StillStunned's collection of useful pointers for writers

[MillieDynamite]

I don't see how, according to Merriam-Webster,

interrobang noun
: a punctuation mark ‽ designed for use especially at the end of an exclamatory rhetorical question

 

[BobbyBrandt]

Most people could care less that writers say irregardless.

This misuse should have been nipped in the butt long ago. Maybe they are just escape goats for the broader problems of the decline of education, but even though I have been biting my time here, cringing at the next for par while they get off scotch free, its truly a mute point these days.

Face it: writing is a doggie dog world. I think I’ll just go curl up in a feeble position. Ex cetera, ex cetera, ex cetera…

 

[MillieDynamite]

If regardless is a dismissive state about what was just said, is irregardless a double negative that stresses the importance of said statement?

Most people could care less that writers say irregardless.

This misuse should have been nipped in the butt long ago. Maybe they are just escape goats for the broader problems of the decline of education, but even though I have been biting my time here, cringing at the next for par while they get off scotch free, its truly a mute point these days.

Face it: writing is a doggie dog world. I think I’ll just go curl up in a feeble position. Ex cetera, ex cetera, ex cetera…

 

[samhasstories]

Most people could care less that writers say irregardless.

This misuse should have been nipped in the butt long ago. Maybe they are just escape goats for the broader problems of the decline of education, but even though I have been biting my time here, cringing at the next for par while they get off scotch free, its truly a mute point these days.

Face it: writing is a doggie dog world. I think I’ll just go curl up in a feeble position. Ex cetera, ex cetera, ex cetera…

I find this post expecially troubling. It's literally killing me.

 

[alohadave]

Most people could care less that writers say irregardless.

This misuse should have been nipped in the butt long ago. Maybe they are just escape goats for the broader problems of the decline of education, but even though I have been biting my time here, cringing at the next for par while they get off scotch free, its truly a mute point these days.

Face it: writing is a doggie dog world. I think I’ll just go curl up in a feeble position. Ex cetera, ex cetera, ex cetera…

 

[StillStunned]

Now that the silliness has died down a bit, let's get this thread back up and running.

You and me, you and I

She says her love for me would never die
That would change if she ever found out about you and I

What's wrong with this? It's the overcorrection in "you and I". There was a time when people complained about the use of "you and me" and the time. "You and me are going to have a great time." The subject here is "you and me", but the subject form of "me" is "I". So grammatically the sentence should be "You and I are going to have a great time."

Unfortunately a habit developed of overcorrecting this and turning "you and me" into "you and I" everywhere. Even where it didn't need to be - see the line from the Bryan Adams song above.

Simple trick: if you can leave out the "you and" part, does it still make a proper sentence? "That would change if she ever found out about you and I" clearly doesn't. It should be "if she ever found out about me".

"The police were waiting for you and I you and me / Jack and I / Jack and me etc." because "The police were waiting for me."

This is true even when "you and I are" actively doing something in the sentence.

"She saw Jack and I Jack and me leaving the bank." "Jack and I" are doing something, but "she" sees us (not "we") doing it. The sentence is about who sees what or whom.

Note that depending how colloquial your style is you can still easily get away with writing "you and me are going to have a great time". It often sounds more natural, particularly if the sentence is only a fragment. "Who's going to be at the orgy?" - "Jack and me" sounds better than "Jack and I", even though the latter is technically correct.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

"She saw Jack and I Jack and me leaving the bank." "Jack and I" are doing something, but "she" sees us (not "we") doing it. The sentence is about who sees what or whom.

Correct.

You and I did it on the bathroom floor.

You and I are the doers. You and I are the subject. Use 'I'.

He gave facials to you and me.

He is the doer. He is the subject. You and me are the receivers of the doing. You and me are the object. Use 'me'.

I is the subjective pronoun. Me is the objective pronoun.

And you mention who and whom.

Who will give me a facial?"

Who is the doer (or potential doer in a question). Use 'who'.

I'm getting a facial from whom?"

I is the doer. What is I doing? 'I' is getting ... blahblah. Whom is the object of the doing. Use 'whom'.

Who is the subjective pronoun. Whom is the objective pronoun.

 

[StillStunned]

Another tip, one that probably isn't very useful most of the time but will make a big difference when you need it:

Alliteration

Alliteration, as we all know, is about matching sounds at the start of words. Simple enough, right? Simple Simon says, "Suck it!" Fflewddur Fflam. Bella the Bouncy. Papa don't preach.

There's one caveat, though: it's about *stressed* syllables. "Secret secretions" doesn't alliterate, because the stress in the second word is on the syllable beginning with "-cre". "Alternative alliterations" doesn't alliterate because the stress in "alternative" is on "-ter".

But "Arise, arise, Riders of Theoden" does alliterate. Because the stress in "arise" matches the stress in "riders". And because Tolkien knew all about alliterative verse. Similarly, "reading, writing and arithmetic" also alliterates.

So next time you want to use alliteration in your story, try saying the words out loud. If it sounds awkward, if you find yourself stressing the wrong syllables, you've probably got it wrong.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Now that the silliness has died down a bit, let's get this thread back up and running.

You and me, you and I

She says her love for me would never die
That would change if she ever found out about you and I

What's wrong with this? It's the overcorrection in "you and I". There was a time when people complained about the use of "you and me" and the time. "You and me are going to have a great time." The subject here is "you and me", but the subject form of "me" is "I". So grammatically the sentence should be "You and I are going to have a great time."

Unfortunately a habit developed of overcorrecting this and turning "you and me" into "you and I" everywhere. Even where it didn't need to be - see the line from the Bryan Adams song above.

Simple trick: if you can leave out the "you and" part, does it still make a proper sentence? "That would change if she ever found out about you and I" clearly doesn't. It should be "if she ever found out about me".

"The police were waiting for you and I you and me / Jack and I / Jack and me etc." because "The police were waiting for me."

This is true even when "you and I are" actively doing something in the sentence.

"She saw Jack and I Jack and me leaving the bank." "Jack and I" are doing something, but "she" sees us (not "we") doing it. The sentence is about who sees what or whom.

Note that depending how colloquial your style is you can still easily get away with writing "you and me are going to have a great time". It often sounds more natural, particularly if the sentence is only a fragment. "Who's going to be at the orgy?" - "Jack and me" sounds better than "Jack and I", even though the latter is technically correct.

Just between you and me, you and I need to have a quick chat about how to use 'you and me' and 'you and I.'