a sort of pallor and transparency; and as she advanced in years she had acquired what may be called the beauty of goodness. What had been leanness in her youth had become transparency in her maturity; and this diaphaneity allowed the angel to be seen. She was a soul rather than a virgin. Her person seemed made of a shadow; there was hardly sufficient body to provide for sex; a little matter enclosing a light; large eyes forever drooping;-- a mere pretext for a soul's remaining on the earth.

Hougomont,--this was a funereal spot, the beginning of the obstacle, the first resistance, which that great wood-cutter of Europe, called Napoleon, encountered at Waterloo, the first knot under the blows of his axe.

A growl is audible; it is a huge dog, who shows his teeth and replaces the English.

Here he passed his evenings during seasons of severe cold: he called it his winter salon.

Hougomont has two doors,--the southern door, that of the chateau; and the northern door, belonging to the farm. Napoleon sent his brother Jerome against Hougomont; the divisions of Foy, Guilleminot, and Bachelu hurled themselves against it; nearly the entire corps of Reille was employed against it, and miscarried; Kellermann's balls were exhausted on this heroic section of wall.

We do not devour, we gnaw; we do not exterminate, we claw.

Courfeyrac, to whom he confided nothing,--it was his nature,-- but who made some little guess at everything,--that was his nature,-- had begun by congratulating him on being in love, though he was amazed at it; then, seeing Marius fall into this melancholy state, he ended by saying to him: "I see that you have been simply an animal. Here, come to the Chaumiere."

[maestrowork]

Your examples show semicolons. I'm talking about the colons, as in:

Writing Again wrote:
Ralph turned to look at Mary: Mary was holding a pistol pointing at his stomach: John, entering the room, stopped: The three stared at each other, none willing to be the first to move.

I have never seen anyone use it this way. It's not in grammar books. I'm baffled.

Also, I have never seen commas inside or outside dashes this way:

Courfeyrac, to whom he confided nothing,--it was his nature,-- but who made some little guess at everything,--that was his nature,-- had begun by congratulating him on being in love...

To me, that's just bizarre.

[Medievalist]

Having re-typeset the Modern Library edition for Random House, I recognize the novel, Hugo's Les Miserables.

I'm not too sure that a French Victorian novel is the best guide for modern English punctuation though.

[Gala]

Anything not in a grammar book is wrong wrong wrong. Be advised.

Some of these answers read is if copied from said grammar book.

<img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif" />

Language evolves, grammar with it. Writers and readers who can't cotton creativity (or alliteration) can cry.

[katdad]

I thought starting a sentence with "And," was a huge no, no though.
In modern writing, both fiction and journalism, it's perfectly okay. Very formal rules are often bent all to hell in modern fiction. Go for it.

Or, as Mr. Natural sez, "If it feels good, do it!"

[Gala]

to Katdad: Obsessing can be over rated and under rated. One of my obessions is there should be only one space following a period ending a sentence. I mentioned that on AW once, and the sparks flew. I know I am correct about the matter. I won't re-argue the point except to say it's an area of excellence in my life I enjoy.

Perhaps you've found obsessions singing opera, where a word or note has to cadence just so, though the audience may never catch the perfection.

to WritingAgain: I don't have time to read this whole discussion in detail but I appreciate what you've lent. Written expression is creative, and inventive writers find things to obsess about. I agree with the saw: find and master the rules, then break 'em in your own voice. I don't see you as in any danger of bastardizing English language and grammar.

Have fun.

[reph]

Some of the punctuation in those extracts from Hugo is archaic. Novels used to be peppered with comma plus dash, semicolon plus dash, and other combinations that are no longer current. Semicolons were often used between clauses in compound sentences. Medievalist is right: don't model your punctuation practices on such old work. Things have changed.

[maestrowork]

If you're consistent, you could almost get away with anything, especially in literary fiction. For example, how Charles Frazier used punctuations creatively in Cold Mountain. But before you break the rules, you should know them. To tell a newbie like IIIIynne that she could use a comma followed by a dash or colon followed by a dash would be dangerous.

[reph]

A wild speculation: combinations like colon plus dash were popular when manuscripts were written with quill pen; the hand movement in making a dash embodied (literally) an author's mental process.

[Zane Curtis]

As for starting sentences with And or But, I do this quite a lot.

When you write a formal essay, each paragraph is like an essay in itself, with a topic sentence and a conclusion. It's the topic sentence and conclusion that bring the paragraph together into a coherent whole. So, in the context of an essay, the rule makes sense. With straight narrative, however, we don't use topic sentences, conclusions, transitions, and all those other formal devices. It would look rather odd if you began a paragraph in a novel with a short statement about what a character does, then describe how he does it, and then recap what he does in a conclusion. All that repetition would not sit well with a modern audience. So, instead, we simply narrate each event as it occurs, one after the other, breaking it up with description, dialogue, and the thoughts of our point of view character.

But when we lose the topic sentences and conclusions, we also lose some of the unity these bring to formal essay writing. In narrative, a paragraph is more or less arbitrary. It loses it's underlying structure and becomes a simple list of events in chronological order. So, in narrative, those strictly formal sentences look stilted. I believe this is the main reason why most narrative prose is informal. Writers start sentences with And or But, they write run-on sentences, and they write sentence fragments because they are trying to create a "through-line". They are trying to connect all the sentences of a paragraph together without the structure that unifies formal prose in an essay. Without these informal devices, each full stop becomes a tombstone, that stops the forward motion of the narrative dead.

[llllynne]

Wow, Writing Again. That is pretty impressive. According to these other people though, you aren't following any rules. Is this true? Do you have rules with your writing to back it up?

I don't know who to believe and am more confused than ever on colons and semicolons.

Maestrowork is right. I need some teaching with the examples to tell me why they are correct. Do you guys know of another book besides Elements of Style which will show you more of this. With good examples as well? Are there any good websites? I have seen the good websites for punctuation but not for colons and semicolons.

Thanks all. :o :(

[maestrowork]

Try webster.commnet.edu/grammar/ (http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/)

Or www.wisc.edu/writing/Handbook/ (http://www.wisc.edu/writing/Handbook/)

[Euan Harvey]

There's a fair amount on punctuation at the Purdue OWL (http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/index.html).

[Writing Again]

Thank you, Gala.

[Medievalist]

On Grammar

Grammar, properly speaking, is the functional description of the way words, sentences, and clauses work in a language. It is, for the geeks among us, the API of a language.

It is not a collection of arbitrary rules. However, grammar is often reduced to just that, largely to make instruction at the primary and secondary level easier to accomplish. Some of the rules we typically learn in high school, things like "never start a sentence with 'and' begin life with a glimmer of sense behind them, but once they become "rules" the sense is lost. And has been used to start English sentences since at least the tenth century, and by better writers than any of us.

On the Importance of Standard Use of Grammar, Punctuation, and Spelling

Grammar, punctuation and spelling are important. You want to make sure your manuscript doesn't make the person opening the mail blanch, and that it actually makes it to an acquisition editor, and that you don't look like a naif. But don't obsess over it. Write first, then go back and revise. Consult trusted readers; think about hiring someone if you know you need a bit of help with standard punctuation and usage. <em>The point is to write</em>. You can't revise, and can't submit, what you haven't written. (Granted, there are some writers who meticulously revise and craft their prose as they write; if you're one of these rara avis you probably aren't reading this thread anyway.)

On Books

Strunk and White, the Chicago Manual of Style and Fowler are all useful books for various purposes. But they're not really good sources of information about grammar and punctuation. They are style guides, and usage guides. They're for people who only need a quick brush up on a few minor points because they know the basics. These books are designed for specific purposes other than as grammar texts.

Don't forget the free resources here:
http://www.bartleby.com/usage/

If you want a good review of English grammar, get one of the many English grammar handbooks meant for the undergraduate composition market; there are many of them, they're all very much the same, differing only in organization and style of presentation, really, and they are quite helpful. Look for books by Diana Hacker, (almost a one woman monopoly on the market) or the Little Brown Handbook or any number of similar guides. You can easily find used copies, on line or at your local college book store. If you want the gory details, look for George Curme's Outline Guide of English Grammar, but keep in mind, it is gory.

Keep in mind too that if you're writing fiction or drama you're going to be writing dialog, English as She is Spoken, not the idealized kind of English associated with textbook examples. And keep in mind that most textbooks are written for students in a school or college, producing a very specific kind of writing, and it isn't novels, drama or poetry.

The important thing is to write. Remember. Write first, edit later.

That is all <g>

[Writing Again]

Having re-typeset the Modern Library edition for Random House, I recognize the novel, Hugo's Les Miserables.

I'm not too sure that a French Victorian novel is the best guide for modern English punctuation though.

The style screams Victor Hugo, I would have been surprised if anyone had guessed just that.

He shows what the language can be and can do: Modern writers are afraid to explore the language past what is taught in school: If it is not stated in the grammar books that you can do it -- Then it is wrong: Don't even think about trying.

To me in order to understand where you are you must know where you have been and have a direction to go in. Some people are cheered for having blazed trails in language: Shakespeare, Victor Hugo, James Joyce, e.e. cummings: Yet when anyone tries to follow those trails they are told, "You aren't as good as they are and never will be -- Don't follow that trail."

Of course uneducated people such as myself don't realize you aren't supposed to actually read and enjoy these writers -- Educated people know you are supposed to only read the Cliff notes and write a report on them: Few educated people ever even have a hint of what they are missing. What you wind up with is: "To me, that's just bizarre." from people -- Some of whom have college degrees.

I've never actually tried to define what I do, but you know, I'm looking at the last paragraph of Zane Curtis post:

... when we lose the topic sentences and conclusions, we also lose some of the unity these bring to formal essay writing. In narrative, a paragraph is more or less arbitrary. It loses it's underlying structure and becomes a simple list of events in chronological order. So, in narrative, those strictly formal sentences look stilted. I believe this is the main reason why most narrative prose is informal. Writers start sentences with And or But, they write run-on sentences, and they write sentence fragments because they are trying to create a "through-line". They are trying to connect all the sentences of a paragraph together without the structure that unifies formal prose in an essay. Without these informal devices, each full stop becomes a tombstone, that stops the forward motion of the narrative dead.

Ok, you may use run on sentences, conjunctions, etc to start a sentence: I use colons and semicolons to preserve the unity of the paragraph and avoid full stops: Until I want to stop.

Ever ask yourself "Why I am a writer?" Ever ask, "What is it that excites me about writing?"

I don't know what your answers are, but mine can be summed up in one word: Language. I love it. I love to tweak it. I love all the wonderful things it can do: Set tone, mood, rhythm and beat, paint pictures; Language can dance.

Have you hugged your language today?

[Medievalist]

Writing Again wrote regarding Victor Hugo:

<blockquote>He shows what the language can be and can do: Modern writers are afraid to explore the language past what is taught in school: If it is not stated in the grammar books that you can do it -- Then it is wrong: Don't even think about trying.</blockquote>


Actually, no, he does nothing of the kind. Hugo wrote in French; in fact, in rather stodgy French of the sort praised by the official language police.

You're talking about the prose of the translator, not that of Hugo, which, if you check the French, is quite different

[maestrowork]

It's great if you want to tweak and play with the language and do something creative with it. I'm not sure if your editor feels the same way.

But someone is asking a question about what the proper use of commas, semicolons and colons are. Give them the text book versions. Don't start confusing them with Victor Hugo.

And just because I don't write that way doesn't mean I don't like or respect the language, that I'm not educated or "sophisticated."

[mr mistook]

I guess I'm a minimalist. I see the period as my good and useful friend. I use it as much as possible. Comma's and dashes are the next most used tools in the box.

In every example I've seen out here so far, I haven't seen one where the semicolon couldn't have been replaced with a period or a comma. Same with the colon.

To me, it's conjunctions that interupt the flow of a sentence. And endlessly running sentences tend to lose their punch. It's like a guy talking who never takes a breath - you start to focus more on his lack of oxygen than on what he's saying.

I mean, if you can connect ten clauses together without a single period, why ever use a period at all? It's like the devaluation of a currency.

[Euan Harvey]

Anything not in a grammar book is wrong wrong wrong.

S'true.

Fragments are bad. Real bad. Comma splices are even worse, they just look ugly. And you should never start a sentence with a conjunction. Also, a preposition is something you should never end a sentence with. Don't ever use contractions.

I think that about sums it up. :D

[Nateskate]

Wow, Mr. Mistook, concise, yet profound. Can I borrow your brain?

On the lighter side, I asked someone to take a look at my short, and edit it. When I looked at the edits, they all looked wrong to me.

I'm wondering how much is "salt to taste"?

And again, with the structure of sentences, you have this delicate balance.

You can have the reverse effect when you over-use a period. It starts sounding robotic. "He went to the store. He picked up soup. He went to the checkout. But the line was long. So, he turned around."

I know I haven't mastered the balance yet, but I'm aware there is one. But I like your O2 Metaphor very much. Did you make that up; because it's awefully creative?

[mr mistook]

I think, sort-of, the consensus that's forming out here is that it's all salt to taste.

What you said about "robotic" is true. The "rhythm thing" is often mentioned out here, but never really delved into very deeply.

Just at random, here's an example of how I've been writing lately, when it comes to non-dialogue passages:

Twenty minutes later, Slade found himself sitting at a bar across from terminal 38. He wanted to sit by himself and read a magazine, mulling it over with a dry martini. Instead, he was drinking Evian –- trapped on a stool signing autographs and making small-talk with an ever-growing crowd of fans.


I suppose you could punctuate that passage a thousand different ways. I managed to do it without any semicolons. You can see my aversion to conjunctions up there. Only two in the whole bloomin' paragraph.

I might've used a colon or a semicolon between "Evian" and "trapped", but I figured the dash was more sleek and modern.

I also eliminated a lot of commas. I could have put one between "bar" and "across from terminal 38". I could have put one between "stool" and "signing autographs". I left those out to pick up the pace.

I started a sentence with "Instead" followed by a comma. I guess I could have joined those two sentences with a semicolon, but I wanted the full stop there to erase the chalk board and move on to the next business. :)


P.S. Yes I made up the oxygen metaphore, but it's kind of an issue in the world of speaching and singing. My brother is a singing teacher and he's always yelling at his studends, "Don't be afraid to breathe!" It's hard, because there's only so many chances for a breath in a sung line.

It's kind of the "last gas for 100 miles" thing, where if you don't take it, you may run out of steam before the next opportunity.

[Medievalist]

Mr. Mistook wrote:
<blockquote>In every example I've seen out here so far, I haven't seen one where the semicolon couldn't have been replaced with a period or a comma. Same with the colon.</blockquote>

That's true; the semicolon and the colon can both be replaced by a period—but not by a comma. A comma <em>can't</em> replace a semicolon. The attempt to use a comma when you should use a period or semicolon is, in essence, the dreaded "comma splice," the terror of freshman comp students everywhere.

You may use a semicolon, or a period, between two independent clauses; the semicolon serves to emphasize the semantic "link" between the two clauses. For all practical purposes, consider and independent clause as the basic sentence, consisting of a subject (person/thing doing the action of the verb) and a predicate (the verb).

You can't join two independent clauses with a comma. The comma is a useful but wimpy punctuation. It's used to separate phrases and clauses, not join them.

Think of the colon as an equal sign. The text on either side should be "equal," that is, it should refer to the same data. This is a crude reduction, but it may server. Use the colon, instead of the period, when you want to emphasize the equivalency of the text on either side.

I'd guess, off the top of my head, that there's as much as 40% leeway in terms of punctuation and style, by which I mean, about 40% of the punctuation in standard, casual modern English prose is dependent on style. But at least 60% of the time, punctuation is determined by syntax, and is not optional.

[maestrowork]

I also eliminated a lot of commas. I could have put one between "bar" and "across from terminal 38". I could have put one between "stool" and "signing autographs". I left those out to pick up the pace.

But omitting those commas doesn't make your prose grammatically incorrect -- that's the point. Yes, you can punctuate your prose any way you want, but not totally disregard grammar.

As a matter of fact, I would have punctuated the above passage the same way you did. Example, "bar across from terminal 38" modifies the bar. The "breath" between "stool" and "signing autographs" is not necessary...

However, if you punctuate it this way, it would be wrong:

Twenty minutes later Slade, found himself, sitting at a bar across, from terminal 38.

That has nothing to do with style or taste. It's just wrong.

[reph]

I might've used a colon or a semicolon between "Evian" and "trapped", but I figured the dash was more sleek and modern.

A semicolon there would be wrong; a semicolon has to have an independent clause on each side. I wouldn't have understood a colon there. I say your choices for that spot are dash and comma.

Use the colon, instead of the period, when you want to emphasize the equivalency of the text on either side.

A colon means something different from that to me. What precedes a colon sets up an expectation, and what follows the colon fulfills it. I explained that more fully earlier in this thread. Am I the only one a colon talks to this way?

[Writing Again]

Use the colon, instead of the period, when you want to emphasize the equivalency of the text on either side.

A colon means something different from that to me. What precedes a colon sets up an expectation, and what follows the colon fulfills it. I explained that more fully earlier in this thread. Am I the only one a colon talks to this way?

Both are correct and proper uses of the colon.

[Writing Again]

You're talking about the prose of the translator, not that of Hugo, which, if you check the French, is quite different

I've heard that before. I don't speak French, but I will take your word for it. To me it is really a moot point, that which I learn is that which I learn -- What is being taught, if anything at all, or in this case who I am learning from is of little import: What is important is that it is there to learn -- Either you learn or you don't: That is up to you.

[Medievalist]

Reph wrote:
<blockquote>A colon means something different from that to me. What precedes a colon sets up an expectation, and what follows the colon fulfills it. I explained that more fully earlier in this thread. Am I the only one a colon talks to this way?</blockquote>

No, that's just another way of describing essentially the same situation. You're good to go <g>

As an example of when style, and "house style" would enter the question here is the decision to upper-case or not upper-case the initial letter after the colon. Both are correct; the publisher will have a preferred style, and the copy editor will see that you follow it. As long as you're consistent, then, it won't matter which you use. But do be consistent.

[maestrowork]

Both are correct and proper uses of the colon.

No.

[Medievalist]

<p align="left">These are the four principal uses of a colon. Doubtless, there are others, but this should serve as a rough introduction.</p><ol>
<li>To preface a list or a series.
<blockquote>Writing requires three personality traits: tenacity, a gift for language, and a willingness to edit.</blockquote>

[reph]

Edited out because Medievalist corrected the mistake in her post that I'd complained about.

[maestrowork]

"The pursuit of individual wealth at any cost" explains "obsession" -- that's why we use a colon there. A comma or a dash would be grammatically correct but not effective. Here, the use of a colon is both grammatically correct and semantically effective.

[Medievalist]

Reph wrote:
<blockquote>I just have to say something. "He has a single obsession" = independent clause. "The pursuit of wealth at any cost" = phrase. The author's alternatives here were comma and dash. </blockquote>

You're right. As it stands, it doesn't make sense, though the colon is correct. I wrote this as a single long post, than went back and added the HTML tags, and in so doing ended up deleting a second example. I'll put it back.

Mea culpa, mea culpa . . .

[katdad]

only one space
It took me a lot of work to get over the habit of adding 2 spaces after a period. That used to be the standard, with typewriters. Now it's one space.

Re. opera, yes I get fixated on a certain phrase or technique. Often when on stage I would also focus on movement and stage actions, nothing involving the singing.

What I'm really talking about is when obsession gets in the way of what you're trying to do. That's a negative, as we all know.

[llllynne]

:lol
That was great you guys!! All those sentences with rules to go with. It helps a little more than where I was at the other day. Keep it going if you like, maybe I'll understand even more.

Whats the deal with the dashes in sentences? Still confused on that one.

[HConn]

Dashes. (http://www.bartleby.com/68/16/1616.html)

[maestrowork]

The dash can be used in so many different ways it's hard to define it. It can be used to replace commas, colons, and parenthesis. It can be used for sudden interruption (especially in dialogue). I think the dash is more of a stylistic choice than a necesary punctuation. I can't really think of an instance when a dash can't be replaced by another punctuation mark --Okay, perhaps in the case of interruption.

[llllynne]

:hat

Several of you posted sentences with dashes in them.
Was that just for fun? Did you put them in just for something to do, or was there a real reason behind them.
Thanks.

[Writing Again]

I use dashes in posts more than I do in fiction. In fiction I use them where otherwise I would have to use an aside ( You know, talk to the reader directly): When you use the dash the feeling of talking to the reader is not there -- Even though you have said almost the same thing.

I often use it when I want more heavy emphasis than a colon can give. If you think of a Comma as the weakest punctuation, semicolon next, then colon, with the dash being the toughest except for the period which brings everything to a screaming halt. Some people think the exclamation mark is the toughest, but it isn't: It is just another screamer and screamers are seldom really tough.

So you can set things off with the comma when you want something separate but it is really just part of the crowd: You can use semicolons when it has minor importance; it stands away from the crowd a little bit but not a lot. A colon when something is distinct: Something that is equal to the main subject -- And dashes when you want something to jump right out and be in plain sight -- Which is why dashes should be used sparingly -- Most things are not that important.

[Gala]

Illyne, it might behoove you to look up dashes.

There are the two-minus sign dash-- (frequently used instead of the correct em dash—)
One minus sign-
em and en dashes.

The -- really means—

Mosts posts in this thread using -- really mean— (em dash.)

In manuscript format, -- is used for em dash. In published writing—is correct.

[maestrowork]

I forgot what en dashes are used for! An en dash is different from a hyphen, right?

Anyway, Illlyne, don't look for examples in postings or Internet messages -- most people don't use proper punctuations. Why not pick up a book you can buy in the store and start taking notes?

[Medievalist]

An en-dash is usually used for numeric ranges, like dates (1890–1897) or page ranges: 143–67.

But really, writers usually don't have to worry about en-dashes and em-dashes; that's sometimes something a copy editor worries about, but usually it's the lowly under appreciated (sob) typesetter.

Em-dash is thus named because in a proportionately spaced typeface (font to you) an em-dash takes up the same space as an "M"; and an en-dash as an "N."

Your publisher may frown on you for using "proper" en-dashes and em-dashes because of issues with various computer operating systems not encoding such "high ASCII" characters correctly; so you may see a lovely em-dash, but the copy editor sees a ? or a special character used in another language.

So use hyphens; two for an em-dash, one for an en-dash, one for a hyphen, unless specifically told to do otherwise.

[Edited to remove signs of creative spelling]

[maestrowork]

Actually, when you're formatting your ms, make sure you turn off your word processor's auto-correction features and turn all the em-dashes into two hyphens: --

It shows the editor that you know the difference between an en-dash and an em-dash. Also, it makes the job of the (lowly) typsetter easier.

[Gala]

don't confuse manuscript submission format with published writing format.

[maestrowork]

That's correct, Gala; thank you for pointing that out (but published format is the job of the typesetter -- so make his or her job easier by formatting your ms. correctly).

[llllynne]

I don't mind looking them up. The internet sites you guys gave me also helped. I just like to know how the industry feels about these things. If I looked in a book and it said you could do all these things with dashes, but the publishers editors hated it, what good would it do me.

So, any knowledge about how the industry looks at dashes would be helpful. My head has cleared on all the other things, thanks to your help.

llllynne:hat

[Writing Again]

Best way to know the industry is to get style manuals from various publishing houses.

Best way to be sure your English has the best chance of acceptance is to follow the style of each house you submit to faithfully.

On the one hand you will never get in trouble anywhere if you always follow the most conservative approach in grammar.

On the other hand there are editors out there who get excited about someone's individual style and tone.

Everyone is looking for the next Stephen King / J. K. Rowlings -- However both of these writers are bashed for their poor writing skills all the time.

You do not need a lot of grammar knowledge to produce a novel that is grammatically correct in every respect. You can write entire novels using nothing more than periods and commas, varying your sentences with nothing more complex than introductory clauses and prepositional phrases. Do vary your sentence structure and length, otherwise reading tends to become monotonous.

In the end though what you need is a good story. Poor grammar can kill a great story, but far more grammatically perfect novels are killed by the lack of a decent story than the reverse.

While I experiment wildly (I had an ms returned to me with the note: "You are neither a poet nor e. e. cummings.") my personal suggestion is that you stay within the limits of the grammar level with which you are comfortable. (Did you notice that I ended the last sentence with the word comfortable rather than with? I normally split the infinitive, this time I did not -- The reason being the last word in a sentence receives the most mental emphasis. I wanted to emphasize the word "comfortable." Is that being too picky?)

Should you experiment with English? Why? It is like a motorcycle -- You can get there just as well, a lot safer, and in a lot more comfort riding in a car -- I just happen to have more fun riding a Harley.

I will point out that most writers I talk with hate editing, rewriting, and refining their words -- I enjoy it. There is something to be said for that.

[Medievalist]

Writing Again:

<blockquote>While I experiment wildly (I had an ms returned to me with the note: "You are neither a poet nor e. e. cummings.") my personal suggestion is that you stay within the limits of the grammar level with which you are comfortable. (Did you notice that I ended the last sentence with the word comfortable rather than with?</blockquote>

Yes, well, you've just confused "splitting an infinitive" with "ending a sentence with a preposition." Remember, coffee first, then post.

[Gala]

Also lllyne, I forgot to mention:

"editor" is being used in this disussion where really the role is copyeditor and/or proofer.

And don't write thinking, "my editor (copyeditor) will fix it." This will lead to sloppy writing. I know some writers do this, and it shows in their writing, published or not. That's my personal opinion, popular or not. I even know of dyslexic writers who do what it takes to correct their typos.

Don't rely on someone to fix it later, because the slopiness will affect your writing overall. You want to attract the best agent, editor, copyeditor, proofer, formatter, printer and reader your work demands.

Granted, some houses, usually small, have editors that double as copyeditors.

But the two roles aren't the same.

[anatole ghio]

In the end though what you need is a good story. Poor grammar can kill a great story, but far more grammatically perfect novels are killed by the lack of a decent story than the reverse.

I cannot agree more with this statement.

Language is the lens through which you take your reader into your story. For most writers, it is enough that their language is simply good enough that the readers forget that they are viewing the story through a lens... for some writers, part of their value as a writer is how they use language to craft the story or to express their individual voice, in which case, the lens of language becomes as important as the story being told through that lens.

As the predominant mode of mainstream fiction is an emphasis on narrative, for most writers it will be sufficient to their goals to know enough about grammar and syntax that their writing does not detract from the story being told.

- Anatole

[Writing Again]

Yes, well, you've just confused "splitting an infinitive" with "ending a sentence with a preposition." Remember, coffee first, then post.

Right: I get chewed out for both: And it is not the first time I've confused them. I thank you, for the edification of others, for correcting me: I've always had a problem with teachers trying to cram the technical jargon down our throats without ever fully telling / showing us what was being discussed.

Sort of like describing how to ride a bicycle: Not hard to do, just takes practice: Almost impossible to describe if you don't have a bicycle present to demonstrate on.

Personally the important point is this -- I knew I had a choice: You HAVE to be aware of your choices in order to make one intelligently. I made a choice: In this case one strict grammarians would consider correct -- At another time I might choose differently.

One question is this: Which is more important:

The ability to construct grammatically perfect sentences.

The ability to use punctuation to produce the effect you desire?

The ability to describe grammar in grammatically perfect terms?

[maestrowork]

I vote: The ability to use punctuation to produce the effect you desire (while being consistent...)

[Writing Again]

Related subject:

Has anyone ever really read the dialog used by Charles Dickens? He is considered a master -- Yet the techniques he used to achieve that mastery is considered verboten.

Here is one that I think combines most, if not all of his techniques:


'My dear young friend,' said Mr. Micawber, 'I am older than you; a man of some experience in life, and - and of some experience, in short, in difficulties, generally speaking. At present, and until something turns up (which I am, I may say, hourly expecting), I have nothing to bestow but advice. Still my advice is so far worth taking, that - in short, that I have never taken it myself, and am the' - here Mr. Micawber, who had been beaming and smiling, all over his head and face, up to the present moment, checked himself and frowned - 'the miserable wretch you behold.'


How can anyone read this and not marvel at his techniques? How can anyone not wonder at the unexplored potential it implies?

[maestrowork]

If I write that dialogue for any one of my characters today, my book will never see publication...

[Writing Again]

You're talking about the prose of the translator, not that of Hugo, which, if you check the French, is quite different

I just realized -- You are probably saying the translator needs more credit -- And you are right!

The edition I have is old and worn and the covers are long gone -- I don't even know the translator or if there was more than one.

Sorry if I misunderstood you earlier.

[Writing Again]

I vote: The ability to use punctuation to produce the effect you desire (while being consistent...)

If I write that dialog for any one of my characters today, my book will never see publication...


You are right -- And so so sane --

However someone once said, "Consistency is the bugaboo of small minds."

And someday I will write a book "Dare to be insane."

[Medievalist]

Emerson wrote "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," in one of his essays; self-reliance, I think, but in the same essay he wrote " I would write on the lintels of the door-post, Whim," which, when I did, my mother made me wash all the doors and door-posts and lintels in the house.

But the important thing is to write. Just write so you know what you mean, and how the words work. Then go back and revise. If you're concerned about grammar and punctuation, there are scads of people who can help you, but you have to have written first.

Just don't write on door-posts. Really.

[Medievalist]

I wanted to add that a lot of the "rules" people present as "grammar" are neither rules nor grammar.

"Rules" like never use a double negative, or end a sentence with a preposition, or never split an infinitive, or start a sentence with "and" aren't actually inherent in English grammar.

These are examples of usage precepts, not grammar, and they should be seen as things to consider but not things to take at face value. Just be aware of them, and what you do.

Grammar proper is the study of how a language works, not a series of bizarre little rules and counter-rules, and with a language like English, the richest language in terms of vocabulary of any human language spoken ever, the grammar is particularly sinewy. English has essentially managed to combine two separate kinds of language one Germanic, and one Romance, through forced intimacy, and both Old English and Norman French have had their way with the deep structure of English, the grammar and syntax and morphology.

I have a .sig file I use with email that I'm going to stick on the end of this:

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The problem with defending the purity of the English language
is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't
just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other
languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their
pockets for new vocabulary.
(James D. Nicoll rec.arts.sf-lovers 1990-05-15)<hr></blockquote>

[reph]

Writing Again, one can say the same thing about Dickens's expressive punctuation as about Hugo's: it comes from an earlier time. The conventions that writers followed then have faded. Written English changes, just as spoken English does.

[mr mistook]

Just for clarification, and infinitive is a verb form, where the verb is preceded by 'to':

"to err is human"

"to dream the impossible dream"

A split infinitive, is when other words are thrown between the 'to' and it's verb:

"...to boldly go where no man has gone before."

In Latin, it is against the rules to split an infinitive, and this rule has been claimed for English by old linguists who wanted English to behave like Latin, but the truth is, in English it's perfectly fine to creatively split the infinitives.

[pianoman5]

English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore...

Very true, and she's a tough old bird, too. I don't have any linguistic evidence for this, but I suspect the main reason why English has established itself as the lingua franca of the world is that, even when mangled almost beyond recognition, it can still be understood by anyone who speaks it and has a little imagination. Somehow, its flexibility allows it to survive the depredations of countless dialects and adaptations in many lands.

If a foreigner approaches an English speaker and says, "Pliss to show me twalet", there's a fair chance s/he will be directed to the nearest restroom. Any such deviation of form or accent in other languages is likely to lead to blank stares of incomprehension (think: the Frenchman's shrug). A French/Canadian friend of mine says he often has difficulty making himself understood in France, and German friends of mine in Oz have told me they have the same problem initially when they go back to their native land.

This flexibility applies to the written word too. The bastard heritage of the language encourages and tolerates liberties like no other, and we can only rejoice in its vibrant, living, changing nature.

Having said that, I'm still not sure where I stand on the 'Let the language breathe' versus 'Hold the line' debate. Whereas the larrikin rejecter-of-authority in me sides with the former argument, my more earnest, believer-in-standards persona has some sympathy with the view that, for effective, unambiguous, educated communication, it's important to be at least mindful of the loose set of rules we have to work with, so that when I offend against them I'm doing so mindfully.

What I am reasonably certain of, however, is that when posters on internet writing boards ask questions like, "How improtant is it that i unnerstand, like, this grammer stuff!" (sic sic sic etc., plus smileys and lots of LOLs), what they are really asking is, "Will you guys give me permission not to bother to learn all this trivial crap, 'cos I can't be bothered."

The only possible answer, decency prevailing at all times, from those who have nothing to offer except goodwill and gentle opinion is:

"Of course. You are hereby licensed to write crap, and you need not bother to polish the turd, because you are also granted leave to write it crappily, with reckless disregard for any standards that were ever conceived and documented to help the hapless and hopeful neophyte writer."

Sometimes, when I'm feeling mean and lamenting the fact that it's difficult to attract the kind attention of agents and publishers because of the time they spend wading through the largely execrable content of slush piles, I'm inclined to agree with Gore Vidal, who said something to the effect that: "There are too many people writing today whose time would be better spent reading."

He didn't mean me, of course. Or did he? Hmmmm.

[Medievalist]

Pianoman5 wrote:

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I don't have any linguistic evidence for this, but I suspect the main reason why English has established itself as the lingua franca of the world is that, even when mangled almost beyond recognition, it can still be understood by anyone who speaks it and has a little imagination. Somehow, its flexibility allows it to survive the depredations of countless dialects and adaptations in many lands.<hr></blockquote>

That's absolutely correct. English has what linguists like to call redundancy, to an extent that is not matched by any other known language. The English sentence uses both the order of words, and the endings of words, to provide meaning, as well as the semantic value of the words themselves. In addition, by stealing the best of all the languages we encounter, we are more flexible in terms of register, or level of formality.

As to the larger question of when to draw the line in terms of change, that's one that troubles me greatly. I adore slang, and value the flexibility of langauge to adapt and change and grow, but I don't want Chaucer's words to become true about not only our current works, and works to come, but I don't want it to be true for Chaucer either:

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
And for ther is so gret diversite
In Englissh and in writyng of oure tonge,
So prey I God that non myswrite the,
Ne the mysmetre for defaute of tonge;
And red wherso thow be, or elles songe,
That thow be understonde, God I biseche!
--Chaucer <cite>Troilus and Criseyde</cite> V 1793-98<hr></blockquote>

If you read phonetically, even if you've never studied Middle English, you can pretty much understand what he's saying.

I want that to be true in five hundred years, too.

[pianoman5]

Thanks for the erudite confirmation, Lisa.

I'd like to be a cunning linguist. I gather it makes a guy very popular with the ladies.:b :o

[Writing Again]

In Latin, it is against the rules to split an infinitive, and this rule has been claimed for English by old linguists who wanted English to behave like Latin, but the truth is, in English it's perfectly fine to creatively split the infinitives.

In Latin it is impossible to split an infinitive because the Latin infinitive is a single word.

However do not try to tell the teachers who taught me English that it is ever "perfectly fine" to split an infinitive or to end a sentence with a preposition for ANY reason -- They would reply doing so is a result of ignorance and illiteracy.

[maestrowork]

I venture a guess that your teachers were old.

[Writing Again]

Writing Again, one can say the same thing about Dickens's expressive punctuation as about Hugo's: it comes from an earlier time. The conventions that writers followed then have faded. Written English changes, just as spoken English does.

True, but why throw out perfectly good tools that work? Other arts do not do this. Painters do not scream, "Never use the techniques of Cezannè his work is passè." In truth Cezannè is the forerunner of many different styles of art that exist today.

And who is it who decided what changes should be made and how they should be implemented? The artists? the writers who use the words to convey the stories they wish to tell; the audience? The readers who read the words? Or the grammarians who stand on the sidelines and cast arbitrary judgments upon writing without ever participating in producing the art itself?

I contend it is grammarians who have done more to bastardize English and destroy it than any group of avante garde users or slang producers.

It was a grammarian who campaigned, and caused the English parliament to make a ruling that the use of "they" should be outlawed and "he" made mandatory when there was a conflict between agreement in number versus agreement in gender: This after centuries of using "they."

It was a grammarian who decided no sentence should ever begin with "like" and another who decided that no sentence should begin with a conjunction such as and or but.

It was a handful of grammarians who decided that the infinitive should not be split -- Once again after centuries of it having been done with impunity.

A handful of grammarians decided after centuries of accepted use that sentences should never end with a preposition -- Once again attempting to adhere to an imitation of Latin.

Grammarians contend they staunchly guard the gates of English and prevent its perversion by those who would contaminate its rich traditions with intrusions -- Yet the evidence would tend to indicate that it is they who have wrecked the most disastrous changes upon our poor defenseless mother tongue.

[Euan Harvey]

but I suspect the main reason why English has established itself as the lingua franca of the world is that, even when mangled almost beyond recognition, it can still be understood by anyone who speaks it and has a little imagination.
Hmm. I would guess that the fact that Britain ruled (at one stage or another) a very considerable portion of the world also had something to do with it.

I've also read that if it weren't for America, the world's lingua franca would probably still be French.
English has what linguists like to call redundancy, to an extent that is not matched by any other known language. The English sentence uses both the order of words, and the endings of words,
This isn't necessarily going to help robustness of meaning. That's only going to happen if the word endings repeat the sentence-position meanings--which they don't generally. English has a minimal case system, and many of the inflections (boring vs. bored) do not correspond to S/O positions.

In addition, saying that English is the lingua franca because it has proved capable of absobring other words/languages is quite possibly confusing cause and effect. is the reason that English has absorbed so many words because English can absorb those words (ie, it's a property of the language) or is it because English has more contact with other languages (because it's a lingua franca)?

I'll just finish with this:

"A language is a dialect with an army and a navy".

So there you go. :D

[Jamesaritchie]

I like ice cream, steak and Rolos.

The comma is needed before "and" or the meaning is lost. No comma means steak and rolos are joined, just as if you said "I like steak and eggs."

Unless you always eat steak and rolos together, you need the last comma.

[Jamesaritchie]

A good question is, "How much grammar do you need to know as a writer?" and the answer is "Surprisingly little."

Just learn what a high school student should know about grammar; not what they do know, they probably know nothing; and you will do fine.

I think to be a writer, at least a successful one, you'd better know a God awful ot about grammar. You'd better know as much as any editor, and probably more. I think there's a real misunderstanding in trying to gauge how much you need to know by how fiction is written.

Only those who are highly knowledgeable about grammar can break the rules effectively.

And if you learn only what what a high school student should know about grammar, you're still going to be highly knowledgeable. High school grammar books do not skimp on the subject in any way.

And neither colons nor semicolons help with sentence fragments. Colons shouldn't go anywhere near a sentence fragment, and with rare, mulriple comma exceptions, a semicolon should only be used where a period would do the job just as well.

I keep hearing that sentence fragemnts are allowed now, but they just aren't. Sentence fragments make for bad, unreedable, confusing writing, and I'd say that at least six tijmes out of seven when someone shows me a sentence fragment in a published work it turns out not to be a fragment at all, but an understood sentence that gains it's subject from the previous sentence.

Such sentences have always been allowed, and are perfectly grammatical. Whether or not they are actually used depends on the style of the writer and the fiction, but they are not fragments, at least in the grammatical sense of the word. The seventh time will often be a fragment, but the writer will uses rules of grammar or punctuation to make it an allowable fragment.

It's certainly possible to get published without knowing a tremendous amount of grammar, but it's far from easy. Such writers are usually published only rarely, seldom, if ever, go beyond the occasionally published status, and never, in my experience, go on to the big time.

The wisest thing any wannabe writer can do is learn grammar, punctuation, and style. It isn't rocket science, and there's really no excuse for not taking a couple of months to learn enough to avoid the kind of mistakes that make editors roll their eyes are grab for rejection slips.

As King says, grammar is the top drawer tool in a writer's toolbox, and without it trying to be a writer is like trying to be a carpenter without knowing how to use a hammer or a saw.

The simple comma seems to be the most serious problem with most new writers, but it's because they don't learn the few simple rules that govern comma usage. Strunk and White should solve the problem quickly. Just about everyone will make a comma mistake now and then, but I know from experience that too many such mistakes can drive an editor up the wall.

And I know that, as an editor, I can tell whether or not grammar errors are intentional, used for the sake of the story, or whether they're accidental and done because the writer just doesn't know any better. In the first case, it probably means a good writer, but in the second case it almost certainly means a rejection.

[reph]

On the subject of archaic punctuation, Writing Again posted: True, but why throw out perfectly good tools that work? Other arts do not do this.

You're free to use older styles of punctuation if you admire them, but your chances of getting a publisher to accept a manuscript drop to near zero, because readers' sensibilities have changed in 200 years.

Visual arts and music change, too. Current paintings don't look like medieval paintings unless the painter deliberately abandons three-point perspective and imitates a medieval style.

Jamesaritchie posted: I think to be a writer, at least a successful one, you'd better know a God awful ot about grammar. You'd better know as much as any editor, and probably more.

In my experience, writers know less grammar than their editors. At least, they make many grammatical mistakes that editors routinely clean up.

[Writing Again]

Visual arts and music change, too. Current paintings don't look like medieval paintings unless the painter deliberately abandons three-point perspective and imitates a medieval style.

Fine artists and other visual artists (cartoonists, illustrators, etc) are not addicted to three point perspective: In fact it is only really needed when drawing the Eiffel Tower or the Empire State Building realistically. Oddly you will find more evidence of three point perspective in a Batman comic than you will in a modern painting. Some Japanese art actually uses a reverse perspective that has been experimented with in the rest of the world. I could argue that Cezannè used a four or six point perspective in that he painted a face that used a separate set for each half of the face. He was also the first to do other odd things such as paint a street that enabled you to see parts around the corner where you could not see if it were drawn "realistically." Artists as a group play with perspective, only mechanical artists adhere to it faithfully. Visual artists do not throw away tools that work: They try to create new tools that work better.

We, as verbal artists should be able to play with language.

We should be able to keep the tools we have that have been proven effective.

Along the way we should try to find tools that expand our art rather than limit it.

[maestrowork]

Writing again -- you can OF COURSE do anything you want as a writer. Don't use any punctuations at all if you want. Invent your own, like "He said *** I can't do that$ Wow how^s that for funny@ ***

As long as you're consistent (for example, @ is always used for questions and *** is always used for speech...) your readers will get it. Writing is about communication, and as long as you can communicate with your readers effectively, you're set. If you write "peanut, butter, and jelly" but you really mean "peanut butter and jelly" then you're not communicating well with your readers...

That said, if you WANT to be published, there are conventions to follow. You have to play by the rules unless you're self-publishing or if you're Stephen King and you want to do something experimental. But if you're not famous, chances are no one will take a chance with your ms if you're breaking all the conventions without apologies.

Just as a painter can paint anything he wants but if he tries to sell those paintings, he should think about his audience... a writer should do the same. Writing is about your self expression, but publication is about entertaining your audience. You have to somehow bridge the gap there.

For example, if you write your dialogue like in the Dicken's passage with psychobabble and "expresive" punctuations, chances are you will never get published and chances are I and many others won't read it. That's when I'd call the author a pretentious lump of brainfart.

Insisting you can do anything you want with the language, as an artist, is not going to gain you a lot of support in the publishing business.

There's always self-publishing, of course. (Or God forbid, PublishAmerica.)

[Writing Again]

HTML Comments are not allowed

Well that sucks -- I don't have time to redo this post at this time.

[Gala]

That said, if you WANT to be published, there are conventions to follow.

WritingAgain is a published writer, probably more than some on AW. Hence the moniker "WritingA..."

Interesting discussion. I hope WA retrieves what the HTML devils ate.

<img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eek.gif" />

[Writing Again]

I agree with your post over all, Maestrowork, your tantrum tone notwithstanding, except for a couple of minor points I'll indulge in later.

I do fail to understand the reason for your anger, and I fail to understand why it is considered improper to discuss grammar in all of its various forms and possibilities: One would almost feel that Galileo had once again challenged the Church's precepts that the Earth is the center of the universe.

I don't remember the exact wording of my other post, but it was about the most famous punctuation rebel of all time, e. e. cummings. He went so far in a couple of his poems as to use parenthesis within parenthesis and some(even within a word)times. He layered (up(within)on) mean(embe(deep)ded) ings. He also strung wordstogether as hefelttheneed.

For many he was hard to read.

Anyone with curiosity as to what can be done with language should read him, he was amazing.

Yet this maverick, this verbal rebel, was also a novelist, a playwright, and a painter -- He was obviously capable of following within conventions as well as breaking them.

The ability to extend language to its limits does not imply a necessity to do so; Nor does the ability to stay within the most narrow confines imply a necessity of doing so: A real knowledge of language would encompass awareness of both.
I also included in that prior post a discussion of the origins of prescriptive grammar, but I shall now do it in a separate post.

For example, if you write your dialog like in the Dicken's passage with psychobabble and "expresive" punctuations, chances are you will never get published and chances are I and many others won't read it. That's when I'd call the author a pretentious lump of brainfart.

Gotta love intellectuals -- Especially when they indulge in the creative arts. I love it when you talk dirty to me -- You remind me so much of my teachers.

Insisting you can do anything you want with the language, as an artist, is not going to gain you a lot of support in the publishing business.

I never insisted this, nor implied it. I merely wish to point out, Horatio, "There are more things in the written word ... than are dreamt of in the narrow world of high school grammar." And a surprising number are still legal to use in modern novels. You do not have to fear those who would sponsor innovation, nor those who would preserve the old ways -- They will not harm you within your shell. I know teachers fear the slightest degree of individual thought must be squelched immediately or anarchy will ensue, but it is simply not true.

I'll end this post with one of my favorite quotes:

"to be nobody-but-myself in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make me everybody else means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight, and never stop fighting" -- ee cummings

[Euan Harvey]

He layered (up(within)on) mean (embe(deep)ded) ings. He also strung wordstogether as hefelttheneed.
Interesting. I've never read e. e. cummings, but now I think I'll have to. Can you recommend a good collection of his work?

_________________________________________________

For example, if you write your dialogue [with] ... "expresive" punctuations, chances are you will never get published ...
Hmm. I take it you haven't read Molly Bloom's solioquy in Ulysses, then?

Punctuation is a tool, and like any other tool in writing, should be used to achieve an effect.
That's when I'd call the author a pretentious lump of brainfart.
I've got to say that this is a bit strong.

[anatole ghio]

"to be nobody-but-myself in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make me everybody else means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight, and never stop fighting"

-- ee cummings

That's a great quote.

My favorite e.e. cummings poem:

l(a
le
af
fa
ll
s)
one
l
iness


What makes e. e. cummings a great poet is how he used a contrast of form and content. While his form was wildly experimental and called immediate attention to the fact that it was "poetry", what he wrote about could be extremely romantic (in the literary sense) and full of emotional import.

This allowed him to push the reader out of the piece with his formal experimentation, while pulling them in with his emotionally engaging content. I think this is why he is both studied and READ today.

- Anatole

[Writing Again]

Up until 1700 grammar and the written word seemed to trundle along without the need for any other authority to dictate what was proper and correct than those who wrote and sold their writings to the public.

Jonathon Swift -- surely you remember him, the author of "A Modest Proposal" which contended to be a solution to the famine in Ireland: The nation should sell its numerous children as a food source. ”I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled ...”

Jonathon Swift felt:

Some method should be thought on for…fixing our language forever…I see absolutely no reason why any language should be perpetually changing.—Jonathon Swift

Somehow though the joke is on him -- As the methods Jonathon Swift used are no longer allowed by the core of people he believed would "fix our language forever": and they do so under the banner "Modern Grammar does not deem it proper."

If you do not see the joke in that your sense of humor may be a quart low. Or your sense of satire -- Swift was, after all, a satirist. Amusing, no?

He wrote “A proposal for correcting, improving and ascertaining the English tongue,” in which he said:

My Lord; I do here, in the Name of all the learned and Polite Perfons of the Nation, complain to Your Lordship, as Firft Minifter; that our Language is extremely imperfect; that its daily Improvements are by no means in proportion to its daily Corruptions; that the Pretenders to polifh and refine it, have chiefly multiplied Abufes and Abfurdities; and, that in many Inflatance, it offends againft every part of Grammar.

What is absolutely hilarious is the people he was railing against were Edmund Spencer who wrote "The Faierie Queene," Chaucer who wrote "The Canterbury Tales," and the contemptible playwright William Shakespeare.

Those who believed, as Swift did, felt that Latin was the model language, believing that English itself was crude and unrefined by comparison. Thus many of the rules of English proposed by grammarians were attempts to improve English to the correct standard.

Here is an interesting quote for you:

Of the doubtful points [in grammar] . . . not half of them have been correctly settled [. . .] and I have no hesitation in affirming, that the grammars now taught in our schools introduced more errors than they correct. Noah Webster -- Writer of Dictionaries.

[reph]

Writing Again, I just don't see the anger in Maestro's post that you do. Frustration, yes, but nothing of tantrum quality. Could it be a matter of perception? You seem to have a decades-old grudge against teachers, which may extend to those who try to offer advice or even opinions.

To oversimplify, I think Maestro is only trying to give you practical advice. Using archaic punctuation or making up new conventions is a fine form of self-expression if it feels satisfying to you, but it limits your commercial outlets.

Up until 1700 grammar and the written word seemed to trundle along without the need for any other authority to dictate what was proper and correct than those who wrote and sold their writings to the public.

The OED's earliest citation for the word "grammarian" is dated c. 1380. I wonder how grammarians kept busy in those days if they did nothing prescriptive for another 300 years.

[Writing Again]

The OED's earliest citation for the word "grammarian" is dated c. 1380. I wonder how grammarians kept busy in those days if they did nothing prescriptive for another 300 years.

The study of grammar started with the ancient Greeks. Up until the seventeenth century, 1760 or so grammarians seemed to be content to study language much as modern linguists do.

Prescriptive grammar, for the English language at any rate, began with Swift.

[maestrowork]

Writing Again, I was hardly angry. Not at all. The Internet is a very strange things -- sometimes you read things that are not there.

I meant it when I said you could do anything you want with your book. I also meant it when I said when you deal with a publisher or agent, there are conventions. I'm going through an editing process now and and I am serious: if I had written the passage like Dicken's, I would probably have been grilled for it and asked to rewrite. And if I refuse, I'd probably be released from my contract. OK, so there are exceptions and some niche publishers might boldly embrace your style and quirks.

There was no anger in my post. Just personal observation. Anyone can tell me there are exceptions, and I certainly agree there are.

Still, I would again cautioning anyone telling a newbie unconventional grammar usage. One must learn the ABCs of writing before breaking the rules. I think it's a very important point to make.

[Medievalist]

WritingAgain

Swift was being satirical in <em>both</em> his Proposals. He was mocking, especially, Sam Johnson, who he actually parodies in the essay. Swift was well aware of the inefficiencies of applying Latin grammar to English, and was in no way serious. He even wrote a companion essay in Latin, wherein he hopelessly but hilariously bungles English grammar.

You need to take a look at more recent texts about English grammar and syntax; I would suggest looking at texts by bona fide linguists, for one thing. Curme's Outline of English Grammar is still not too shabby. I'd also urge you to read in the field of rhetoric, particularly Lanham's <cite>Analysing Prose</cite>, which I think will sooth your wrath, and interest you, enormously.

Prescriptive grammar is something that, thank heavens, is relegated to primary and secondary instruction, and it's being rooted out there as fast as possible, a task that is in no way eased by the wretchedness of Chomsky and "transformational grammar."

I suspect the people reading this board already know this, but English punctuation is not something ancient; indeed, if you are reading people like Swift, it's worth considering that most of the punctuation you see is added by an editor, and I mean editor in the scholarly sense, that is, a scholar who attempts to present an authentic but readable text, rather than editor in the sense of copy/line/acquisitions editor.

In the case of Spenser, the punctuation you see is that of an editor based on the decisions of a printer, whose decisions may or may not have anything to do with the meaning of the text. Chaucer, as best we can determine, probably used only the virgule, for punctuation, and possibly, the standard mss. abbreviations. We lack anything we know for certain is his handwriting.

I think Maestrowork's post pretty much covered the bases; if you're writing for yourself, do what you want.
--
Edited because some of us can't spell and when the spell-check isn't enough, well, it gets pretty ugly.

[detante]

Who knew commas would be a more exciting topic than sex. Just imagine if we started a thread about how to write a grammatically correct sex scene . . .

Jen

[llllynne]

:hat

Man, you guys are great, you have so much knowledge about writing and famous quotes to go with it. Looks like I asked the right people.

What you have taught me is that you should know the basics. Then you should use your own voice to write, write, write. Some of you I can tell are very good writers. It just shows itself on your posts. Its not just that you can write, but your intellect comes through as well. Thank you and of course keep it going if you like. I'm enjoying the thread and I think others are too.

Looks like we have switched the topic from punctuation. Looks more like a debate on the art of writing itself.

[maestrowork]

Remember too: if you write 1st person narrative, you have even more freedom of using punctuations, or grammar... as long as you can effectively communicate with your readers.

[Writing Again]

Swift was being satirical in both his Proposals. He was mocking, especially, Sam Johnson, who he actually parodies in the essay. Swift was well aware of the inefficiencies of applying Latin grammar to English, and was in no way serious. He even wrote a companion essay in Latin, wherein he hopelessly but hilariously bungles English grammar.

I've often suspected this might be the case, and even asked about it: This is the first confirmation I've had. I started life as a humorist cum satirist (born from a penguin ala Anatole France) and to this day it pops up in my work in the most unexpected places. I find it hard to believe that anyone who was ever addicted to this art form could ever "just let it go."

[Writing Again]

Writing Again, I was hardly angry. Not at all. The Internet is a very strange things -- sometimes you read things that are not there.

I read your post again and it still seems angry to me -- But if you say you were not then I concede you know yourself better than I do and I apologize for having misread you.

I do have more to say on this thread later, but my vacation is over and I am working again as well as writing again, and my time is sparse.

[mr mistook]

I've been trying to stay out of this the past few days (believe it or not), but I have to say it really bites to think that one can only be innovative when "writing for yourself".

This assertion that only those who 'play by the rules' will ever get published, really blows. It means that there are great (if rebellious) writers out there whose work I'll never get to read.

[detante]

I tend to believe that the cream always rises to the top. If it is great, it doesn't matter that it's rebellious. The Cat In The Hat and Where The Wild Things Are were both banned by many libraries and schools because it was thought that they undermined parental authority.

If you are a genius, the rules don't apply.

Jen

[Medievalist]

Mr Mistook wrote:

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I've been trying to stay out of this the past few days (believe it or not), but I have to say it really bites to think that one can only be innovative when "writing for yourself".<hr></blockquote>

I don't think anyone said that; I didn't mean to imply it. What I'd say instead, is to do some reading, a lot of reading, paying attention less to what is said, and more to how it's said.

There's an incredible amount of "play" in English, and ways to play with syntax, word choice, and even punctuation, without violating any of the basic principles of "acceptable" English grammar. Try taking a few short passages, no more than five sentences or so, and take them apart. Look at the words chosen, the way the sentences are structured, and, of course, the punctuation. Look for patterns, patterns in sound, in syntax, and in word choice. Try to figure out why the writer made those particular choices. Do this for a number of different kinds of writing, and authors. Pick bit of text that you like, or that you feel drawn to or curious about, or that you particularly admire.

Sometimes its useful to imitate a particular passage, using a verb where the author does, in the same tense and mood, a noun for a noun, a preposition for a preposition. It's the equivalent, for a writer, of taking apart an engine and then putting it back together, or reverse engineering software, or analyzing DNA. Discover how the magic is created, then create it on your own as an imitation, then use what you can, and wish, in your own work.

I swear that imitation is useful, interesting, helpful, and yes, by golly, fun.

[anatole ghio]

I started life as a humorist cum satirist (born from a penguin ala Anatole

Did someone mention my name? I thought the penguin was our secret, damn it, now everyone knows!!!

If you are referring to Penguin Island, it is an interesting novel, in that it begins as a fable and ends as science fiction/dystopia (if I remember correctly)... I think there was a bit of Swift in there, as well as Jules Verne.

I started The Crime of Sylvester Broyard which seemed to be the more promising novel, but never got around to finishing him.

I first found him on the shelf of my grandmothers bookcase. Interspersed with Romance titles from the 40's and mainstream novels of the same period (this is how I discovered James Cain and read this interesting novel by Irving Wallace called "The Seven Minutes"), was a series of hardcover reprints of the classics. Perusing the shelf one day, I was surprised to discover my name peering back at me, so I took it down and read the first novel in the collection.

My Nana said I should have her book collection, as I was the aspiring writer, but when the house was sold, I lived far away and had no means to ship the books out to me... alas.

- Anatole

[anatole ghio]

Sometimes its useful to imitate a particular passage, using a verb where the author does, in the same tense and mood, a noun for a noun, a preposition for a preposition. It's the equivalent, for a writer, of taking apart an engine and then putting it back together, or reverse engineering software, or analyzing DNA. Discover how the magic is created, then create it on your own as an imitation, then use what you can, and wish, in your own work.

I have done this and it is immensely helpful. I have even finished pieces that were not only inspired by another writer, but also overtly refer back to the original.

Along with the suggested technique, one can also take the original piece and instead of substituting one line for another, layer one line after the other.

So if the original reads, "The gun made a loud sound and a brief flash as it went off in the dark room", one may add: "Jenny felt overwhelmed and sick to her stomach".

You can then remove the original piece and try to make something out of only the lines that you have written... or you can repeat the process, adding a new line after every line, doubling again the size of the piece.

This technique of adding on top of an original piece I found in the book, "Oulipo Companion" where the example of doubling is given on an Sherlock Holmes story. By the end of doubling twice over, the original story is almost unrecognizable.

- Anatole

[Writing Again]

Penguin Island by Anatole France was the first satire I ever read -- Candide was next and from then on I was a devotee -- My mother introduced me to Punch at the library,a magazine I hope still exists.

Then I began to read about satire and how the greatest among them wrote works that were independent of their subjects -- You can enjoy them without knowing who and or what they are satirizing.

[Writing Again]

To oversimplify, I think Maestro is only trying to give you practical advice. Using archaic punctuation or making up new conventions is a fine form of self-expression if it feels satisfying to you, but it limits your commercial outlets.

Still, I would again cautioning anyone telling a newbie unconventional grammar usage. One must learn the ABCs of writing before breaking the rules. I think it's a very important point to make.

A word of practical advice and a few words of caution.

What should I say to a newbie?

First the safest and surest way to become a published author is to concentrate on telling a great story using the most conservative grammar you can find.

However if you use the most conservative grammar you can find you will never be called, "A fresh new voice"; "Vibrant"; or any of the other things that are often said of newly discovered wordsmiths with a promising future in store for them.

At the other extreme of course are the rebels, those who do things radically different from the current norm (What ever that is at the time) -- They will be seen as a threat, as people who will destroy all good and proper social values -- They will be viewed in the same light as Elvis, The Beetles, and 2pac when they first arrived upon the music scene.

Don't let people convince you that full blown rebels can't get published, they can; but they have to find somebody who believes in their vision and is willing to back them; it has happened before and it will happen again. But: They have to be twice as good as anyone else to get half as far and it takes a special kind of personality who is willing to lose everything and a willingness to be on the receiving end of crap even when they win.

Remember this about writing: It is like building a roller coaster: People want the thrill of the ride without the danger implied. They want all the feelings of having taken a risk without actually having taken any. Without leaving the safety of their living room they want to experience all the fears they would feel if they were in real danger.

Story tellers ARE considered a real and present danger and those who wish any form of social control DO want to keep story tellers on a short leash: Plato said that those who tell the stories rule the state and had the story tellers thrown out. Every dictatorship has immediately sought to control the story tellers. Any potential story teller who lives in a country where personal freedom is at risk should keep this fact firmly in mind -- You will be the first to be sought out for special counseling by any new tyrant.

So what you want to do is to be innovative, both in your stories and in your grammar. Innovative is an interesting word -- In this case it means being what magazine editors ask for: "Be different but the same": "Be creative within the confines of the expectations of our readers": "Surprise (pleasantly) but do not shock."

If you are not innovative enough you will be ignored: If you are overly innovative you will be beaten about the ears and flogged severely -- But if you are innovative to the right degree you will be richly rewarded.

So how does a newbie achieve this?

First DO learn the ABC's of grammar -- learn, master, do not ignore, the most prissy rules of "proper grammar."

Second read: Read the most popular literature of your day and read the most lauded literature of the day (Not necessarily the same.) Read the rebels and try to understand both why they are loved and why they are hated. Read the old masters and the old bastards of the past -- including Charles Dicken's psychobabble brain fart from "David Copperfield."

Third, decide what you want to do with your own grammar -- Note: Do not try to formulate some individual or quirky "style." For example Hemingway chose sparseness in his prose: Ray Bradbury chose poetry (albeit a subconscious choice it was a choice): Stephen King chose mastery of description (To the point where it is often the deciding factor in whether you are or are not a Stephen King fan.) -- Now go find some of your own examples. Remember don't go overboard -- You want to be seen as an innovator not as a revolutionary.

Fourth now implement what you want to achieve that is innovative as an attitude toward your writing rather than as a set of hard and fast rules. Sit down to your writing with the attitude of "This is what I want to achieve, what I want to get better at doing with my "grammar." Only break those rules of grammar that achieve what you are setting out to accomplish.

Good luck, and when you become "Writing's fresh new voice" send me an autographed copy.

[ElizabethJames]

We just read this entire thread, and are now in a coma. Make that a series of comas, separated by commas.

:)

[maestrowork]

Writing Again, I don't think "fresh new voice" has anything to do with grammar. Just my thought.

[Writing Again]

Writing Again, I don't think "fresh new voice" has anything to do with grammar. Just my thought.

I would say it is a factor -- I would not say it is "the" determining factor -- It would take more than an innovative way with words and sentence structure to be "hailed" as a "fresh new voice" -- But when you look at those who have been highly successful you will find almost all of them have a way with their use of grammar and words that sets them apart.

Which is why I say only break the rules where breaking the rules will achieve what you want -- A lot can be achieved without breaking the rules.

Also I should point out the concept of being innovative rather than either trite or revolutionary applies to every single aspect of story writing, not just to grammar, or to story, or to the creation of characters, plot, structure, situations.

Now go, innovate.

[Writing Again]

Come to think of it a lot of writers have gotten by with little more than "a way with words" which implies using grammar to the maximum.

I don't think any writer can have an individual voice without taking into consideration their use of grammar.

But I'm open to persuasion: Show me one.

[maestrowork]

WA, show me some examples of "fresh new voices" who consistently break grammatical rules. And I'm not talking about sentence fragments, starting a sentence with a conjunction, etc. I'm talking the unconventional use of commas or colons, for example. Or mixing verb tenses. Or, say, not capitalizing words that need capitazation.

[mr mistook]

What's the proper way to punctuate sound effects?

[Medievalist]

The punctuation of sound effects should be undertaken with care and precision.

The exclamation point, properly identified as a screamer, should only be used in groups of three after the following words:

Bam!!! Zap !!! Gnaf!!! Pow!!!

Two screamers may be used, at the author's discretion, after Bang!! and Sccrrrgrrrnnggg!!

That is all.

[Gala]

WA, show me some examples of "fresh new voices" who consistently break grammatical rules. And I'm not talking about sentence fragments, starting a sentence with a conjunction, etc. I'm talking the unconventional use of commas or colons, for example. Or mixing verb tenses. Or, say, not capitalizing words that need capitazation.
I mean this half-kidding. But come on now, this is like "I'll only believe it if you show me upside down gerundial backwards-spelled typos about elephants."

We all know there are plenty o' writers breaking the rules.

I'd be more hard pressed to find an interesting writer who doesn't break any of the rules, not even frags and starting sentences with "and" and misusing verbal phrases, commas and parenthesis and italics that (or is it who? some famous writers don't know) should be regular type.

Oh--we're talking grammar, not formatting and style. So the question needs to be rephrased.

Show me a fresh new voice who doesn't break any grammitcal rules. Huh.

<img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/grin.gif" />

[Euan Harvey]

... show me some examples of "fresh new voices" who consistently break grammatical rules. ... Or, say, not capitalizing words that need capitazation.

Everything is Illuminated (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060529709/qid=1106713436/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/102-9674572-0351314), towards the end anyway, has large chunks with minimal and/or no punctuation, capitalization etc.

It's also a damn good book.


Edited b/c for some reason my post appeared blank.

[MacAl Stone]

The exclamation point, properly identified as a screamer, should only be used in groups of three after the following words:

Bam!!! Zap !!! Gnaf!!! Pow!!!

Two screamers may be used, at the author's discretion, after Bang!! and Sccrrrgrrrnnggg!!

*just spewed coffee all over nice, flat-screen monitor*

Cite, please.

[Writing Again]

WA, show me some examples of "fresh new voices" who consistently break grammatical rules. And I'm not talking about sentence fragments, starting a sentence with a conjunction, etc. I'm talking the unconventional use of commas or colons, for example. Or mixing verb tenses. Or, say, not capitalizing words that need capitazation.

This reply shows that you either did not read, or did not understand, my post to newbies stating my position on being innovative in my open letter to newbies. (http://p197.ezboard.com/fabsolutewritefrm3.showMessageRange?topicID=1007.t opic&start=141&stop=160)


All day at work I was thinking about this thread and this comment...

Writing Again, I don't think "fresh new voice" has anything to do with grammar. Just my thought.

And my thoughtless reply...

I would say it is a factor -- I would not say it is "the" determining factor

The first thing I ever learned, and the most important thing I ever learned about being a writer was told to me by an old man who sat on a bench in front of his house whittling wood. I wasn't old enough to go to school yet but I already knew I wanted to be a writer and told him so.

I never heard this man tell a story; I never saw this man read a book, but he told me the most important words any writer can ever hear: "It ain't the story you tell, boy, it is the way you tell it."

Fact: The best story in the world told poorly is uninteresting and boring.

Fact: The most mundane, innocuous, pedestrian story in the world told well will hold an audience's interest.

This covers every aspect of story. The most interesting place, character, situation, pales if told poorly -- While the least interesting of people, places, and situations can glow if told well.

When you are writing the how of how you tell a story is governed by grammar.

You choose words to use, that is vocabulary, but is vocabulary truly separate from grammar? How you use that word, where you place that word in a sentence, what punctuation, if any -- All is governed by grammar.

Style books talk about grammar because a large part of any writer's style is how they use grammar.

So I take back my thoughtless statement (I would not say it is "the" determining factor) And replace it with -- Grammar, and how you use it is a major deciding factor if not the deciding factor in whether or not you are a "fresh new voice" upon the writing scene.

What makes a story is how you tell it.

How you tell a story is with words governed by the rules of grammar.

The way you manipulate grammar is one of the most important things a writer will ever decide.

[maestrowork]

I'm just asking a question. I don't know why anyone would be defensive by a simple question.

I am curious. I break grammatical rules sometimes myself, and surely I'm not saying you should NEVER break the rules. Like I said, you need to know the rules before you can break them. For example, I have passages in which I don't use any proper punctuations. I have passages that ramble and mix verb tense, etc. but they're all done for a purpose, and my narrative is first person so it fits the character's mental state, etc.

However, I'd say 99% of the time I'll have to follow grammatical rules, or my editor would have a fit, and my readers would go: Can this guy write? I can't think of a writer who consistently break grammar. I can't think of a 3rd person narrative that consistently don't follow grammar rules. That's why I asked. And so far only one person gave me an example.

I still think it's important for us to tell someone like Illlyne the proper use of commas, ands, buts and what not. Then we can tell her: Hey, learn them well, then break these rules as you see fit in your stories.

[detante]

When you are writing the how of how you tell a story is governed by grammar.
I may be wrong, but I think we are talking about more than just grammar, here. I think we are talking about style, which includes grammar, vocabulary, punctuation, and voice, among other things.
"It ain't the story you tell, boy, it is the way you tell it."
I couldn't agree more. One of the things I love most about writing is coming up with bad metaphors about writing. Here is my bad metaphor of the day:
If a story is a journey, then style is defined by the road you take. There several ways to get where you are going. You could take the highway. You could go through the city. You could make a u-turn on Main St. and hope no one catches you. You could take the back roads. You could cut through Farmer Johnson's back field if he's not looking. And if you do it enough times to make a path, others might start doing it, too. Eventually it might even become an established road.

In the future your shortcut through the back field could become the acceptable norm. Writing teachers could insist that the style you created must be followed. You could be the next Dickens or Hemingway. You would live on forever as a literary god! . . . Sorry, got a little carried away there. :o

Anyway, I think this thread boils down to two points:
1. You have to know the rules before you can break them effectively.
2. If you are a genius the rules don't apply.

Learning the rules is the easy part. It's that other part that keeps tripping me up.

Jen

[katdad]

What's the proper way to punctuate sound effects?
One exclamation point is mild, two are medium, three can only be used for major confrontations.

As a kid reading True War Story comics, I did however learn that various soldiers must die with a particular type of exclamation:

American soldiers: "Arrghh!!"

German soldiers: "Ungh!!"

Japanese soldiers: "Aieee!!"

[maestrowork]

In Five People We Meet in Heaven, we have:

Zzzzap.

Wrrrrsh.

Whump.

Woosh.


All end with a period. It worked for me.

[detante]

Lisa, I thought your post was delightfully droll.

Mr. Mistook, if it were me, I would do a little research and see what style is used in books or stories similar to yours. Or just do what feels right. It's not worth stressing out over sound effects.

Jen

[Writing Again]

I still think it's important for us to tell someone like Illlyne the proper use of commas, ands, buts and what not. Then we can tell her: Hey, learn them well, then break these rules as you see fit in your stories.

My personal problem with this approach is that when it was used on me in school I felt lied to:

Teacher, "You cannot subtract below zero. 3 - 5 = 0."

"But teacher the thermometer goes all the way down to - 60 degrees."

"Don't get smart with me, young man. Quit looking at thermometers and do what I tell you."

One year later:

Teacher" Zero is only a point on a line. When you get below that line you have negative numbers. When you subtract 3 - 5 you now have a minus 2."

"But last year you said..."

"That was because you were too young to understand. Now we are teaching you this."

"Hey, teacher, how do I know you are telling me the truth this year? You last year you lied to me."

I don't believe in lying to newbies of any age.

This is a comma ",". This is how it is used today, that is how it was used in the past, and over here is what some crazy people have done with the comma. Now, is there anything you don't understand about a comma?

Writing is a thinking person's occupation. In every novel there are problems to solve, choices to make, conflicts to resolve. You have to think about every aspect of writing and make choices at every level -- The more informed the writer is about those choices the better the decisions will be.

No writer is ever too young or too inexperienced to be encouraged to think and to make informed choices based on that thinking.

It is what a writer does.

[Writing Again]

I may be wrong, but I think we are talking about more than just grammar, here. I think we are talking about style, which includes grammar, vocabulary, punctuation, and voice, among other things.

You are correct. I was just reacting to Maestro's statement that grammar has noting to do with being a "fresh new voice" as a writer -- We are talking about more than grammar, but I believe grammar plays a major role.

Anyway, I think this thread boils down to two points:

1. You have to know the rules before you can break them effectively.

2. If you are a genius the rules don't apply.

Learning the rules is the easy part. It's that other part that keeps tripping me up.

I agree with 1. -- 2. is more complex than that.

First I don't believe you have to be a genius to achieve the same or a similar effect.

Second I don't believe a genius actually throws the rules out the window. What a genius actually does is to reapply, reassign, redesign, add, subtract, or even create rules. This is normally done not to distort any rules -- It is done to achieve an effect they cannot achieve any other way.

Let us take Ulysses, written by James Joyce as an example. His objective was not to break the rules -- His objective was to find a way to produce what we now call "stream of consciousness" writing. He achieved his goal, at the expense of a few rules, thus creating a subset of rules that are used to this day to create "stream of consciousness writing."

If you want to be a genius then what you need to do is to set a goal that has not been successfully achieved before -- Then set out to achieve that goal by any means necessary.

There is no telling what will happen on the way.

[maestrowork]

So you do agree with #1.

[detante]

If you want to be a genius then what you need to do is to set a goal that has not been successfully achieved before -- Then set out to achieve that goal by any means necessary.

"By any means necessary" indicates are you probably aren't going to achieve that goal by following the rules. ;)

If you break the rules and it works, you might be called a genius. If you break the rules and it flops, you run the risk of being called a hack. The better you understand your audience's expectations (including the rules of grammar and punctuation) the better your chance of falling into the genius category.

I don't believe in lying to newbies of any age.

Whoa. I missed the part where someone lied to a newbie. To anyone, for that matter.

We can all agree that there is room for all kinds of styles and voices. No one needs to defend their personal use of punctuation or grammar or vocabulary. Do what works for you.

I think Lynn figured out the answer to her question several posts ago. Maybe we should just let bygones be bygones and allow this thread to die an honorable death.

Jen

[mr mistook]

I think Lynn figured out the answer to her question several posts ago. Maybe we should just let bygones be bygones and allow this thread to die an honorable death.


I think the largest lesson for Lynn or anybody else to learn from this thread is that a simple question about the use of a comma can spark off a heated ten-page debate that spans the entire language and industry of English.

I've seen this happen before on this board, and I'm sure it will happen again. The smallest questions of grammar and punctuation are the best way to trigger a ten-way blood feud between linguists, grammarians, old schoolers, avant garde, moderates, regular joe's, and several splinter groups.

I take it as a healthy sign.

Latin is very important, but it's dead.

English is also very important, and it's thriving. Why? Because it is an ardently spoken language. When you get down to it, the period, comma, em-dash, colon, and semicolon are all just pauses. In a delivered speech, can you tell which pause is which?

In written English, the propriety of your chosen pause symbol depends entirely on the context. A semicolon can only fall between two independant clauses. It's a replacement for a conjunction. It's shorthand for "and". A period separates two complete thoughts - articulated with as many clauses and punctuation as deemed necessary by the writer. Commas are the footsoldiers, giving you time to breathe between little fragments of a larger sentence.

I don't think anybody, no matter how far out on the fringe, would suggest that a comma can take the place of a period; that a whole novel could be written as one enormous run-on sentence.

[MacAl Stone]

...a whole novel could be written as one enormous run-on sentence.

Which is the only explanation i can think of for Finnegan's Wake...

[anatole ghio]

that a whole novel could be written as one enormous run-on sentence

I like the rest of your post...

As far as an entire novel written as one enormous sentence, I can't think of any example of it; however, it was done as a short story by Donald Barthelme, entitled "Sentence". It's in his collection 40 stories.

I searched online but couldn't find it. However, here is a nice story he wrote called the balloon which has some good examples of unusual grammar.

amb.nbu.bg/american/5/bar...alloon.htm (http://amb.nbu.bg/american/5/barthelme/balloon.htm)

- Anatole

[MacAl Stone]

Oh! I read that story years ago, Anatole. It's a lovely short, and I'd forgotten all about it.

Thank you.

[pianoman5]

Ah, Mac, Finnegans Wake.

'Ulysses' was evidence that Joyce had the makings of a genius, while F.W. confirmed that he was a self-indulgent w*nker.

His wife, Nora, I think said it best:

"Aw, Jimmy, why don't you write something that people want to read?"

[Writing Again]

We can all agree that there is room for all kinds of styles and voices. No one needs to defend their personal use of punctuation or grammar or vocabulary. Do what works for you.

I know Hemingway devoted his entire life to promoting his "view of grammar" and all of his novels followed it.

Yes, most people do seem to have a "personal use" of grammar and many do do what works for them.

However I don't see why anyone should "commit themselves" to any "style" of grammar.

I think "Do what works for the story," is better than "Do what works for you" and "Leave some room to play around" is better than "Take a stand and stick to it."

[Writing Again]

1. You have to know the rules before you can break them effectively.

So you do agree with #1.

Yes, absolutely.

[Medievalist]

I realize this is likely going seem silly to some, but what the heck.

Please think carefully before using the word grammar. I'd estimate that about 60% of the time people use "grammar" when they really mean style, or syntax, or usage. It's minor I know, but you're causing this philologist pain, and given that we're an increasingly rare breed, I'm sure you nice people wouldn't want to do that ;)

Here's the thrice blessed American Heritage Dictionary. Keep in mind that definitions for a lemma are listed in "most used and accepted" to "least used and accepted."

1a. The study of how words and their component parts combine to form sentences. b. The study of structural relationships in language or in a language, sometimes including pronunciation, meaning, and linguistic history. 2a. The system of inflections, syntax, and word formation of a language. b. The system of rules implicit in a language, viewed as a mechanism for generating all sentences possible in that language. 3a. A normative or prescriptive set of rules setting forth the current standard of usage for pedagogical or reference purposes. b. Writing or speech judged with regard to such a set of rules. 4. A book containing the morphologic, syntactic, and semantic rules for a specific language. 5a. The basic principles of an area of knowledge: the grammar of music. b. A book dealing with such principles.