The only book I never sold was the Simon and Schuster grammar book (MLA). I loved that book it was great. Easy to look things up, great examples, and answered every question you could ever have. Unfortunately I lost it.
I thought a grammar thread wouldn’t be a bad idea. So, let me start things off with something that’s been bugging me for quite sometime.
The lay, laid, lying, lied, etc thing. When someone is untruthful I know they lied or are lying, and when someone is being dirty laid is the appropriate (or not so appropriate) word. Other than that I’m lost.
If someone could explain the single most infuriating conjugation in the English language, I would be most appreciative.
JOHN!
(I don’t know if I was supposed to post this on the Writing Class board, but if I had it would have never seen the light of day. There’s one topic and thirteen replied on the whole board.)
[This message has been edited by JOHN (edited August 30, 2002).]
Here's the difference. To lie means to rest, recline, be situated. You lie on a best, rest there, recline on it. To lay means to put, place or set. You lay a book on a table; you lay your head on a pillow. Whatever you can put down you can also lay down.
The real tricky part is the tenses of these verbs.
The tenses of the very to lay (to put, place, or set) are:
The tenses of the very to lie (to rest, recline) are:
I hope the helps.
By the way, this is all from VERBAL ADVANTAGE, pp. 20-22. I highly recommended this book to everyone.
One last point: the word "laid" used as a euphemism for "getting f**ked" isn't found in the abridged American Heritage Dictionary or the Unabridged Random House Dictionary. It's slang, and doesn't really fit into this context.
But my question is where this definition came from. Since laid is the past tense of the verb meaning to put, place, perhaps this raunchy definiton is derived from the idea that a guy "put a girl in bed" and had sex with her. Of course -- if you really want to push this idea -- that would mean that the phrase, "I'm gonna get laid," is probably grammatically incorrect.
But let me lay this issue aside.
[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited September 01, 2002).]
It's a lot harder to do than the good/well distinction. Once you realize that "good" is an adjective and "well" is an adverb, it's easy to assimilate the distinction into your everyday usage.
The other nice thing about the good/well distinction is that their superlatives are the same:
I forgot to mention this in my last post, but I think a grammar thread would be great. I was looking around the message board a few nights ago and noticed that one person foolishly suggested that it's a detriment to a writer to know too much grammar. His reason: the more he studied grammar the poorer his writing got.
Sorry, that doesn't float with me. Grammar is a writer's tool--perhaps more important than vocabulary. If you can't use proper grammar, then you don't know how to use the tools correctly. It drives me nuts when an amateur whines about how the tools hinder him or her. That's because he or she hasn't taken the time to really learn how to use the tools correctly. It's not the tools fault that their user is a dunce.
If you don't know how to use the tools, then you don't know how to write with clarity. And clarity is the key to communication. And communication is the essence of both fiction and non-fiction.
However, it's possible to a stickler for details. A good example is the "rule" that says, "Thou shall not end a sentence with a preposition." That's a myth. Writings such as Chaucher, Shakespeare, Milton, Melville, Twain, and Hemingway have all ended a sentence or two with a preposition.
But I suspect that these masters knew grammar like the back of their hand. When they broke the rules, they did so deliberately.
I've found the best grammar guide to be William Zinsser's On Writing Well. Zinsser was a journalist, and in the chapter entitled, "Bits & Pieces," he talks about verbs, adverbs, adjectives, punctuation, etc. I read that chapter every so often to keep it fresh in my mind.
One last tip: if you use a word processing program with a grammar check, either turn it off or customize the settings. If you're not knowledgeable in grammar, it can really lead you astray.
And remember, Erasmus said, "God does not much mind bad grammar, but He does not take any particular pleasure in it."
[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited September 01, 2002).]
quote:
One last tip: if you use a word processing program with a grammar check, either turn it off or customize the settings. If you're not knowledgeable in grammar, it can really lead you astray.
Can you explain this further? I use MS Word and I love it. I'm not too bad at grammar. It saves me a lot of time and thought about the spelling, grammar and synonym/homonym identification. What can it do to mess you up?
Chuck
[This message has been edited by huntr (edited September 01, 2002).]
[This message has been edited by huntr (edited September 01, 2002).]
JOHN!!
I apologize for not be specific.
Yes, MS Word grammar check can be very helpful when it comes to subject-verb agreement, wordiness, and typing mistakes (putting a comma instead of a period, for example).
What I find annoying about it is that it will indicate an error when there is no error. For example, in one of my previous posts in this thread I wrote:
quote:
I was looking around the message board a few nights ago and noticed that one person foolishly suggested that it's a detriment to a writer to know too much grammar.
JOHN pointed out another annoying aspect of MS Word: telling me that a sentence is too long. Yes, there are sentences that are too long. And yes, I believe that a period is a writer's best friend. But sometimes long sentences are preferred. And when a long sentence is preferred and that green squiggly line appears, it drives me nuts. (I'm glad that I can turn this option off!)
The problem with MS Word grammar check is that it doesnt make distinctions (what computer program can?) in its suggestions. It will indicate a mistake--put a comma after "noticed"--because the sentence fits a pattern and part of the sentence is correct (according to the pattern) and another part of the sentence is wrong (according to the pattern).
However, my comment stems from my experience reading my sisters' high school and college papers and my wife's reports for work. There will be an egregious grammatical error and when I correct it they say, "Well, that's what I had, but the computer told my I was wrong."
So maybe I was a bit rash in my criticism of MS Word's grammar check (I find its spelling check to be a godsend!). It can help--it helps me!--but it can really screw things up if used blindly. Thus, either customize the grammar check to those things you know you need help with (I always need help when it comes to wordiness) or turn it off completely and find a good copy-editor (preferably yourself). Just don't rely on a machine that doesn't understand the finer points of the English language and sentence structure.
That was my point.
[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited September 01, 2002).]
Lie doesn't take an object (do anything to anything else). Lay takes an object--there is always something that you are laying somewhere.
I lie down when I take a nap.
I lay myself down when I take a nap.
I hope that helps.
quote:
I was looking around the message board a few nights ago and noticed that one person foolishly suggested that it's a detriment to a writer to know too much grammar.
I tried this and no problem. Perhaps I have a newer version. Office 2000.
I have noticed in similar sentences that the checker points something out and I make a changes like this:
A few nights ago I was looking around the message board and noticed that one person foolishly suggested that it's a detriment to a writer to know too much grammar.
This small alteration in the sequence, which makes it linear, often will read a little smoother.
This feature has worked well for me so far. I do agree with John. It is a trifle slow.
Thanks for the info. I will be on the lookout for gliches.
Chuck
[This message has been edited by huntr (edited September 01, 2002).]
According to Webster's, an antithesis is "the rhetorical contrasts of ideas by means of parallel arrangements of words, clauses, or sentences."
On of the most famous antithesis is from JFK's inaugural speech: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." Another good example is by Edmund Burke: "He generally chose his side like a fanatic, and defended it like a philosopher."
The King James Bible is filled with antitheses:
If you really want to study antithesis, you need to read the master of paradox: G. K. Chesterton. Here are some examples:
In literature, a great antithesis is found at the opening of Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities: "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity...."
To understand what makes these sentences good antitheses, we have study how the phrases contrast each other. In order:
What I find most interesting is that the antithesis can depended on one word (proud...humble) or on a clause (country can do for you...you can do for your country), or on several words (chose...defended; fanatic...philosopher). The key is to have a parallel structure with contrasting word(s) or phrases in each. That's what makes a good antithesis.
Of course, this isn't a technique that can be forced; it must come naturally to the writer. But you can't do it unless you're aware of it.
I hope this helps.
[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited September 02, 2002).]
quote:
I was looking around the message board a few nights ago and noticed that one person foolishly suggested that it's a detriment to a writer to know too much grammar.
quote:
A few nights ago I was looking around the message board and noticed that one person foolishly suggested that it's a detriment to a writer to know too much grammar.
But the more I thought about it, the more I liked my original version (the non-linear) better than Chuck's rewrite. (Just a personal preference; nothing against Chuck.)
The way I see it, this is a grammatical issue that is also a style issue, isn't it? In other words, if I chose to end my last sentence with a period it would have been grammatically incorrect. If I said, "But that's part of my style," you all would laugh and consider me a hypocrite (based on my previous posts). Yet, if I choose to write in a non-linear fashion, can that be a matter of personal taste (i.e. style) or is there something grammatically incorrect about it?
Another question I have is about when a comma should be included in a sentence that begins with a prepositional phrase. For example, let's take Chuck's rewrite:
quote:
A few nights ago I was looking around the message board and noticed that one person foolishly suggested that it's a detriment to a writer to know too much grammar.
Frankly, I think a comma after a 3-5-word prepositional phrase is a bit much: it makes for clunky reading.
[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited September 02, 2002).]
quote:
The way I see it, this is a grammatical issue that is also a style issue, isn't it? In other words, if I chose to end my last sentence with a period it would have been grammatically incorrect. If I said, "But that's part of my style," you all would laugh and consider me a hypocrite (based on my previous posts). Yet, if I choose to write in a non-linear fashion, can that be a matter of personal taste (i.e. style) or is there something grammatically incorrect about it?
You are quite right, it is a matter of style. Your construction is fine, and it was taken out of context.
I was just using your sentence as an example to show what my grammar checker has shown me on occasion.
After gazing at my sentence construction pointed out by the checker, eventually I see that it is in fact clunky. After a few attempts at rewriting it, the results are much better, and usually shorter. I seem to be sensitized to this after encountering it frequently in my own writing.
Chuck
[This message has been edited by huntr (edited September 02, 2002).]
[This message has been edited by huntr (edited September 02, 2002).]
As to Word’s grammar checker, I have word 2000--the grammar checker sucks. I can always tell when someone has used it. "Hey, wait a second." John said. That's the biggest one. It tells you to put a period instead of a comma in dialog. There are many other oddities it suggests as well. Way weird ones.
I have found that Word Perfect has a better grammar checker, at least its suggestions make sense even if I don't use them.
Pick up a good grammar book, or subscribe to Dailygrammar.com---take a class. Nothing can beat good knowledge of grammar.
Just like spell check doesn’t catch form for from, grammar checkers base their suggestions on a construct formula. It can be wrong.
Shawn
I don't really understand your post. Who is the "you" that suggested that bad grammar is a matter of style? I completely agree: bad grammar is bad grammar.
But I it also seems to me that there are certain issues of grammar that are open to debate. All of my high school teachers went nuts if their students ended a sentence with a preposition. Yet, some of the greatest masters of English prose did it. Isn't it a matter of style?
Another issue would be the use of contractions. In a formal paper -- such as an academic paper -- contractions are a big no-no. But in an informal non-fiction piece and in most fiction, contractions are acceptable. Again, an issue of grammar that is contingent on style.
Additionally, wouldn't the use of sentence fragments fall into this category? In fiction, a sentence fragment is an effective way to highlight an issue. Yet, it's grammatically unacceptable in formal writing. This is particularly true when the sentence fragment is also a paragraph. Stephen King uses this effect very well.
My specific question had to do with linear vs. non-linear sentences. It seems to me that there isn't a rule about this. Is this not a matter of personal taste (i.e., style)?
[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited September 03, 2002).]
There are grammar rules for each form of writing. What I refer to are obvious incorrect uses.
The people that were in the dining room. Should be The people who were in the dinning room.
The wizard crouched down next to the building in purple.
?? a building in purple? No they mean the wizard.
They didn’t have no money.
Self explanatory, I hope. Unless you have a character who speaks this way.
Things of that ilk. Some things are open to the sort of document it is, but many things are simply bad grammar. In the editing work I do, I have often had an author assert that their way is correct because it is style. Some things are style, and some things are bad grammar.
It all goes along with the rule---you better know the rules well, before you break them.
The post was a mere random thought brought on by the thought of how many people claim style to cover a lack of true grammar knowledge.
Shawn
[This message has been edited by srhowen (edited September 03, 2002).]
quote:
As to Word’s grammar checker, I have word 2000--the grammar checker sucks. I can always tell when someone has used it. "Hey, wait a second." John said. That's the biggest one. It tells you to put a period instead of a comma in dialog.
Now that's another odd thing, this problem also doesn't exist in my Word 2000 version. Maybe they fixed the errors.
Chuck
Another I see confused a lot is which or that.
That introduces information that the sentence can not do without, it does not need a comma.
Which is used for a choice, or for new information that may not be needed in the sentence, non-essental, and is used with a comma.
There are exceptions, but this is the general rule.
Shawn
[This message has been edited by srhowen (edited September 03, 2002).]
Some easy rules on them,
Always a comma before but, unless it is at the start of a sentence.
use a comma with a conjunction if there is a complete sentence on both sides of the conjunction. A quick list: and, or, but, so and for, use a comma, also because, since after, although, where, when and so--when joining two complete sentences.
Examples,
I went to the store, where did you go?
I went to the store, and John went home.
If you can take out the conjunction, and use a cap and a period or other end mark and have two complete sentences then you need the comma. If they are not two complete sentences then no comma.
On a related note, the semi colon is another I often see misused. You can join sentences without a conjunction by a semi colon, but the information in them must be related.
I went to the store; we were out of milk.
As for commas--come on! Those are simple
There are two ways to use semicolons that I know of. Shawn has already noted the most popular way: using the semicolon to connect two related independent clauses.
But there is another, older way to use the semicolon. When you have a parallel phrases that uses the same verb, you can use the semicolon to separate the phrases and then omit the verb in the second (and third) phrases.
Emerson gives us a great example: "Thought is the blossom; language, the bud; action, the fruit."
The comma after "language" and "action" takes the place of the omitted verb, which the reader mentally inserts.
But you have to be careful that the verb is the same in each clause. For example, this construction won't work: "We like science fiction; Jack, mystery." This contruction is wrong because the reader can't mentally insert "like" into the second phrase; "Jack like mystery" is grammatically incorrect.
Another point you must consider is how the sentence sounds to the reader. You don't want to write an awkward sentence such as, "I read a book by Asimov; Anthony, Jordan." Even though the verbs match, the inner ear hears that I read a book writing by a guy named Asimov Anthony Jordan or, more likely, that I read a book written by three people.
[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited September 04, 2002).]
What they tell me is that you must be careful about adhering hard and fast to rules of comma use.
Rule: Use a comma with a conjunction.
Examples:
She didn't like Joe because he was rich and famous.
She didn't like Joe, because he was rich and famous.
The first sentence means she liked Joe for reasons other than his being rich and famous. The second means she didn't like Joe for just those reasons. Adhering to the comma with a conjunction rule may result in an unintended meaning.
According to Pinckert, there are such things as Formal and Informal writing, and punctuating by sound.
Examples:
As the team leader, she was expected to set the example, but the sport camp had not prepared her well.
As the team leader she was expected to set the example, but the sport camp had not prepared her well.
As the team leader, she was expected to set the example but the sport camp had not prepared her well.
The first sentence is correct rule-wise, but is choppy when read. The other two read better, have a more comfortable flow, yet each breaks a rule--one leaves out the comma before "but" and the other leaves it out after the introductory phrase.
quote:
I went to the store, and John went home.
When sentences are short, you can omit commas with conjunctions.
Pinckert writes, "The overall rule in either Formal or Informal is, if you can do without a comma, leave it out. Let the flow of the sentence, the way you string your words, phrases, and clauses together, do the work." And then he cautions, "Before you throw away the rules, be very sure you have an ear you can rely on to tell you where the marks should go."
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited September 04, 2002).]
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited September 04, 2002).]
[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited September 14, 2002).]
FINALLY someone who can guide me in the right direction when it comes to putting a comma after a prepositional phrase that opens a sentence. Could you outline the rules for me. I write academic non-fiction (about to begin work on a Ph.D.), informal non-fiction, and some fiction.
Let me give you some examples to analyze.
Last night, my wife and I went to a movie. Could this sentence be written without a comma?
After such a long day, I went quickly to bed. Again, do I need a comma?
After finishing Book One of THE REPUBLIC, I realized that justice is more than a ethereal concept: I realized that that it is a state of inner harmony between the mind and the soul. Can I omit the comma here?
From what I've gathered, a comma isn't needed in the first example becasue the prepositional phrase is so short, but it is needed in the third one becasue it's so long. The second example can go either way.
Also, my use of the colon in the third example. Would a dash also be acceptable? (It seems that academic journals tend to scorn dashes whereas popular magainzes tend to scorn commas.)
It's so nice to have an editor on board!
PS - Thanks for the book recommendations!
[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited September 13, 2002).]
Like you said, popular magazines usually only use commas where they're absolutely necessary. This is the reason why they are evil. Just kidding. Fiction can also use a very open punctuation style, but doesn't have to. But for academic nonfiction, you should use close punctuation. (In case you don't know what "open" and "close" mean, "open" is loose, and "close" is strict.) Also, a dash could work there, but not if it's going in an academic journal. Stick with something a little more formal, like a period, semicolon, or colon. I think the colon works well there.
I noticed that I typed part of my question wrong. It should have read: "It seems that academic journals tend to scorn dashes whereas popular magazines tend to scorn colons," NOT, "...popular magazines tend to scorn commas."
Nevertheless, you still answered my question about using a dash or a colon. I think the colon works best because what comes after the colon elaborates on what comes before the colon.
Thanks again.
* * * *
Now I have another question: Could you give some advice about the word "only."
In The Writer's Art, James J. Kilpatrick has about a page on the proper use of "only" and, frankly, I just don't get it.
Here is one of his examples: "French people only make love in bed." He says that this construction makes him wonder if they sleep on the floor. Huh? I don't get it.
But if Kilpatrick is right, where should the "only" be placed? Should the sentence read: "French people make love only in bed"? And if so, why?
How does the word "only" work?
Now to the "only" question: Whatsisface says not to use it because it allegedly implies that the only thing that French people do in bed is make love, meaning they don't do anything else in bed. I think this is stupid. Would you make such an assumption if you read that sentence? No. You would think that French people don't make love anywhere but in bed. If you wanted to follow his advice, then that second sentence would be the correct choice (they make love only in bed). Maybe some people would misread that sentence, but it seems to me that he's trying to misread it.
Lots of people say lots of things about usage, but here's a good rule: Let common sense prevail. If you write something and people think it's ambiguous, you should reword it. If nobody has a problem with it, then ignore advice like that.
[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited September 13, 2002).]
[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited September 13, 2002).]
quote:
Here is one of his examples: "French people only make love in bed." He says that this construction makes him wonder if they sleep on the floor. Huh? I don't get it.But if Kilpatrick is right, where should the "only" be placed? Should the sentence read: "French people make love only in bed"? And if so, why?
It actually took me a moment to figure out what was “wrong” with the first sentence. It’s like that black and white drawing. You know if your eyes focus on the black it looks like a candle holder, but if you look at the white part it’s two people about to kiss. I think regardless of where you place the word only it’s meaning is easily understandable. Maybe there is a wrong way and a right way, but to me it’s a aesthetic thing. Personally, I think the second sentence flows better, but I have no problems with either.
JOHN!
[This message has been edited by JOHN (edited September 13, 2002).]
Logically, we know that French people must also sleep in their beds, so we don't even consider the possibility that they use their beds for nothing but making love. People who write books about issues like that really need to get back in touch with reality.
[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited September 13, 2002).]
Another example he used was from The National Review: "The dispute over the Voting Rights Act isn't a dispute that can only be held in philosophical quarterlies." He claims that the only belongs after held.
Finally, Kilpatrick himself says that "on the matter of the misplaced only, I am as crotchety as an old bear with a thorn in his paw."
In a way, this discussion really highlights Jon Boy's comment that, in the end, a lot of grammatical issues have many shades of grey.
And JOHN! - you did a great thing by starting this thread!
[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited September 14, 2002).]
Well, now that I've beaten that dead horse, does anybody have any other questions? This is rather fun.
Kirkpatrick is correct. If the French use their beds for lovemaking only, they must sleep elsewhere, yes?
The French only make love in bed. When they are tired, they sleep in the kitchen.
Forget the kitchen table; the French make love only in bed.
[This message has been edited by JeffElkins (edited September 14, 2002).]
Well, that's an intelligent addition to our discussion.
quote:
The tenses of the very to lie (to rest, recline) are:
You lie down when you are tired today.
When you were tired yesterday you lay down.
When you have been tired in the past you have lain down (lain is always preceded by have or had).
Okay, I get this, well I get it now, but I’m still having a few problems. Check this sentence out.
He lie on his back, staring upward.
Now, were I speaking to someone I would probably say, “He lied one his back…” or “He laid on his back…” From what been said here both of these variations are in correct. The above was a educated guess---I’m I right?
[This message has been edited by JOHN (edited September 16, 2002).]
This just doesn't sound right to my Midwestern ear. Some confusion with the other verb is bound to occur for a second, which is not the best for smooth reading.
Word 2000 says it is incorrect, but I don't think it recognizes lie as that particular verb, only as an untruth.
Sometimes I throw up my hands and rephrase it differently, just to avoid the uncertainty.
Chuck
[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited September 16, 2002).]
Now I know enough about grammar to use it but I don't know the proper names for some words. Forgive me if I sound like I'm four.
Is which a word like but or and where you only use a comma when a complete sentence follows.
John ordered a pizza and drank some beer. (no comma needed)
John ordered a pizza, and he drank some beer.
(coma needed)
I don't think this applies to "which" because how often does a complete sentence follow that word? I have no idea really. I use a comma when it sounds like the narrator is saying something in passing or under their breath. Actually I'm just hopelessly confused.
JOHN!
i.e. "John ordered a pizza and he drank some beer."
Okay, here's the deal: "which" is a relative pronoun, which means that it relates something to another noun. Notice the sentence I just typed. The clause starting with "which" is a main clause; it has a subject ("which"), a verb ("means"), and so forth. The clause that "which" introduces relates to the noun phrase "relative pronoun." Wow. I hope that made sense. Now look at this other sentence I just typed. "That" is also a relative pronoun, but it is never set off by commas. This is because "that" is always restrictive, while "which" is either restrictive or nonrestrictive (though some people say that it's always nonrestrictive. Now that you're all confused, I'll give some examples.
Examples that suck confuse me.
Examples, which suck, confuse me.
See the difference? The first one restricts the meaning to only certain examples--ones that suck. In the second sentence, because the clause "which suck" is set off by commas, it shows that it does not change the meaning, but merely adds more information. It says that all examples suck and they confuse me. However, "which" can be either restrictive or nonrestrictive, so you can say
Examples which suck confuse me.
This has the same meaning as the first sentence. It's a lot easier with "who" because only the commas change.
Americans who are rich travel to Europe.
Americans, who are rich, travel to Europe.
Is any of this helping? Somebody stop me now if it isn't.
Thanks,
Shasta
[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited September 17, 2002).]
I did - and still do - enough formal writing that I catch my characters saying things like, "I do not feel the need for a beer." Good grief.
One of the things that has helped me is to narrate it in my head. If my narrator pauses or stops for breath, then in goes a comma or semicolon or whatever. then I go back and see if I can get away with it. I figure that if I can't read it aloud and have it make sense, then my readers don't have a chance.
I still have trouble with that/which, but Jon Boy's explanation has helped.
birdcastle
And a thought on what Birdcastle said about reading it aloud and having it make sense--that's a great guideline. There's a quote that says something to the effect of making yourself impossible to be misunderstood. I forget how it goes. Anyone?
[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited September 18, 2002).]
JOHN!
I personally don't like the rule because I would never speak the way he is advocating, it sounds wrong to my ear. To me "We will eat at the Forthings' tonight." sounds much better than "We will eat at the Forthings's tonight."
Dave
Strunk & White is only one possible set of standards, so there are many grammatically correct things that can be done that Strunk & White would not do. With possessives for words that end in s (and I believe this might apply sometimes also to z, x, and ce, although I'm not sure), both the ' and the 's forms are correct -- so in this case it sounds like your preference (and mine) is to depart from Strunk & White on this point.
Luc
So underline just the name of the play, Hamlet.
(Articles, short stories, or anything else that goes inside a book or magazine with other stuff, are set off by quotes.)
The problem with those comes when a foreign word has become part of the English language, but how does one know that for sure?
(Example, does one underline "Que pasa?" or not?)
I think it depends on whether the word or phrase is considered foreign in the context in which it is used.
[This message has been edited by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (edited October 12, 2002).]
JOHN!
[This message has been edited by JOHN (edited November 08, 2002).]
Bob picked up the letter and started reading aloud.
"'Dear Bob,
'I am madly in love with you.
'Sincerely,
Jane.'"
You start with double quotes to show that Bob's speaking. When he quotes something else, you switch to single quotes. If the quote extends over multiple paragraphs, introduce each paragraph with a quote but don't end it with one until the end of the quote. Does that all make sense?
She labored over the pages of the book, taking in each word although she had lived through every new story. Eventually she reach the final page written in John's own hand.
Imagine you're looking in
a mirror,but not an
ordinary mirror. A mirror...
That's another point, no one's speaking--do I still need quotations? I wouldn't think so. For some reason I think a colon should go in there somewhere too.
JOHN!
I'm not retarded---just a little bit slow. Like Corky.
[This message has been edited by JOHN (edited November 08, 2002).]
quote:
Bob picked up the letter and started reading aloud.
"'Dear Bob,
'I am madly in love with you.
'Sincerely,
Jane.'"
Because this is such a short letter, the format looks a little odd with the quotation-within-a-quotation marks. For shorter letters, I believe the following would be appropriate:
Bob picked up the letter and started reading aloud: "Dear Bob, I am madly in love with you. Sincerely, Jane."
Or:
Bob picked up the letter and started reading aloud:
"Dear Bob,
I am madly in love with you.
Sincerely,
Jane"
Then Bob did a cartwheel and broke his leg.
(My question here would be whether to put a period after "Jane." I think it would look weird there.)
(In the last example, I would center the letter, but this post won't let me do that.)
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited November 08, 2002).]
Albert slid the letter from the envelope with shaking hands and began to read.
quote:
Dear Albert,While I am madly in love with you, my father says I must never see you again.
Cybil
PS - Did you catch "Will & Grace" yesterday? Funny!
The quoted document is indented from both margins and usually in a different typeface, but not centered.
Example 2: Albert reads the letter.
"What's it say?" said George.
"I haven't had the nerve to open it." Albert slid his finger into the envelope, but then slid it back out.
"You're such a wuss. Let me read it." George grabbed the envelope before Albert could react it. "Dear Albert, blah blah blah madly in love with you, blah blah blah. PS, did you see Will & Grace?"
"Is that all?" said Albert.
"She loves you. What more do you need to know?"
Example 3: A letter quoting someone else, in dialog.
"Read it for me," said Albert.
"Whatever," said George, and he picked up the letter. "Dear George: My father has said that I must never associate with 'that sniveling lump of guano' ever again. Of course he is talking about you, darling. Have you seen the new M&M's? They're gorgeous! Your sweetie, Cybil."
Luc
John's second question: If it's spoken and run in (not its own paragraph with extra spacing), then use quotes. If it's set off, then quotes aren't necessary. In general, set it off if it's ten or more typed lines.
John's third question: You can (but don't have to) use a colon if it's a phrase (not a complete sentence like "Bob said") introducing the quote and if the quote is longer than one sentence.
Now to Kolona: You're right. Since it was so short, it would've been better to keep it in the same paragraph. I was just using it to illustrate how one uses quotes for multiple paragraphs. For that specific quote, your two examples work well. You do need a period at the end to mark the end of the quote, even though there wasn't a period there in the quoted material.
PaganQuaker: Do you have a style guide or manual of some sort that says that? Chicago doesn't say anything other than that quotes within quotes (which I assume to apply to a letter being read aloud) go in separate quotes. I've never heard anything to the contrary, but that could just be because I'm not well-read enough. Please share.
[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 09, 2002).]
But in that example, if I understand right, I didn't need the quotes -- because anything set-off whether spoken or thought doesn't -- but I did need the period.
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited November 09, 2002).]
Since I can't find a rule in Strunk and White or Chicago, I decided to check a real live book. I picked up Ender's Shadow and flipped to the beginning of a chapter. The email is set off (the margins are about a quarter inch wider, I believe) and there's no period after the sender's name. So there you go, I guess.
[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited November 09, 2002).]
She peppered her conversation with many turns of phrases.
She peppered her coversation with many turn of phrases.
She peppered her conversation with many turns of phrase.
How about just using "many phrases". We would still get the idea.
hope that makes some sense.
TTFN & lol
Cosmi
Regarding computer software programs - grammar and spelling check needs to be switched on to American English versus British English styles (if you are writing in American English style). Otherwise, you need to be fairly comfortable with both styles - most programs are automatically set for the British English version (which is more formal for sure)and could be causing some of the confusion.
And for those in the business/technical writing field - the rules are updated every couple of years to conform with "popular" (meaning widely used) grammar and formatting rules. The old 50's severely formal style is out. Some of you may still have supervisor's that insist upon writing in that style (you know - all past tense, CYA, "be" verbs, lengthy sentneces designed to confuse a triple Ph.D) in which case it is not worth spilling blood over . . . until YOU are the boss.
Happy grammaring! And many thanks for the reminders of how and when to use which particular word!
[This message has been edited by HopeSprings (edited December 12, 2002).]
My original inclination was to treat the phrase according to its individual parts and go with "turns of phrase." Then I made the mistake of thinking of similar examples.
To wit: In phrases like "turns of the steering wheel," although there are multiple turns of the wheel, there is still only one steering wheel, whereas in the sentence I listed above, there are multiple phrases, many of them turned. If we equalize the two phrases, and imagine (after all, this is an SF site) a car with two or more steering wheels, we would say "turns of the wheels," which is why I began to entertain the possibility of "turns of phrases" in the first place.
"Many phrases" won't work because a phrase doesn't have the same connotation as a "turn of phrase." She might use many phrases, but none of them may be particularly notable.
Yes, like a number of words/phrases, once you start looking at it intently, it does seem strange, but "turn of phrase" is a bona fide cliche.
Parsing? Bill Clinton, eat your heart out.
TTFN & 
Cosmi
If I were bent on writing this thing, I'd go with that in an instant. It even strengthens the connotation. But since this was just a Sunday morning mental annoyance, I'm still left with my very un-Earth-hangs-in-the-balance conundrum. We needn't muddle with it any longer, though. I'll just tuck it into a mind pocket and see if it'll stay there, at least till my next Sunday drive to church.
Oklahoma, that's where. One of those stupid songs has a bunch of repetative lyrics along those lines(I can't remember the lyrices themselves, but the "many a" form of the plural was featured heavily ).
If he was going to leave....
If he were going to leave....
If I was going to leave....
If I were going to leave....
Can't find the specific "rule" on this. Are these all correct?
In the subjunctive, "were" is the proper form of the verb.
If I were going....
If you were going....
If he were going....
It's kind of like the question of when to use "whom." If you use either of them properly, it can sound a little strange to most English-speaking listeners.
But if you don't use them properly, you can sound uneducated to those who do know how to use them.
I guess it depends on whose opinion matters most when you are using them. <shrug>
If he was/were going to die, he'd at least like to know she was safe now.
However, in the example you give, you are writing the thoughts of a character, and you have to ask yourself if the character would know how to use subjunctive.
In the first short story I had published, I had a character for whom English was her second language. I had her use "was" in a subjunctive sentence, and when the editor asked me about it, I explained that I was willing to risk looking like I didn't know how to use subjunctive because I wanted to show the character not knowing how to use it.
So, would your character know or care about such things?
English has three moods: indicative, imperative, and subjunctive. The indicative mood expresses facts:
I am happy.
The imperative mood gives commands.
Be happy. (Though this is a second-person address, it's "be" instead of "are.")
The subjunctive mood expresses requirement, suggestion, desire, possibility, etc.
It's necessary that you be happy.
If I were rich, I'd be happy.
For all verbs except "be," the only change occurs in the third-person present tense. All that happens is the "s" drops off the end. For forms of "be," the present tense becomes "be," and the past becomes "were." Because the subjunctive is only noticeable in third-person present and "be" verbs, most people don't even know it exists, and it's slowly fading away. I've actually heard of people correcting "if I were" to "if I was." Sad.
Oddly enough, Kathleen, it seems (from my experience, anyway) that people who speak English as a second language are more likely to know how to use the subjunctive mood than native speakers of English are. Now that's really sad.
anyway, i have always hated learning the names for every little aspect of English. the whole language seems too confusing to set out rules--there will invariably be an exception. i think the best way to learn English is to just read, then you can really get a feel for how to effectively communicate.
TTFN & lol
Cosmi
PS: i just read through my post and it made me groan. not so much because i disagree with myself, but because i despise anything that must be learned by "getting a feel for it". but how else can you learn a language? to memorize every rule and then go through them each time you want to form a sentence would be incredibly tedious....{sigh} now i'm just rambling.
[This message has been edited by Cosmi (edited January 20, 2003).]
I actually don't know that there's anything that can be truly learned any other way than by "getting a feel" for it.
by watching (visual learners)
by hearing (aural learners)
by getting a feel for it (kinesthetic learners)
and you could include taste and smell in there for some kinds of information.
Different people learn in different ways, and they learn different kinds of things in those different ways, as well.
Learning grammar by reading is probably more of a visual learning process than it is a kinesthetic one.
Hearing a language as you are growing up is more aural, and the grammar is learned implicitly and subconsciously more than it is learned explicitly and by rules.
If you want to learn more about such learning process differences, you could do worse than to start by reading a book by SF/F writer Suzette Haden Elgin entitled TRY TO FEEL IT MY WAY.
You're thinking of sentence types, not moods. I believe that set is declarative, interrogative, exclamatory, and imperative. Those have more to do with the structure of the sentence.
Moods, on the other hand, have to do with meaning. They're kind of like tenses, but they express a "feeling" instead of a time.
"I think the best way to learn English is to just read, then you can really get a feel for how to effectively communicate."
Absolutely. Studies have shown that learning grammar has very little impact on how well someone communicates. Learning usage on the other hand, is very helpful. It'll help you learn why to do something, whereas grammar just tells you what its technical name is.
Jon Boy~ thanks for clearing that up.
TTFN & lol
Cosmi
I do understand what you mean, though. You mean that a skill that seemingly cannot be fully described by a finite number of rules will always leave you "chasing a moving target" in your attempts to master it, and so no matter how much you enjoy the activity itself, you never feel satisfied by the learning process. Of course--again, I am just the opposite. Any finite learning process leaves me cold rather quickly