posted
During my short lived college aspirations I used to sell my text books as soon as the semester ended and sometime when I was running low on gas I would sell them sooner.
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).]
posted
The best analysis I've found of the verbs to lie and to lay is in Charles Harrington Elster's VERBAL ADVANTAGE. He notes that distinguishing between these two verbs is a common fault among educated adults.
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 past tense of lie is lay: "Last night I lay in bed."
The past tense of lay is laid: "I laid the book here yesterday."
The tenses of the very to lay (to put, place, or set) are:
You lay a book down today.
You laid is down yesterday.
You have laid it down anytime in the past.
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).
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).]
posted
The thing I hate about the lay/lie connundrum is that even though I can get it right if I think about it, in common speech I still use them somewhat incorrectly.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Apr 2002
|
posted
That's my problem too: making the lie/lay distinction second nature.
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:
good, better, best
well, better, best
So all you have to remember is the distinction between well and good.
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).]
posted
Does anyone know of a book that actually lists verb conjugations? I mean, lists and lists of them. I know I've seen them for different languages over the years, but never for English.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jun 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).]
posted
MS Word is kind of stupid; the program isn't retarded just a little slooooooooow. This is really evidient in grammar check. I mean, I've beautifully crafted sentances, punctuated to the hilt to avoid run-on and I get the squigly green underline, Sentance too long. No such thing if you use proper punctuation. There's other examples but it's been so long since a disabled the damn thing I can't remember.
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.
MS Word grammar told me that I needed to up a comma after "noticed." Obviously a comma shouldn't be put there. But if you're unsure of your knowledge, you'd might blindly follow the computer's advice.
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).]
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).]
posted
This is a little off of the topic of grammar -- it's more of an issue of style -- but I just learned about it and thought I'd pass it on to you all. It's the antithesis.
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:
The harvest is truly is plenteous, but the laborers are few.
What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.
Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
If you really want to study antithesis, you need to read the master of paradox: G. K. Chesterton. Here are some examples:
On Robert Browning: "His work has the mastery which belongs to the complex; his life the much greater mystery which belongs to the simple."
"His intellect went upon bewildering voyages, but his soul walked in a straight road."
"He was not unintelligible because he was proud, but unintelligible because he was humble."
"He was not vain of being an extraordinary man. He was only somewhat excessively vain of being an ordinary one."
On medieval philosophers (my favorite): "It is not only true that they never discovered the steam engine; it is quite equally truth that they never tried."
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:
JFK - country can do for you . . . you can do for your country
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).]
posted
This is a question I have based on something Chuck (huntr) did with a sentence of mine. He took the following:
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.
And he changed it to the following:
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.
He thereby made my sentence linear and (perhaps) more readable.
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.
Technically, he should have put a comma after "ago." But I've heard that if a prepositional phrase is short (3-5 words), you don't have to put a comma after it; however, if the prepositional phrase is longer than 5 words, you need to put a comma. Can anyone confirm if these guidelines are accurate?
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).]
posted
ekk cringe, bad grammar is not a matter of style. I may upset you by saying that, but bad grammar is bad grammar. It is not style.
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.
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).]
posted
The you was simply a general second person address. No one person indicated.
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.
posted
Oh boy. I almost always would say "The people that are in the dining room." Something I wouldn't even put thought into.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Apr 2002
|
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.
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).]
posted
I've found Robert C. Pinckert's Pinckert's Practical Grammar to be the most coherent grammar book around, and Grammatically Correct by Anne Stilman is good, too.
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).]
posted
Most people think they need to learn grammar when they really need to learn usage and style. Knowing the rules does no good if you don't know when to use them. The beauty of (and trouble with) language is that it isn't just black and white--it's black, white, and shades of grey. It depends on your own voice and your audience. If you worry about these things, you should take a course on usage, not grammar. If you can't, then buy The Chicago Manual of Style and Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage. Know these books like the back of your hand. I'd like to answer every single post on this thread (being the editor and grammar geek that I am), but that'd take way too long, so I'll just leave it at that.
[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited September 14, 2002).]
posted
This is in response to srhowen's last post. Your comma rules are a little off. It's true that "where" can be a conjunction, but it's not a conjunction in your example sentence--it's an interrogative adverb. That sentence needs either a period or a semicolon. The second sentence doesn't actually need a comma because it's so short, though that depends on your preferred punctuation style (open or close punctuation or somewhere in between). In the sentence under the second example, you don't need the first comma because you're just joining two verb phrases, not two main clauses.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Sep 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).]
posted
Comma rules can be very tricky and vague. For introductory adverbial clauses (including prepositions) of two or three words, the comma may be omitted. Use your own judgment and see what sounds best. I often use commas with three-word prepositions. For four or more words, you should almost always use a comma. It depends on what you're writing. For the first sentence, you can omit the comma. On the second, you probably shouldn't. On the third, you really shouldn't.
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?
posted
Back to your last post, Balthasar: I changed my mind on your second example. You can omit the comma if you want, but as before, it really depends on the flow of the sentence and the level of formality.
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).]
posted
I think the picture example is great. It also took me a second before I went, "Oh, yeah, I see what he's saying." Technically, he's correct. Realistically, very few people will notice. The correct version eliminates any ambiguity, but I'd guess that the vast majority of people wouldn't notice anything wrong with the "incorrect" version.
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).]
posted
In James J. Kilpatrick's defense, the example I used was only one example, and more of a joke at that.
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).]
posted
I hope it doesn't sound like I'm trying to belittle Mr. Kilpatrick. However, I do think that it's not a big enough deal that one should become crotchety. Even with the other example sentence, I didn't misunderstand it, even though it's "incorrect." I think the same rule could go for most adverbs, but "only" is a good example because it's restrictive, so the change in meaning is more easily noticed. but still, it's not something I'd worry over unless misreading was likely.
Well, now that I've beaten that dead horse, does anybody have any other questions? This is rather fun.
posted
Wait! I'm not quite done beating that dead horse! I just thought of something interesting: In speech, the issue of the misplaced "only" is not an issue because of intonation. The subtle stresses and rising and falling pitches we use more precisely convey the meaning, so that specific problem wouldn't exist in speech. "The French ONLY make love in bed," versus "The French only make love IN BED." I just thought that was interesting.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Sep 2002
|
posted
>>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.>>
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).]
posted
Well, I'm bored, so I'm going to dispel a couple more myths, specifically some myths about relative pronouns (that, which, who, and whom). The word "that" was used as a relative pronoun before any of the others, so it was common to say things like "the people that I like" or "Our Father, that art in heaven." People will tell you that "that" can never be used to refer to people. This is not true. The use of "that" to refer to people existed before the use of "who" or "whom." People also say that "which" cannot be used as a restrictive relative pronoun. This is also not true. Even grammarians cannot practice what they preach when it comes to this one. Well, that was fun. Enjoy these tidbits!
Posts: 83 | Registered: Sep 2002
|
posted
Okay, here's one. Is it stink, stank, stunk like sink, sank, sunk? So often I hear things like: It stunk to high heaven. Shouldn't it be "stank" there? This is probably a "Duh!" but it bothers me.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted
Both "stank" and "stunk" are used, but "stank" is more acceptable: "It stank." "Stunk" is always used for the past participle: "It has stunk."
Posts: 83 | Registered: Sep 2002
|
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.
posted
The correct way(s) to say that would be: He lies on his back (present tense); he lay on his back (simple past tense); he has lain on his back (perfect past tense). It depends on which tense you're using. "He lied on his back" would mean that he was untruthful on his back. "Laid" is incorrect because it's a transitive verb, which means it has to take an object. I hope that makes things a little clearer.
[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited September 16, 2002).]
posted
Thanks, I got it now. Okay, here's my next question---when is it appropiate to you a comma after the which? This is another reason I disabled the grammar check on MS Word. EVERY TIME you use the word you get the green squiggly line, telling you that you need a comma. I know this can not be correct.
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.
posted
It's true--the comma in the second sentence isn't necessary because the two clauses are short and closely related. But that's another issue.
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.
posted
I know this isn't a grammar question, but I figured it wouldn't be minded here. Can someone please tell me whether it's spelled "wierd" or "weird", and how to remember? It's the only e/i combination I've ever had real problems with-- and I have never been able to figure out how to straighten it out in my slightly dyslexic brain.
posted
I've found it helpful to lump "weird" with the "c's" in the old saw: "i" before "e" except after "c," ie, "I" before "e" except after "c" and in "weird." It may not rhyme, but it's weird enough to remember.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted
I really don't know if there's any helpful way to remember that one (unless you can come up with a mnemonic device or something). It's the only example I can think of that doesn't fit the poem. Just remember it's pronounced closer to "WEE-erd," not "WHY-erd." I guess that's a mnemonic device, but I don't know if it'll help.
[This message has been edited by Jon Boy (edited September 17, 2002).]
posted
I must admit that I have less trouble with verbs, tenses and the like than I do with creating a natural flow to my words.
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
