british or american grammar?

[holliday1960]

Quick grammar question please, not really to do with the thread, soz:

Before he could continue further, the two of them were surrounded by several young girls, all swishing hair, high heels and giggles. ‘Hiya boys, I’m Tania, my dad’s on the committee. So...is either of you single?’

Is it is, or are?


I'm at the point where I've thought about it too much and can't tell. Ta.

I know nothing of British vs Am. English rules. However, one method of determining the correct choice here is to always reduce the sentence to a simple subject and verb. (i.e. you are vs you is) It is much easier to determine using that formula. I assume this would work in any of the English speaking world.
As for usage of 'slang', it is virtually never going to be grammatically correct. It is what it is, so you go with what 'feels' best as it rolls of the tongue.
I have found, to my amazement, that the stories on Lit that rank highest with the readers are simply written. I constantly find myself 'over thinking' a story and I think this goes with our desire to write the best story ever written. It is why we become our own worst critic.

 

[RetroFan]

I will tend to vary the grammar depending on where I set the story.

If set on a rainy day in America, I would say that the 'clouds were gray'; in England or Australia, 'the clouds were grey'.

My advice is be careful with more obvious details such as distances and seasons, for example in Australia kilometers are the standard distance, while in America it is miles. If the setting is England or Australia between summer and winter use autumn, if in America use fall.

Character dialogue is also important, for example a female character who is British, Irish, South African, Australian or New Zealander would probably refer to her underpants as her knickers; an American or Canadian girl would refer to her panties.

 

[Athalia]

Possibly, in Britain, if you can actually cite a current British authority saying that--which you haven't. "What I was always taught" is a deep pit of uncertainty in this business.

Sorry. I cannot cite a current British authority. I can only relate what my teachers taught me. Maybe they were incompetent fools who misled me and scores of other students. At some point, I suppose I'll have to research the subject, but now I'm too busy.

Perhaps somebody else can cite a current British authority. Oggbashan?

 

[sr71plt]

Sorry. I cannot cite a current British authority. I can only relate what my teachers taught me. Maybe they were incompetent fools who misled me and scores of other students. At some point, I suppose I'll have to research the subject, but now I'm too busy.

Perhaps somebody else can cite a current British authority. Oggbashan?

The point is, of course, that recollection doesn't trump authorities in hand for anyone doing this writing seriously.

I sort of wonder what is a British authority on grammar and style. I've edited for two British publishers, but they both used the Chicago Manual of Style on what I edited because they are targeting the American market. The Oxford Dictionary is authoritative for British spellings/word usages. But does anyone know what the British publishers use for a grammar and style authority--for fiction?

 

[oggbashan]

I use the modernised Sir Ernest Gowers' Complete Plain Words.

The Oxford Dictionary publish several books on grammar and correct English. The standard work USED to be The King's English.

This one - The Oxford Guide to Style - is recommended

http://www.eng-lang.co.uk/ogs.htm

but there is no standard work as there is for American English.

 

[sr71plt]

I use the modernised Sir Ernest Gowers' Complete Plain Words.

The Oxford Dictionary publish several books on grammar and correct English. The standard work USED to be The King's English.

This one - The Oxford Guide to Style - is recommended

http://www.eng-lang.co.uk/ogs.htm

but there is no standard work as there is for American English.

Thanks, Og. Maybe that's why the UK publishers I worked with used the CMS. Sounds like the Oxford Guide to Style would do the trick. It would be nice if those asserting British style here would buy a copy and back up their assertions with some authority other than recollections from their high school teacher or their Aunt Hazel.

Writing isn't like political opinions. There almost always is a preferred way to do it if you seriously want to be in the hunt.

 

[PayDay]

to Ogg: You have great taste in cars. How do you feel about the American Duesenbergs?

Also don't forget the most epic (IMO) Brit car ever:
The Original Aston DB9 (2003)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aston_Martin_DB9

...and for everyone else, I know I posted this elsewhere, but you might find this useful:
http://www.effingpot.com/

'The American's guide to speaking British."

 

[oggbashan]

to Ogg: You have great taste in cars. How do you feel about the American Duesenbergs?

Also don't forget the most epic (IMO) Brit car ever:
The Original Aston DB9 (2003)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aston_Martin_DB9

...and for everyone else, I know I posted this elsewhere, but you might find this useful:
http://www.effingpot.com/

'The American's guide to speaking British."

Duesenbergs were great street cars - for celebs to be seen in - but they weren't great driving cars like the Silver Ghost or the Phantom, and the Aston Martin.

Apart from the classic 1920s Bentleys, I liked the Lagonda L45 Rapide. One of my cousins owned a Rapide. It was a fantastic car to drive but used too much of the UK's highly-taxed fuel.

I enjoyed driving one of these (1960s Lotus Elan):

but I couldn't bend myself to get into it now.

 

[Handley_Page]

Personally, I found the Lagonda a bit draughty & wet (it had a hole in the floor and I was being given a lift back to camp by it's owner), but the car I fancied as a Frazer-Nash.
See Here.

 

[oggbashan]

I would like to own a Bristol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Cars

 

[PayDay]

Sydney Allard’s 1961 Allard Chrysler dragster*

http://www.myrideisme.com/Blog/hemi-nostalgia-dragster-europes-first/

 

[PayDay]

Ford Anglia Gasser Racer Album:
Those are British, Right?
http://public.fotki.com/VincePutt/drag_racing/gassers/angliagassers/

1949 Anglia E494A updated:
http://www.hotrod.com/cars/featured/hrdp-0902-1949-ford-anglia/

 

[oggbashan]

Ford Anglia Gasser Racer Album:
Those are British, Right?
http://public.fotki.com/VincePutt/drag_racing/gassers/angliagassers/

1949 Anglia E494A updated:
http://www.hotrod.com/cars/featured/hrdp-0902-1949-ford-anglia/

Yes, they are. They are descendants of the original Ford 8 (that's 8 horsepower 900cc) of the early 1930s and were made up to 1959 as the cheapest car sold in the UK.

 

[PayDay]

Yes, they are. They are descendants of the original Ford 8 (that's 8 horsepower 900cc) of the early 1930s and were made up to 1959 as the cheapest car sold in the UK.

Yeah, slow too. 0-60 in like 30 seconds. That's why us colonists ripped them apart

BTW: That Lotus... yummy.

 

[PayDay]

I've always had a thing for MGs/Midgets and Sunbeams, but my favorite of that style body has to be the Triumph TR4:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_TR4

One of the 1st cars sold in the US with 4 wheel disk brakes.

 

[redzinger]

I always wanted a Midget, but couldn't find one I liked.


*sighs*

 

[sr71plt]

Jaguar. Almost any model of Jaguar.

And, oh, yes, a dedicated mechanic to go with the Jaguar.

 

[PayDay]

I always wanted a Midget, but couldn't find one I liked.


*sighs*

They have the coolest banana yellow/black paint scheme option.

I see them come up for sale at car show car corrals every now and then, but they are usually already sold.

 

[PayDay]

This should be helpful to persons still looking for grammar in this thread:
http://www.translatebritish.com/

 

[Athalia]

I use the modernised Sir Ernest Gowers' Complete Plain Words.

The Oxford Dictionary publish several books on grammar and correct English. The standard work USED to be The King's English.

This one - The Oxford Guide to Style - is recommended

http://www.eng-lang.co.uk/ogs.htm

but there is no standard work as there is for American English.

Cripes. I go away for a week, and suddenly we're talking about cars.

Oggbashan, I thank you for pointing out this link. However, I don't see the reference to the "either of them is/are" dilemma. Is that addressed elsewhere on that site?

 

[oggbashan]

Cripes. I go away for a week, and suddenly we're talking about cars.

Oggbashan, I thank you for pointing out this link. However, I don't see the reference to the "either of them is/are" dilemma. Is that addressed elsewhere on that site?

I consulted my Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar.

The subject is covered under 'agreement' also known as 'concord'.

The normal rule is that the verb must agree with the subject - He works; they work.

Prescriptivists [the Oxford term for Grammar Nazis] insist that strict agreement is necessary, so they would want "Neither of them is".

But Notional Concord is also acceptable in British English, so "Neither of them are" is also correct, even if that annoys prescriptivists.

There is also Proximity Agreement or Proximity Concord, where the verb agrees with the closest noun, even if that is not the real subject of the verb - e.g. A parcel of books have arrived for you. The 'have arrived' should agree with the singular noun 'parcel', NOT the plural noun 'books'.

To quote the Oxford Dictionary verbatim:

Such agreement may be marginally acceptable when it supports notional concord, but is generally considered ungrammatical.

To sum up: In British English either of them is (concord) AND either of them are (Notional Concord) are BOTH CORRECT!

 

[Handley_Page]

Nice one, Ogg.
Thanks.

 

[SamScribble]

Most of the publishers for whom I have worked over the years have had their own house style guide. But, in the end, they all seem to lean towards Fowler's Modern English Usage, the Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors, and The Economist Style Guide. The Economist (a magazine that insists that it is a newspaper) seems to be the most concerned with reconciling the two sides of the Atlantic.

 

[sr71plt]

Most of the publishers for whom I have worked over the years have had their own house style guide. But, in the end, they all seem to lean towards Fowler's Modern English Usage, the Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors, and The Economist Style Guide. The Economist (a magazine that insists that it is a newspaper) seems to be the most concerned with reconciling the two sides of the Atlantic.

The publishers I've worked for use Fowler's as an authority--and often as the ultimate authority--but only the editions edited by Fowler himself, not the newer editions edited by Sir Ernest Gowers. I've often found Fowler's to be almost purposely obtuse and hard to decipher, cutesy and condescending in his examples.

The Economist Style Guide, I would think, like all of the other newspaper/journal/magazine ones, would be serving an entirely different style need than that used for fiction.

In its latest, 16th edition, the Chicago Manual of Style added a section on grammar for the first time--but I've yet to use it.

 

[fifty5]

i have only written one story that has been posted. i have another one that has been edited by a very helpful person, but as there are so many grammar issues i decided to go away for a few months, and learn more of grammar.

the big problem so far has been that i was taught british grammar rules, and as such i have found many things that i was taught in school, are improper when it comes to american english, as this is an international site, i am wondering which form of grammar is correct to use. should i stay with my british grammar or would it be more considerate to learn more of american grammar and spelling to make stories easier to read?

is it ever ok to use colloquialisms within writing. very basic examples being within speech. over here the words owt, and nowt are common terms for anything, and nothing but i have found that many americans have never heard of them. does such language detract from a story?

is it ever ok to write how someone speaks, especially in the case of a first person narrative? on a very basic level i mean for example that it would be very unnatural to write i have to go somewhere. when i speak i would say i've got to go somewhere, but this is not the correct form for american grammar.

i would be grateful for any comments as i am finding my writing has become very stilted due to my uncertainties of language.

Write owt yer like lass, there's nowt wrong wi' that!

But put it in context - if it's a story about London folk you need to write it different to one about yorkshire tykes - and the introduction to your story would best make that plain.

Equally if your tale is about scousers, brummies, or folk from Newcastle, make them talk appropriately pet. The unspoken narrative should match its POV - if it's an Irish(wo)man telling the tale, the narrative should sound Irish, but not excessively so: hints enhance the story telling, but total accuracy of dialect will reduce readability to all but natives of that region.

It's all up to you - decide if you want to write with a regional accent, story by story, or everything under one nom de plume, then follow your star. You can't go wrong except by inconsistency! (Have a look at The Dalesman, if it's still being published: some of it is/was almost incomprehensible to fowk that don't live somewhere near the Yorkshire Dales, but it knew where it was comming from - and going to!)