The use of WAS!

[bearilou]

Originally Posted by Medievalist

If you're using Microsoft Word for Windows and the Search function as a way of editing for verb use, do check out Roger Carlson's edit tools; they're free, created by a writer for writers.

http://www.rogerjcarlson.com/WritingHelp/TechTips.html

Thanks for the link. That's pretty awesome and now I have a little better understanding of macros in Word.

[ladyinpink]

i appreciate the example Fallen, but I want to point there is a difference between "was" in dialogue and "was" in narrative.

[Bufty]

Most beginners use 'was' simply because they don't have the experience to realise there is probably a better way of conveying whatever it is they want to say.

That inadvertently lazy - and usually it's coupled with too frequent use - of 'was' can cause the writing to lack flow because it lacks clarity and without clarity there will never be flow.

But even using 'was', clarity can still be achieved.

Use 'was' through choice - not ignorance.

[The Lonely One]

Use 'was' through choice - not ignorance.

Not to beat my own dead horse (don't tell the police, 'kay?) but this is golden advice. I'm glad you said it.

[motormind]

Originally Posted by spikeman4444

I hate the word 'was.'

I hate the word 'hate'.

[Mela]

Originally Posted by Dawnstorm

A) I looked out of the window. A chicken was crossing the road.

B) I was looking out of the window. A chicken crossed the road.

A. I looked out the window at a chicken crossing the road.
b. I looked out the window as a chicken crossed the road.
c. I looked out the window. A chicken crossed the road.

All alternatives to use of was - and Dawnstorm - this has nothing to do with your excellent post - the above are alternatives that entered my head while I was reading your post ...

while I read your post ....
as I read your post ...

[Judg]

They are alternatives, but not necessarily improvements. "While I was reading your post" - this is exactly the situation that the past continuous is best suited for. While indicates a past action that serves as a backdrop for another past action, which is exactly what the past continuous expresses so clearly.

This is a phenomenon known as hypercorrection, when you take a perfectly acceptable sentence, misapply a rule, and turn it into something less harmonious or even incorrect. The most widespread example of hypercorrection is the misuse of "I". "Mommy, me and Bobby want..." "No dear, Bobby and I want. Bobby and *I*" So the kid says Bobby and I in every case when he wants to say "me and" even if it's an object and the me is absolutely essential. For the rest of his life. Which is why journalists and pastors and - God help us - teachers and writers come out with sentences like "She called Bobby and I in the morning." It burns us, preciouss, it burns.

[maestrowork]

Many people misuse the "was ___ing" construct. Is it really ongoing? Is it important to tell us something is ongoing while another action is happening?

"I looked out the window. A chicken crossed the road" is fine as it is. There's really no reason to use the continuous tense. As a rule of thumb, I only use the continuous tense when the aspect of continuity is important:

"I was washing dishes when the ceiling fell on me."

Or to use the chicken example:

"The chicken was crossing the road when a truck hit it."

Many writers use the continuous tense when simple present or past tense would do. It's something to keep an eye on.

[CaroGirl]

Originally Posted by maestrowork

Many people misuse the "was ___ing" construct. Is it really ongoing? Is it important to tell us something is ongoing while another action is happening?

"I looked out the window. A chicken crossed the road" is fine as it is. There's really no reason to use the continuous tense. As a rule of thumb, I only use the continuous tense when the aspect of continuity is important:

"I was washing dishes when the ceiling fell on me."

Or to use the chicken example:

"The chicken was crossing the road when a truck hit it."

Many writers use the continuous tense when simple present or past tense would do. It's something to keep an eye on.

Misusing it is a different issue to wanting to avoid using it altogether, correct or otherwise. Misusing grammar is (almost) always wrong, especially for a new writer.

The true misuse of the continuous construction doesn't even need the word was. As in:

"Opening the door, she ran over the threshold and down the steps."

Now, unless you're Mr. Tickle and have rubber arms, it's impossible to open the door WHILE running through it and down some steps.

[maestrowork]

The participial clause is a different matter than continuous tense, actually. Yes, it does dictate simultaneity, but it's not the same as what I'm talking about. The use of participial clauses without simultaneity is grammatically incorrect. Meanwhile, using continuous tense is not always incorrect, simply unnecessary.

Many writers find themselves using the continuous tense when it's not necessary. It's not about avoiding "was" but to make sure that one is not overusing the "was" for no good reasons:

"He was taking a stroll in the park. He came to a pond. She was sitting on a bench and eating an apple."

I see many writers do that. While they are not necessarily grammatically incorrect, the continuous tense is unnecessary in most cases: simple past or present tense will do.

[CaroGirl]

Originally Posted by maestrowork

The participial clause is a different matter than continuous tense, actually. Yes, it does dictate simultaneity, but it's not the same as what I'm talking about. The use of participial clauses without simultaneity is grammatically incorrect. Meanwhile, using continuous tense is not always incorrect, simply unnecessary.

Many writers find themselves using the continuous tense when it's not necessary. It's not about avoiding "was" but to make sure that one is not overusing the "was" for no good reasons:

"He was taking a stroll in the park. He came to a pond. She was sitting on a bench and eating an apple."

I see many writers do that. While they are not necessarily grammatically incorrect, the continuous tense is unnecessary in most cases: simple past or present tense will do.

To address that, I'd argue that a participial phrase used in this way is a form of continuous construction. As befits this definition: "keep in mind that "continuous" tenses are those that use -ing and "perfect" tenses are those that use some form of the auxiliary verb have." And as below:

participle, present: the ing-form of a verb. It can serve as part of a continuous tense verb, as a noun, or as an adjective. When it is used as an adjective, the terms participle and participial use are often employed, and the emphasis is usually on an action in process (a talking dog) or on the effect of one person or situation on another (an exciting football game). (See past participle.) When a present participle is used as a noun substitute, it is called a gerund. Speaking in front of a large group frightens me.

[Bluegate]

Originally Posted by Medievalist

If you're using Microsoft Word for Windows and the Search function as a way of editing for verb use, do check out Roger Carlson's edit tools; they're free, created by a writer for writers.

http://www.rogerjcarlson.com/WritingHelp/TechTips.html

Thank you for this helpful tip/link. I have it pulled up in new window as I type.

[maestrowork]

Originally Posted by CaroGirl

To address that, I'd argue that a participial phrase used in this way is a form of continuous construction. As befits this definition: "keep in mind that "continuous" tenses are those that use -ing and "perfect" tenses are those that use some form of the auxiliary verb have." And as below:

participle, present: the ing-form of a verb. It can serve as part of a continuous tense verb, as a noun, or as an adjective. When it is used as an adjective, the terms participle and participial use are often employed, and the emphasis is usually on an action in process (a talking dog) or on the effect of one person or situation on another (an exciting football game). (See past participle.) When a present participle is used as a noun substitute, it is called a gerund. Speaking in front of a large group frightens me.

Actually, not to split hair, but according to this definition, the participial clause "Opening the door" would be construed as an adjective instead of part of a continuous tense. It describes the subject that follows, much like the "talking" describes the dog. The continuous tense requires an auxiliary to-be verb + a participle. A true continuous tense would be:

He was opening the door when/and she ran over the threshold and down the steps.

But anyway, this is a derail. The point is: if you find yourself using "was" a lot, find out if you're misusing the continuous tense. Many writers do the "he was walking down the street" thing a lot.

[Mela]

Originally Posted by maestrowork

But anyway, this is a derail. The point is: if you find yourself using "was" a lot, find out if you're misusing the continuous tense. Many writers do the "he was walking down the street" thing a lot.

Yes.
Was (anything after it with -ing) can become a crutch, an easy way out, when another way of sentence construction may more accurately describe the scene - and make the reading more entertaining.

[blacbird]

I thought this thread was dead. Obviously I was mistaken.

caw

[Slushie]

May it rest in peace.

[spikeman4444]

I think you're all nuts and the talk of all these rules has made me completely aware of the fact that nobody knows what the true answer is to the issue of 'was.' Yes indeed, may the thread rest in peace. Sorry for the headache.

[backslashbaby]

"The true answer"?? It's not Paint By Numbers, you know

[Mythical Tiger]

I have the same problem except I can't seem to get away from the word 'as' and 'look'. It's very aggrivating. Luckily I've been working on it and have been expanding my vocabulary. I am now forcing myself to stop using 'look' so much, so far it's working.

[Tepelus]

Originally Posted by Mythical Tiger

I have the same problem except I can't seem to get away from the word 'as' and 'look'. It's very aggrivating. Luckily I've been working on it and have been expanding my vocabulary. I am now forcing myself to stop using 'look' so much, so far it's working.

Me too. It seems when I try to stop using one crutch word, I lean onto another (or two or three...lol).

[Slushie]

Originally Posted by spikeman4444

I think you're all nuts and the talk of all these rules has made me completely aware of the fact that nobody knows what the true answer is to the issue of 'was.' Yes indeed, may the thread rest in peace. Sorry for the headache.

Yes. We are all crazy. How dare we discuss different uses of the most commonly used word in the language. Good luck finding that true answer. Until then, there's a bunch of good information in this thread posted by crazy people who tried giving their advice.

[LostInWonderland]

Originally Posted by Judg

This is a phenomenon known as hypercorrection, when you take a perfectly acceptable sentence, misapply a rule, and turn it into something less harmonious or even incorrect. The most widespread example of hypercorrection is the misuse of "I". "Mommy, me and Bobby want..." "No dear, Bobby and I want. Bobby and *I*" So the kid says Bobby and I in every case when he wants to say "me and" even if it's an object and the me is absolutely essential. For the rest of his life. Which is why journalists and pastors and - God help us - teachers and writers come out with sentences like "She called Bobby and I in the morning." It burns us, preciouss, it burns.

This is one of my biggest pet peeves as a writer. It's become so widely accepted to misuse "and I", when there is a really easy trick to know whether to use "I" or "me". My sixth grade teacher taught us to read the sentence with just the pronoun, taking out the other name(s) and the "and". If the sentence makes sense, then you have the right pronoun. If it doesn't, then of course you have to switch pronouns.

Using the same example, you would never say "She called I in the morning." So, the proper pronoun is of course "me". On the flip side, with "Bobby and me talked all night long", you would never say "Me talked all night long."

After years of using this trick, it's pretty much become ingrained in me which pronoun to use. Maybe this will help someone else who struggles with this

Sorry for straying from the "was" discussion.

[spikeman4444]

[QUOTE=LostInWonderland;4295435]This is one of my biggest pet peeves as a writer. It's become so widely accepted to misuse "and I", when there is a really easy trick to know whether to use "I" or "me". My sixth grade teacher taught us to read the sentence with just the pronoun, taking out the other name(s) and the "and". If the sentence makes sense, then you have the right pronoun. If it doesn't, then of course you have to switch pronouns.

QUOTE]


This is how I learned the difference as well. I think it is a very effective way to remember. Don't worry the 'was' talk became absolutely insane. Seriously.

[maestrowork]

Originally Posted by blacbird

I thought this thread was dead. Obviously I was mistaken.

caw

I thought this thread died. Obviously I made a mistake.

There. Feel better?

[blacbird]

Originally Posted by maestrowork

I thought this thread died. Obviously I made a mistake.

There. Feel better?

I was feeling better, until you said this.

caw