posted
This is a fairly dangerous subject--I might fancy myself a writer, but I'm a verified computer geek: just look at my Spock Ears! I've sworn by Shrunk and White's 'The Elements of Style' since I was a wee lad. As far as the MS Word Grammatik goes, I operate with it on full military thrust and I've learned to accept the inchworms as a fact of fiction. I agree with John that there is an annoyance factor there, but considering my habit of enjoying music just above a blistering volume while I write, a necessary annoyance it is. Like the language itself, I simply use it as another tool (albeit a curmudgeonly tool) to make amends for some of the higher brain functions that tend to fog during any writing session. Posts: 121 | Registered: Sep 2002
|
posted
MS Word's grammar checker really is lacking. If you have access to both Word and WordPefect, go into the options and look at how many things each can check for. Word's list is pretty short. Plus, it checks a lot of "rules" that are actually more mythical than factual, like the that/which conflict and split infinitives. But even WordPerfect isn't perfect. If you have a knowledge of usage and common sense, you shouldn't have to worry too much when the grammar checker pops up with something.
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).]
posted
Yeah, most spell and grammer helpers are aimed at the corporate market--basically to avoid executive embarrassment with mindless memos and meeting notes. I like it that way. Grammer rules are just too complex for a machine, and breaking/bending/inventing them can be a necessity in fiction. I still like to see the usual suspects though.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Sep 2002
|
posted
Just an interesting sidenot I learned a few months back. I used the word, incorrectly I might add, on an earlier post. Did you know that there is such a word as vaguer? I always assumed it was more vague. Hmmm, who knew?
posted
That is interesting. I think I say "more vague," but I say "vaguest." I never noticed that before. But you're right--that's how it is in the dictionary.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Sep 2002
|
posted
Here's a question for you grammar wizards. The first point in Strunk & White is that possessives on words that end in s should still be done like words that end in other letters; yet in nearly every print publication I read they don't follow this rule. Can someone explain it.
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."
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.
posted
It's just a stylistic issue, not a grammatical one, so there's no absolute, universal law on this one. I know that the Chicago Manual of Style also says to put the s at the end, like "Jones's." Unfortunately, being the poor college student that I am, I don't have any other style guides, so I don't know which ones say that "Jones'" is okay. I'm guessing AP Style does it that way.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Sep 2002
|
posted
Quick question. I'm writing an essay, and in it I mention Shakespeare's Hamlet. Do I quote or italicize the word "hamlet" or simply underline?
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Apr 2002
|
posted
In manuscript format, titles of books, magazines, and plays (and names of ships) should be underlined--so that they will be italicized when they are printed.
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.)
posted
A good rule of thumb on foreign words would probably be to just look them up. If they're in the dictionary, they've become a part of the English language. It depends a lot on what dictionary you use, though.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Sep 2002
|
posted
Quick question, pretty much just confirming what I think I know. If a character is reading a letter, or a story, or something, and I'm showing/quoting from it, how is it fromated? It will propoably go on for a page or so. Do I just center it all? That's what I think, but I'm not sure about italics and all that---I don't think they're needed.
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?
posted
How about if a character is reading to themselves?
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).]
posted
Note that in a letter, the contents of the letter do not need to be in separate quotes, even though a character may be reading the letter aloud. Also note that periods and commas go within final parenthesis. Thus:
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."
posted
This is going back to John's post following mine: If the character's reading it silently to themselves, then you don't necessarily need quotes. The rules become really flexible then. The Chicago Manual of Style says of internal discourse, "The choice--in fiction especially, but in other writing as well--should be the author's." For internal discourse, plain text, italics, or quotes can be used.
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).]
posted
Actually, in my second example, I meant "centered" as Luc explained it -- evenly indented on both margins rather than a true centering where each line would be centered separately and the letter would look like a poem rather than a letter.
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).]
posted
You're right that you don't use quotes if it's set off. But now I'm actually thinking that if it's set off, you wouldn't need the period. I can't find a rule in Chicago that says it's okay, but now that I've looked at it again, I think it would be weird to use a period if you were setting off the quote (with the understanding that the original material had no period, of course).
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).]
posted
Okay, what is the plural of "turn of phrase?"
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.
posted
I'm going for the cliche here. It was an odd thought on Sunday morning that I haven't been able to put to rest.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted
i think it would be "turns of phrase" as "phrase" is the object of the preposition. i try to think of related examples to figure this sort of thing out. you would say "turn of the steering wheel" and "turns of the steering wheel" not "turns of the steering wheels." or "he rounded the base" and "they rounded the base" not "they rounded the bases" (although you might b/c it would be hard to have many people round the same base in the same play, but that's another story...)
posted
My word - you all take me back to the early 80's junior high days when my honors english teacher said the ONLY thing that saved my butt when it came to grammar was that I was widely and well-read. (Sentence parsing was a nightmare - kudos to those of you that can do it.)
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.
posted
She peppered her conversation with "many a turn of phrase."
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.
posted
Heh heh...you want to know where I got the structure for that?
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 ).
posted
Hmmm...the only line I remember from "Oklahoma" is "Tried to stick 'im with a frog sticker." <Idea> Maybe they can use that in the Writing Decisions story! Nevermind...plagiarism. Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted
What you've got there is called the "subjunctive." (It means that you are speculating, not describing something that has or will actually happen.)
In the subjunctive, "were" is the proper form of the verb.
posted
Subjunctive is something most people learn about when they study a foreign language. I'm not sure exactly why that is because I think other languages probably use subjunctive as little (or care about it as little) as English speakers do.
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>
posted
Kathleen, is it the "if" that calls the shots or the context? For instance, a political prisoner fully expects to die although he's not sure he accomplished his goal:
If he was/were going to die, he'd at least like to know she was safe now.
posted
Kolona, if it were me, I'd use subjunctive there. He isn't dead and he can always hope.
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?
posted
The subjunctive mood has been fading out of English for centuries. In other languages (at least in Romance languages) it's much more prevalent.
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.
posted
just did what? Sometimes your one line responses are impossible to follow. Do you mean you speak english naturally without any formal training?
Posts: 173 | Registered: Dec 2002
|
posted
is "indicative" the same thing as "declarative"? i was also taught that exclamatory is a separate fourth "mood" (i wasn't taught to call them moods, but i can't for the life of me remember what my teachers called them).
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).]
posted
Well, actually, there are those who feel that people can learn things in mainly three different ways:
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.