When I first began writing, I knew my grammar was weak. I bought several grammar books, and I've read a few of them. They have helped to a degree, but besides the limited examples in the books, they don't make up for my lack of attention while in school. I know we have some people here that understand grammar to the point they could, or do, teach it.

So I was thinking that some of our experts might be willing to help those of us interested in vastly improving our understanding of grammar.

I personally am not yet happy with my grasp of the rules, and I would appreciate some assistance. People often times mention "breaking the rules", but I doubt the "rule breakers" are as good as they think they are. I am looking to move my writing within the rules, at least until I have a large enough grasp of them to feel confident in breaking some. I'm not positive I want to break them. While grammar checkers are helpfull, they are sorely lacking in explinations of why they are complaining.

So, if there are others out there who wish to learn. Assuming there are some volunteers willing to help teach. Is this something that could be done?

I know that grammar is the key to good writing, but college courses don't teach some of the basics that I've forgotten (or never learned). I'd like some help, and am hoping I'm not alone.

If you have a good dictionary, then you can look up terms for the various parts of speech, and learn how to decode those little abbreviations that mark words as in/transitive verbs and past tense and nouns and so forth. There really aren't that many, and most grammer problems can be solved by appeal to learning the various definitions words used in different parts of speech. Like the common confusion involving the intransitive verb "to lie" and the transitive verb "to lay" (the confusion arises because "lay" is also the past tense of "lie"), or the confusion of "affect" and "effect" (produced because both can be used as nouns and verbs, with quite different meanings).

I have a decent grasp of subject, verb, prepositional phrase. Adverbs and adjectives I've gotten down decently. The rest keeps slipping away....

Survivor: I want to understand the parts that make up the sentance. Sentance structure can change the way a sentance is interpreted. Some sentances have one clear way of interpretation, while others have several. I have spent some time trying to understand it all, but the dictionary isn't making it clear.

When I write software, I know how to sturcture the logic to achieve the results I want. Lucky for me, programming lanuages are more structured, and far less complex than grammar. But anyone who has written software knows that if you don't understand the structure, you can't get the efficiency or solid functionality that is desired.

S& W has three main advantages to other grammar books:

The truth is that sometimes, the books don't explain it in a way that clicks in my mind. I've just recently spent a couple months delving into the world of web development. Books worked without a hitch, and I'm happily hacking out some interesting (although ugly) things.

I get a example in a book. It makes some sense, but once I plant my but in the chair...I don't see the example.

I was hoping that some of the people who do understand, might help some of us who have a bit more problem making sense of it all. Books don't answer questions, and the only explination they give is the one that is there. People, on the other hand, can answer questions, and explain concepts in different ways.

I don't know if anyone else wants to admit it, but I doubt everyone here has a solid understanding of the way sentances are put together. I can "feel" my way through creating a reasonably correct sentance. I can tell the difference between a good sentance, and a bad one. The problem is I don't understand why it is good. I know that until I gain some understanding of why, my stories will suffer.

So I am hoping for help, and in the process I would like it to help other people who want to know as well. Poor sentance sturcture continues to plauge my writing, and doubt I'm alone.

As a quick example, I'll use a sentance from my latest wip.

quote:

---

The heat building in his ear would last for minutes.

---

"heat" is the subject.
"building" is a verb.
"in his ear" is a prepositional phrase
and "last for minutes" I have no clue.

Is this a good sentance? Could it be better? Probably. How do I make it better? I am sure people could come up with many variation which I would like better. Still, the original problem exists. Unless I understand the structure better, I will continue to write in a familiar, dull pattern.

It doesn't matter if I create the most intriguing story ever...it will fall short of what it should be. I don't want to just be able to name the pieces, I want to understand the pieces and their relationships better.

quote:

---

But anyone who has written software knows that if you don't understand the structure, you can't get the efficiency or solid functionality that is desired.

---

If I really thought it needed re-writing (which I don't), I might try "The heat building in his ear would last several/a few/five minutes [and twenty-three point five six three...seconds ]"

Lord Darkstorm, I think I understand what you want and need because you see, I learn much the same way. Reading a book can only get me so far. Somehow when someone else teaches it and you're there to ask questions and respond and you have motivation to learn because they're giving up precious time to help you out...somehow all of that makes it easier to learn. I agree. I am 27 years old and I want to go back to school. I have not learned nearly so much since i left school three years ago. I try, but I assure you it's not my old age that's getting in the way, it's the lack of the structure I've become used to my entire life. Perhaps it's become a crutch. I don't know and I don't care but the truth is I could really use it. That's part of why I'm taking online witing courses at Writer's Village University. (Plus the price is great...$60 for unlimited courses for a year.) I've even gone past most of their basic fiction courses and am now working on poetry just for something new and different to learn.

Anyway, enough about that. I just thought I'd clarify and hopefully show you that I understand what you mean and why you're asking this. I think, though, that the best option might be to try to find an adult grammar course in your area. This site isn't bad if you have a specific question and want to knwo the answer or if you want a critique and you feel you need some grammar help. I think a structured class might help you.

Alternately, I have a suggestion. How does it help you to know that "the heat building in his ears" is a complex noun? You want to write better sentences? Read better sentences and practice writing your own. Find an author who not only tells a good story, but turns a good phrase. Study what they do and try to emulate that.

A word of caution about that advice: Some people have a natural voice that is poetic and flowery. These people tend to think that anyone who doesn't is a bad writer. (I'll never forget the poet who marked up the first page of my novel...EVERY sentence he wanted worded differently, mostly in tune with his poetic rythm.) Despite what those people think, you can be a good writer and a plain writer simultaneously. You just need to tell a better story. In the end, a good story with mediocre writing will win out. ( mean, look at HP.

Your sentence:
<The heat building in his ear would last for minutes.>

"The heat" is the subject, modified by "building in his ear." "Heat" is a state of being. It can't act. The reader has subconsciously to abstract--to 'personify' the concept of heat. This is fine--we do it all the time ("the bus was late," "my watch is slow," "the newspaper says the factory is closing.") But is has a certain effect on the sentence.
Using a subject that requires less abstraction results in a different effect.
"He felt the heat building in his ear, and knew it would last for minutes."
Using a more abstract subject has a still different effect:
"The positive energy transfer into his ear was beginning to cause heat that would last for minutes."

quote:

---

How does it help you to know that "the heat building in his ears" is a complex noun?

---

To be honest, I'm not sure. Understanding the structure might not make my sentances better. Not knowing makes it hard to study other authors. I've looked through several books from time to time, hoping to find the rosetta stone to better structure. After a few hours I usually end up with a headache, and more confused than when I started.

I've played guitar on and off for 20 years, and when I practice, I can make it sound pretty good. It is still imitation of someone else. I lack the understanding of what I'm doing with it. One day I might learn more than the basic music I've learned over the years...might not. I do know that if I don't understand the concepts I will never do more than imitate and guess.

Writing is something I do want to be good at. I do want to understand it. I've reached a point where I'm tired of guessing, and want to understand the tools I'm trying to work with. I want to understand why "The heat building in his ear" is a complex noun. With any form of art, be it music, painting, writing...talent only gets you part of the way. I honestly don't have the talent to make my writing great, without knowing the grammar to back it up.

Back when I was a bit younger, I wanted to paint. So I found someone to teach me. I think I took about 3 lessons before the woman I was learning from told me I didn't need her. The most valuable thing she taught me had nothing to do with painting. She told me I had a lot more talent than she did, and that talent only gets you part of the way, and after that you have to work to make it good. I've found this to be true.

I have no problem putting in the time to learn. I want my writing to be better, and sentance structure is the biggest problem I can see at the moment. Take the Harry Potter books. People have problems with the way it is written, which leaves the story to carry it. I have written short stories that my test readers have had no problem reading, and it was interesting enough to get them through the whole thing. It could be so much better.

I don't want my writing to end up like my guitar, collecting dust in the corner. I'll probably order the diagraming sentances book once I'm done writing this. I'm even going to check out the Writer's Village. I have no objections for paying to learn what I want to know. I have a nice colleciton of writing books, as well as several grammar books. I've read most of them. That is one of the reasons I realized I needed to understand grammar better. The current book I'm reading had a list of phrases that are often times missues, or over used. Almost all of them looked very familiar, since they are littered throughout most of my writing.

I wish I could go back and pay attention to the english teachers...even though I remember all of them spoke in monotone.

quote:

---

A buzzing sound, just loud enough to invade his nap, woke him. James jerked his head up, looking around for the creator of the buzzing noise. His tail started flipping from side to side, dangling below his perch in the window. The sun was warm, and he had been having a pleasant nap; that was until the noise disturbed him. The buzzing sound came again from his left. His ear focused on the sound, his head following as he watched intently. A fly circled the black lamp landing on the side near the top; right where the lamp grew bigger. James was away, jumping lightly on the soft bed. It took him two bounds to reach the edge. Timing was almost automatic as he adjusted his back feet to touch the edge of the bed; his leap carrying him at the fly. He never considered his landing, only the fly was important. The fly was hard to see against the black, but James knew where to look. His jump carried him straight at the fly, but the fly buzzed off the lamp toward the ceiling before he reached it.

---

Ok, I decided to go with a paragraph from exercise I did a while back. It is a dead item at this point, and I don't have any person concerns about it at all. This paragraph is within my usual "style"...if you wish to call it that, and no matter what is said about it I won't get upset.

< A buzzing sound, just loud enough to invade his nap, woke him. James jerked his head up, looking around for the creator of the buzzing noise. >

And isn't that what really matters? We're trying to keep a reader engaged -- not in our sentences, but in our story. Keep the correctness of grammar to the side. More often than not if you edit your work with a mind geared towards clarity, you'll be fine.

Grammar IS important, but only in the sense that it aids us in making words and their meanings clear. I think OSC's point is that if we corrected every sentence to avoid splitting infinitives and dangling participles, we would not have a prose that flows or feels natural. I don't think "Understand the rules before you break them" is nearly as important as "know which rules you simply cannot break."

If it makes sense to the reader, you've done your job.

One other point, thought -- Survivor is correct when he asserts that you DO need to be sure that you're using the proper word in the proper manner. Lay/lie, than/then, insure/ensure/assure -- words like these can be very confusing. You need to know what these words mean and how they're properly used.

Actually, I very much like the original first sentence as it was. To me, J's revision:

"James woke with a jerk, searching for the source of the buzzing noise just loud enough to invade his nap. "

...doesn't work. What was just loud enough to invade his nap? His searching? OR the buzzing noise? I know it should be obvious, but in reality it's unclear.

I think Christine is right -- you may need to work on style more than grammar. The entire paragraph is perfectly clear to me, though word-choice might be an issue.

I wuld probably search for the source of a sound, not a creator, but that's really a nit. LIkewise, you have him watching the fly before he's seen it. "...his head following as he watched intently." That's the first we actually know that he sees the fly. His head probably followed as he "searched" intently. Then in the next sentence he actually sees it -- a fly circling the black lamp. Also, remember things happen in chronological sequence in fiction: The fly circled the lamp, then it landed on the lamp. Again, a nit, but I think it would be stronger.

Other than that, to me it's really just an issue of style. To me, "James took off" or "James flew from his perch" is more active and more claar than "James was away". The latter could mean two different things.

You talk about his leap/jump carrying him straight at the fly twice in the same paragraph, which strikes me as repetitive. I think that last sentence can be modified since we already know where his jump was taking him. "Just before James reached the lamp, however, the fly buzzed off..."

The main sentance is "A buzzing sound woke him." while "just loud enough to invade his nap" is the extra to clarify.

"buzzing" is an adjective describing sound, and sound should be the subject. While "woke" is the verb, and "him" is the object. Do correct me if I am wrong.

Subject: Sound
Verb: Woke
Object: Him

That's the backbone of your sentence-- Sound woke him.

A indefinite article buzzing verb sound noun
A buzzing sound subject

, comma to set off parenthetical material, in this case a modifier

just adverb loud verb enough adverb (I think…someone please check me on this one to preposition invade verb his pronoun nap noun , woke verb him pronoun.

Well, there’s the parts of the sentence, for all they help. It is written in a valid manner. It is written in the active voice, since the buzzing sound, the subject, causes the action, waking. It conveys quite a bit of meaning. The most striking thing about the sentence is the buzzing sound, since it is the subject. It becomes the focus in my mind. The human character, of whom I know only that he is male, takes a backstage because of his placement in this sentence. I know he is napping, though, because of the words “nap” and “woke.” By itself, a perfectly good sentence.

James noun, also the subject jerked verb his pronoun head noun up preposition, comma sets off introductory material looking verb around adverb for preposition the indefinite article creator noun of preposition the indefinite article buzzing adjective noise noun.

Now we have James as the subject, the most important player. This sentence is also written in the active voice. James is the one who jerked. I have an image of James yanking himself out of bed, even though no bed was mentioned. For all I know, he was sleeping in a barn, but there is a cultural bias at play here and so I picture him in a bed. We are also made aware that he does not know what made the buzzing noise from the previous sentence.

With two sentences and a little bit more knowledge, I will venture to make some suggestions, mostly in word choice. The grammar is fine. There are no errors and I daresay you have probably conveyed meaning accurately, but I see from this thread that you want more. That’s fine. I know OSC and a few others say you shouldn’t care about word choices and just concentrate on story, but that isn’t enough for everyone and I’m willing to play around if people are game. 

In eighth grade my teacher had us do something in English class that I found to be the most helpful thing for my writing to date. She had us combine sentences. She would give us list of two to six sentences ranging in length, structure, and choppiness, and have us convey all that information in a single sentence. It was brilliant. I learned to use conjunctions, semicolons, commas, and I learned to think about delivering information in a more concise manner.

Let’s reflect:

“A buzzing sound, just loud enough to invade his nap, woke him. James jerked his head up, looking around for the creator of the buzzing noise.”

James jerked his head up, searching for the source of a buzzing noise that disturbed his nap.

What you said in 26 words, I said in 17. I have also done the following: made the human, James, the main player from the start of this paragraph. This means the reader does not have to shift focus in the second sentence. I also did not repeat information. In the first sentence, though it was perfectly correct, you reinforced the fact that James had been sleeping with the words “nap” and “woke.” We essentially got this information twice. You had also repeated the fact that there was a buzzing noise/sound by splitting the information into two sentences instead of condensing it into one.

Now, while we know in my sentence that the noise was enough to wake him from his nap, we miss that it was *just* loud enough to wake him. If this information is important, you may need to write it as you did or find a way to convey it in a following sentence. I suspect, however, that it is not all that important.

The other change I made, and I think for the better, was a word choice. You said he looked for the creator of a noise and I said he looked for the source. The connotation of the word “creator” is such that it distracts the eye. I see that word and I suddenly consider religious implications. I also wonder why James would think that this sound has no logical source and simply appeared as God created the earth. Creation is a powerful word. Source is not such a powerful word, but in this sentence I think it conveys meaning without creating (hehe) a distraction.

“A buzzing sound, just loud enough to invade his nap, woke him. James jerked his head up, looking around for the creator of the buzzing noise.”

You could also try breaking it up into tiny sentences, which gives a very different rhythm:

A buzzing sound woke James. It was just loud enough to invade his nap. He jerked his head up. He looked around for the source of the sound.

Still active, still most of the same word choices, but this one is clunky and boring. It doesn't really flow from one sentence to the next. Why not? Why do some sentences flow and others not?

Christine's grammatical breakdown actually shows how helpful diagramming is. Although she's basically right on individual parts of speech, she's not totally correct with those words in their context here. Many words can be different parts of speech in different settings. Most troublesome are the verbals -- infinitives, participles, and gerunds -- which are verbs tricking writers and readers by doing the jobs of other parts of speech.

Mapping or diagramming a sentence gives you a picture of the structure of a sentence, and helps because you know each word has to fit somewhere. Starting with a basic who/did/what, you quickly find that 'buzzing' isn't a verb, at least as far as these sentences are concerned. 'Buzzing' is a verbal, specifically a participle, which are verbals that act as adjectives. (What kind of sound? A buzzing sound.)

In the interests of this exercise, these sentences could have been written with 'buzzing' as a noun: A buzzing woke James. In fact, if word count is important, since a buzzing is a sound, adding 'sound' can be redundant; same with 'buzzing noise.' As Christine mentioned, 'just,' and 'around' as well, may be superfluous, too, depending on word count necessity and style. So you could write: A buzzing, loud enough to invade James' nap, woke him. He jerked his head up, looking for the source of the sound. (I've also introduced James in the first sentence instead of using a pronoun at the outset. Whether this is strictly stylistic or advisable, I'm not sure.)

With 'just loud enough,' the trick is to figure out which word is the one that can stand alone, without the other two: just to invade, loud to invade, enough to invade. So 'enough' is the word that modifies 'sound.' Both 'just' and 'loud' modify 'enough,' though a case might be made for 'just' to modify 'loud.' In any case, 'enough' is an adjective since it modifies a noun, and 'just' and 'loud' are adverbs since they can modify adjectives and other adverbs.

'To invade' is another verbal, this time an infinitive, with 'nap' as its object. 'His' modifies 'nap,' which makes 'his' an adjective, specifically a pronomial adjective, not a pronoun. (That's why I object to making up new names like 'complex noun' for these things. There are enough high-falutin' names in grammar already that scare people away. ) The whole infinitive phrase, 'to invade his nap,' modifies the adjective 'enough,' so the whole phrase is acting as an adverb, I think. (Don't let any of this fool you. I'd never pretend to be one-hundred-percent accurate on this stuff. )

James/jerked/head is the who/did/what of the second sentence, but 'his' is again an adjective, and 'up' an adverb that modifies 'jerked,' as in 'James jerked up his head.' (Where/how did he jerk his head? He jerked his head up.) 'Looking' is another verbal, a participle, since it's acting as an adjective modifying 'James.' 'Around' is an adverb (Where did he look? Around.) The adverbial prepositional phrase, 'for the creator,' modifies 'looking,' and is modified by the other prepositional phrase, 'of the buzzing noise.'

This is so much easier to draw than to explain in words. I give anyone credit who followed all that.

Why do some sentences work and others not? With short choppy sentences like these -- "A buzzing sound woke James. It was just loud enough to invade his nap. He jerked his head up. He looked around for the source of the sound." -- there is no sentence length variation. In fact, continuous use of short sentences gives a juvenile feel to the writing, although short bursts of them can convey hurry and breathlessness. Every word, phrase, sound, meaning and a host of other aspects, including some very subjective ones, cause sentences to work or not.

The points of grammar are the reason we have editors. Edit: Ah, that's better.

If, however, you really feel you need to know grammar, study a foreign language. That is the only way you will begin to appreciate why anyone should care whether "building" was a participle or a gerund. Though I guess that's a cruel tease. If you can replace a verbal with an adjective, it is a participle. If you can replace it with a noun, it is a gerund.

The buzzing sound...
The nasty sound...
*The cube sound... (* means the wrong choice)

I hate the buzzing.
*I hate the nasty.
I hate the cube.

It also goes like this for building phrases. If the whole phrase can be omitted from the sentence and it still makes sense, that is a whole phrase.

[This message has been edited by franc li (edited December 08, 2004).]

GRRRR....you know what, Kolona, I actually ended up doing those sentences twice. I had almost finished typing up that whole thing when my browser crashed and I had to do it again. I almost didn't, but I rushed through and the second time, in my rush, I made buzzing a verb when I knew perfectly well (and typed it correctly the first time) that it was an adjective in this case. Thanks for noting the correction.

Some of the other things, though, made my head spin. This is why we need this discussion of grammar, I think. I like knowing these things and so do other people. The fact that Kolona was the first to correct my errors tells me that I'm not the only one who doesn't know this stuff. I'm iffy on a couple things Kolona said, but perhaps we can work it out together.

"just loud enough to invade his nap."

Also if someone does not feel grammar is important to know and understand, I respect your opinion. I want to know, since I feel it is important for my writing. Not trying to upset anyone, but if you want to debate the value of knowing grammar, let's start another thread.

Ok, just wanted to get that out before I pull out my grammar books and start trying to make more sense out of the commments...

The grammar info is incredible! But what say we start out by simply defimning some of these terms? Everyone knows what an adverb and an adjective is, same for noun and verb, but how many people truly know or understand what a participle is? Or an Infinitive? A gerund?

Laying out the groundwork on those would make much of the remaining diagraming much more easily understood. That is, if we're trying to help improve our grammar skills....

And the foreign language comment was spot on -- nothing will make you appreciate why grammar is broken down the way it is than will learning a new language....

I think it is starting to make a bit of sense. I hope no one minds me rehashing it a bit just looking at the sentance.

sound is the subject
woke is the verb.
"sound woke" with him being the affected object. (right so far?)

buzzing describes what kind of sound, even though it could have been the subject itself.
just loud enough to invade his nap is describing the type of sound...

verbal - a word that comes from a verb but does not function as a verb. out of one of the books

Every sentence has a verb and a noun, though the noun can be merely understood, as in "Go." which has 'you' as the understood subject. Of course not every sentence will have a direct object, the 'what,' but that question helps the diagrammer to focus, and can be extrapolated to mean 'all the rest of the sentence.'

Verbals look suspiciously like verbs, but act like other parts of speech.

Infinitives: A 'to be' verb form, although the 'to' can be understood. Can be used as nouns, adjectives, adverbs. Can also be in past tense, as in 'to have been used.'

Participles: Present tense of a verb with '-ing' tacked on, or past tense with '-ed,' or can be the past participle of an irregular verb, like 'stolen.' Act solely as adjectives.

Gerunds: Present tense of a verb with '-ing' tacked on, so can be confused with present participles. The difference is, as franc li noted, gerunds act only as nouns.

I feel your pain, Christine. I've had that happen -- losing a post. It's so disheartening, because you always feel like the first version was better since it was typed without the frustration.

Yeah, my head was spinning, too.

A cat. How could I not have known! Actually, I think it was the 'perch' that threw me. I pictured a bird cage or parrot stand in front of a window, but the fly and the jumping made me think frog. Go figure.

I would hope we all understand what adjectives and adverbs are, but I would like to note that since the same word can be used as different parts of speech and verbals need their role in a sentence defined, it's good to know the questions asked by adjectives and adverbs.

Adjectives: What kind? Which one? How many?
Adverbs: How? Where? When? To what extent?

Beth mentioned the value of poetry, and I think she's right, and foreign languages are undoubtedly a plus. I like diagramming though, because it's like working out a puzzle.

And speaking of puzzles, I've been puzzling over this for a while: "The heat building in his ear would last for minutes."
heat - noun
would last - verb
for minutes - prepositional phrase modifying 'would last'
the - article, adjective
building - participle (verbal used as an adjective modifying 'heat,' as in 'the building heat')
in his ear - prepositional phrase modifying the participle

Teaching anything is a fantastic way to learn, yanos.

LordD, you're jammin'. (Do people still say that?)

quote:

---

'His' modifies 'nap,' which makes 'his' an adjective, specifically a pronomi[n]al adjective, not a pronoun.

---

With that in mind, let's do 3 and 4:

" His adjective describes tail tail noun and subject started verb acting as an adverb...describes the flipping? flipping verb from preposition side noun to preposition side noun, dangling verb below preposition his adjective perch [noun/b] in [b]preposition the indefinite article window noun. The indefinite article sun noun and subject was verb warm adjective, and conjunction he pronoun and I think also a subject had helping verb been helping verb having verb a indefinite article pleasant adjective describes nap nap noun; semicolon usage to combine two things that could be separated by a period into one sentence that adverb to describe was? was verb until preposition the indefinite article noise noun disturbed verb him pronoun.

Once again, all grammatically correct and all active. I hope I've done a better job of labling the parts of speech this time...and if someone can check why that coma's ok there...I know it is but I can't put it into words. It separates two things that both use the same subject...

FYI, I *still* have not read this whole paragraph.

His tail started flipping from side to side, dangling below his perch in the window.

As soon as I saw that James had a tail I knew he was a cat. I reread the sentence because it's weird to write a story from the POV of a cat. Given no other information about a living being, we will assume that it is human, white, male, and middle aged...did you know that? I learned that in a very good graduate level psychology class about stereotyping. Now, you can be judgemental about that information, but I merely found it valuable for writing. That's our base assumptions. (BTW: this even holds true for minorities, women, and people older or younger than middle age...I can't speak for non humans though ). So when I see that he has a tail it takes me a minute to realize he was a cat. It's weird. I have to adjust my view of the "world" that is your story. That doesn't make the sentence bad or even the presentation. You have to ask yourself...is it more important that a buzzing sound woke James or that James was a cat? It will depend upon the story. Also, you may want the reader to think, for a short time, that James was a cat without getting into that witholding information business. You can make that work for a little while.

So I know he's a cat because he has a tail and, like cats will do, he is perched on a windowsill. (My cats like to knock things off THEIR windowsill ) Mostly, this sentence told us that James is a cat, but it did it better than by coming right out and saying it. You gave us description, not as much as we might suppose because we don't know how big or what kind, but at this moment we've all inserted our favorite cats onto him. My childhood cat was black with gold eyes, so that's what I tend to see at first.

"The sun was warm, and he had been having a pleasant nap; that was until the noise disturbed him. "

This strikes me as a..."If we lived here we'd be home by now." sort of thing, especially the first part "the usn was warm". I know the sun is warm. You told me he was having a nap and I rather assumed it was pleasant. I also knew a noise distracted him. What's your point? BTW, this is not the type of thing I would usually point out on a critique, even an in-depth one, unless it somehow really annoyed me or unless you did it a lot. It's just there. I know it's true to it doesn't come with any Oh yeah? problems. It's just one sentence so I don't have time to get to So what? and it's pretty clear so there's no Huh? But in this in-depth analysis I ask you why it's here.

And, in case you have to leave it here, I also suggest a rewrite:

"The sun was warm and he had been having a pleasant nap until the noise disturbed him. "

The comma was not precisely wrong. It was one of those commas you can put in there if you want to keep the sentence read at a certain rythm, but since the and only connects a list of two (the sun was warm =1 and he had been having a pleasant nap = 2) I also like to avoid semicolons because they break rythm, especially when used in this manner to separate two things that could have been two sentences. But look...I was able to remove two words, remove the semicolon, and get the meaning across with a smoother flow to the words. It's not really a grammar thing, though..it's just a style thing. There was nothing technically wrong with the way you had it before.

I tell you another thing, though...this way it doesn't feel quite as much like rehashed information. Now it sounds more like a look into the POV character's head...like he's sighing. He had been having such a nice nap and now he was awake and isn't that terribly annoying?

The pen is hers.
*The pen is her.

I want her pen.
*I want hers pen.

Hopefully you can see that the pronominal adjective is used in front of the noun, while the possessive pronoun is used after a verb, in the place of a noun phrase. (replacing a noun phrase the the role of all pronouns).

The kicker is that they mean the same thing, but which you choose will depend on what you are trying to emphasize, the rhythm and relative length of the sentence, It is something we generally do automatically.

I got tail as the subject, with His being an adjective specifying who's tail. Now started flipping is more confusing, since I know one of them is the verb...or both? started implies a time frame...or the begining of...so I will guess that flipping is the main verb?

from side to side is a prepositional phrase (Right?), but from what I was reading last night to side is an infinitive. So to side adds to from side to complete the exlpination of the flipping which would make the whole prep phrase an adverb? Or is it an adjective?

On a side note, I thouhgt of another reason as a writer to study grammer. In order to avoid grammatically ambiguous sentences (and therefore ambiguous meaning).

For example:

It is illegal to send obscene material through the federal post on purpose.

"on purpose" is an adjective phrase, but what does it modify?
Does it mean that the sending has to be on purpose? Or that you have to know that the material is obscene? Or maybe that you intentionally used the post? Or maybe that you knew that you were using federal (as opposed to private) mail? Or some combination thereof?
Ambiguous.

To add to what franc li said so well, and since we're delving into the deep stuff as someone else said, possessive pronouns don't always act as adjectives. Sometimes possessive pronouns actually act as pronouns, taking the place of nouns.

Do you see the fun here? And the confusion? Possessive pronouns, which should act like the pronouns they are, are thought to always act like adjectives, but -- surprise! -- these pronouns can act like pronouns! But verbs can act like adjectives and nouns if they're verbals. I'll tell you, grammar is not for the faint of heart.

quote:

---

His tail started flipping from side to side, dangling below his perch in the window.

---

Again: Parts of speech are often determined by context, since many words give us a choice. And again: Who/did/what.

Tail/started/flipping. The reason 'started' can't be a verb acting as an adverb is because when verbs don't behave as verbs, they're verbals: infinitives, participles, or gerunds. 'Started' is obviously not an infinitive, and no one's suggesting it's acting as a noun so it's not a gerund. That leaves participle, which can end in '-ed,' but participles act as adjectives only, not as adverbs.

Actually, I don't believe verbs ever act as adverbs. In fact, adverbs never act as anything but adverbs, calmly going about their business of modifying verbs, adjectives and other adverbs. So there is some sanity in grammar.

'Started' is the verb in the sentence. 'Flipping,' on the other hand, is a verb acting out of character. Since it answers the question, "What?", it's acting as a noun, so it's a gerund and a direct object. (Unless 'started' is one of those weird linking verbs like 'become' and 'remain,' in which case 'flipping' would be the predicate noun or nominative.)

Hmmm...my dictionary lists 'start' as either transitive (action verb needing a direct object) or intransitive (which may take a predicate adjective or predicate noun), and the definitions are confusingly similar. Well, my vote is transitive, action verb with 'flipping' as its direct object.

'From side' is a prepositional phrase modified by 'to side,' another prepositional phrase. 'To side' isn't an infinitive because an infinitive is a verb form, and 'side' isn't a verb. (Remember, infinitives, participles, and gerunds are verbals because they are forms of verbs.)

Yes, LordD, 'dangling' modifies 'tail' and though it looks like a verb it's acting as an adjective, so it's a ___________? Participle. (How funny is that? A dangling participle! No, no. Don't let me confuse you. 'Dangling' may be a participle, but it's not a dangling one. We'll save that for another discussion.)

Okay, if 'dangling' is acting as an adjective, it has to modify a noun, which is 'tail.' The two prepositional phrases, 'below his perch' and 'in the window' can't be describing James, if for no other reason than James as a noun is nowhere in this sentence. What question do the phrases answer? What kind? Which one? How many? How? Where? When? To what extent? I vote "Where" for both phrases, which makes them adverbial prepositional phrases. As adverbs, they can't modify a noun, which also means they couldn't modify James even if he was a noun in the sentence. What the first phrase modifies is the participle, 'dangling' (giggle), which acts as an adjective (the dangling tail), and the second phrase modifies the other phrase (adverbs can modify other adverbs).

quote:

---

The sun was warm, and he had been having a pleasant nap; that was until the noise disturbed him.

---

Christine was on the right track, although to be as specific as we're trying to be here, 'warm' is a predicate adjective (goes on the top line in a diagram with a slanted line before it instead of the straight line of a direct object). This is a compound (and complex) sentence, so 'he' is another subject, and 'had been having' another verb set. I do prefer Christine's rewrite here, though. But 'having' is the main verb, as opposed to the two linking/auxiliary verbs, 'had' and 'been,' and 'having' is a transitive verb, which means it takes an object, in this case, 'nap.'

Now here's where I get real unsure and, I'm sorry, but this is where diagramming helps me think. (Then again, why should I apologize? I'm not breaking any laws. ) This is why Christine's rewrite is so good: "The sun was warm and he had been having a pleasant nap until the noise disturbed him." The 'that was' is maddeningly difficult to diagram, and is really superfluous to the sentence. However, it may be a stylistic thing, either of the author or of the character's thought and/or speech pattern.

In any case, as the sentence stands, I'd say 'until' is a subordinating conjunction because it links an independent clause to a dependent clause (unlike the 'and,' which is a coordinating conjunction that links two independent clauses). Yes, 'the noise disturbed him' is adjective/noun/verb/pronoun as direct object.

But 'that was' is the stickler. I vote expletive, which according to Nan DeVincentis-Hayes, has "no function in grammar other than to serve as fillers, so they often blur the meaning of sentences and weaken their impact" and "since an expletive doesn't modify anything, it's diagrammed on a line by itself." That makes the most sense to me, but I'm open to suggestions.

Good point, J. Ambiguity creeps in so easily.

(Forget 'pronomial.' I keep typing 'infinite' instead of 'infinitive.' More fodder for the spelling Nazis, I guess. )
(In case you missed it, that was a joke. )

quote:

---

The 'that was' is maddeningly difficult to diagram,

---

"That" in this sentence is a complementizer. It is like a pronoun that holds the place of an entire sentence instead of just one item. "Which" can also be a complementizer. I think it is called a complementizer because it calls for a complementary predicate. I don't know how you diagram it in traditional English diagramming, because I learned to do binary diagramming for syntax. However, I think not knowing how to diagram something isn't a good reason to get rid of it. We'd wind up with some pretty weird and choppy prose if we tried that.

I also think it might be good to refer to "The" and "a/an" as articles rather than adjectives. An important distinction is that they don't take adverbs, and where a noun is not proper or plural or modified by an adjective, they are obligatory. In binary syntax, an article resides in the noun phrase whereas an adjective heads its own phrase.

quote:

---

The 'that was' is maddeningly difficult to diagram, and is really superfluous to the sentence. However, it may be a stylistic thing, either of the author or of the character's thought and/or speech pattern.

---

I have a better suggestion. The author had no clue what it is and just wrote it.

Seems to justify part of the reason I want to learn better grammar.

Now I do have a question...which is irrelevant, but franc li suggested not worrying about it....but it seems that franc li knows this stuff very well. Why suggest not learning something you already know?

Anyways, this is starting to make a hazzy kind of sense. I do appreciate the time everyone is taking. I might just understand this eventually.

But I'm wondering if LDS's problem is not so much with grammar, but with style. He needs to be studying style. And, like Christine suggested, the best way to study that is by studying other writers.

A quote from one of my favorite books on writing, "The Writer's Mentor":

quote:

---

Nicholas Delbanco has written that "to engage in imitation is to begin to understand what originality means." Revisit your favorite writers. As you read their work, make note of which elements of their writing style you would like to possess in your own. Their storytelling ability? Their original use of simile and metaphor? The precision of their language? The poetic nature of their prose? (And I--Dakota--might add, for the purposes of this discussion, the structure of their sentences.) Imitate for practice. Technical excellences can be learned through mirroring. Deconstruct a story, a passage, or a poem word by word, sentence by sentence. Examine it closely. Write a page or a poem in your chosen writer's vein. Now find a cognate segment in your work to use for comparison. What did you learn?

---

She goes on to suggest that you "imagine the many revisions" the piece has undergone, and to "look at the concision, the distillation, the intense coming together of sound and meaning."

[quote]The buzzing sound came again from his left.[/qutoe]

So we have the "buzzing sound" again, which if I remember correctly, sound is the subject, and buzzing is the adjective describing the sound.

came is the verb, with again being the direct object.

Correct so far?

quote:

---

Pronominal adjectives and possessive pronouns are different. It is not as apparent with his, but "her" is a p.a. while the P.P would be "hers".

---