(ok a certain topic got off hand and was locked, no big deal. Lets just get back to what we were talking about) What are some good books that can help writer with grammar and usage? And I have a question, One thing I learned in journalism is never use "but" as the first word. Does this apply to all works of literature, or just journalism, and why is it so important?
Posted by Marianne (Member # 1546) on :
I have a copy of Strunk and White's Elements of Style sitting on my desk. It is a good quick reference guide for grammar. I am also reading Self-Editing for Fiction Writers by Renni Brown and Dave King. It covers things such as dialogue and POV. I have found it to be a handy tool.
Posted by Rahl22 (Member # 1411) on :
As for using conjunctions at the beginning of sentences, that is of course not necessarily a faux pas.
You must first know the grammar so that when you bend the rules in the name of fiction, you can do so with out being overbearing.
In this instance, once could begin a sentence with And or But effectively. Just look at any of the greats and I'm sure you'll find plenty of instances where this is true.
Posted by DragynGide (Member # 1448) on :
Two things.
First, the best place for anybody, of any age, to learn not only the rules of grammar and usage but also how to bend and even break them effectly, is in literature. Read books. Lots of them. It's how I learned; I was always so far ahead on this point in my English classes in school that I tended to make my teachers angry.
Second, if the word "but" is a forbidden word in the beginning of sentances, a certain sci-fi author we all know and love is surely sunk! *G*
Shasta
*edit: obviously, good spelling is another matter entirely.
[This message has been edited by DragynGide (edited March 04, 2003).]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 1512) on :
A lot of traditional grammar "rules" are really baseless, though some of them can be helpful suggestions. Starting a sentence with a conjunction is one of those rules. Some people will tell you never to do it, but never is a very strong word. Sometimes, you may have two independent clauses that you wish to join with a conjunction, but you want a stronger break between them than a comma or semicolon provides. Ultimately, the author is the one who has to make such decisions, because only the author knows exactly what they're trying to say.
Here are some of the books that I find handy for writing and editing:
The Chicago Manual of Style: This is the editor's bible. It's nearly impossible to be an editor without knowing this book, and it's incredibly handy for writers, too.
The Elements of Style: A little outdated, but still full of useful guidelines and tips.
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage: Not sure how to use a word or phrase? This book's got all the answers.
Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace: Similar to The Elements of Style, but not so prescriptive.
The Elements of Editing: A Modern Guide for Editors and Journalists: Another excellent addition to The Elements of Style.
Just remember: Don't let a bunch of rules stifle your writing. Don't avoid doing something just because a rule says not to. Figure out the reason for the rule, and then you can decide if it's worth following in a given situation.
[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited March 04, 2003).]
Posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (Member # 59) on :
Well, a lot of the traditional grammar rules have a rather wonky basis, but they aren't exactly baseless.
The wonky basis is Latin grammar, and the reason it's wonky is that Latin is Latin and English is English.
An example: split infinitives. The traditional rule is that you should never split an infinitive (which means that you never put something between "to" and the verb that goes with it--"to verb" is the infinitive form of the verb). So one of the "blurbs" for STAR TREK breaks this grammar rule because it has "boldly" between the infinitive "to go." ("To boldly go...")
The reason this is a rule in Latin grammar is because Latin infinitives are one word--so you can't put something in the middle. (It would be like trying to put something in the middle of a German infinitive, which is also one word. "To go" in German is "gehen" and how would you put "boldly" in the middle of that? "Gehboldlyen?")
So the rule is wonky because it has a wonky basis.
Other rules are not so wonky. The rule against dangling participles is one. (What, you may ask, is a dangling participle? It's a participle that refers to the wrong object.)
An example of a dangling participle that should make the problem clear:
"Being so awkward in a sentence, I never use dangling participles." ("Being" is the participle, and it dangles because the structure of the sentence indicates that it is referring to "I" when the meaning of the sentence indicates that it is referring to "dangling participles.")
Another example that may not be so clear:
"Running through the forest, the exposed tree roots kept tripping him."
Anyway, the point of all this is to support what Jon Boy said about finding out the reason for the rule and acting accordingly.
[This message has been edited by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (edited March 05, 2003).]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 1512) on :
*humble bow* Thank you, Kathleen. By the way, I love the word wonky. Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :
Of course, you should avoid breaking the "wonky" rules because doing so makes a phrase stand out as an exception.
The phrase, "To boldly go" will always call forth mental images of Capt. Kirk. "To go boldly" does not call anything but bold going to mind:
Posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (Member # 59) on :
I think "to boldly go" tends to feel more "poetic" than "to go boldly" in spite of the fact that, to me, "to go boldly" sort of echoes Robert Browning's "Do not go gently into that good night...." (Hmm. I wonder if I'm quoting that correctly.)
Posted by cicero (Member # 1602) on :
Interestingly, when the famous Star Trek catch phrase was given in its 'original' form during the first episode of the prequel series Enterprise last season, it was changed to the more 'correct' "To go boldy." Just an off-topic bit of trivia.
Edit: Corrected a typo
[This message has been edited by cicero (edited March 06, 2003).]
Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :
I think that someone wanted to portray Capt. Picard as more linguistically aware than his predecessor.
And KDW is quoting the poem correctly (does that matter?).
Posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (Member # 59) on :
It matter to me. Thanks, Survivor.
Posted by Doc Brown (Member # 1118) on :
Golly, the previous thread exploded right after my brilliant contribution. Woe is me!
I consider myself to be a pretty competent writer, provided I have a computerized spellchecker at hand. There are times when I absolutely must follow the rules of grammar, times when I should bend those rules, and times when anything goes.
Absolute rigid grammar: when I am writing a grant proposal to get a half million dollars from the Federal government, I need to follow the rules to a T.
Bent grammar rules: When I am writing prose, especially in dialogue, I can ofter build a better story by wielding semicolons and sentence fragments like hammers and saws. It's not something I do lightly, and I (hope that I) make a conscious decision to violate grammatical rules before fingers touch keyboard.
Anything goes: When I'm posting messages to Hatrack River Writers Forum, I can boldly split my infinitives. And my friends will understand me even if I begin a sentence with a conjunction. I bet I could even dangle a preposition and you'd still figure out what I was getting at.
[This message has been edited by Doc Brown (edited March 07, 2003).]