Grammar

[Emirus]

Are we talking straight, nondialect narration or dialect quoted speech?

In my original comment I was talking about usage in correct English, UK or US, but if a writer felt local dialogue was needed, whether it was Chicago or Glasgow, then that would be acceptable. But how many stories on here are written with, or need, local dialect?

 

[SimonDoom]

The word “of” is commonly used in social media (the coronavirus of grammar ) in the UK instead of “have” and I can’t immediately recall it being used on this site.

I’ve checked with Merriam-Webster and can’t find any reference to “drug” being an alternative to “dragged.” It does seem to me, and I could be wrong, it’s mainly a west coast usage.

I'm a West Coaster and I'm not sure it has any extra legitimacy here. I never use it that way. I can't recall it having any special currency here. But I wouldn't be surprised if many do because West Coast American English tends to be somewhat loose and flexible. People here have a casual attitude about things in general (on points of grammar I'm not at all like my geographic compatriots).

 

[jaF0]

The word “of” is commonly used in social media (the coronavirus of grammar ) in the UK instead of “have” and I can’t immediately recall it being used on this site.

That doesn't mean it's correct. As noted before 'could of' is simply incorrect for could've.

My redneck, hillbilly neighbors often use phrases like 'I seen', 'I've saw', 'I packed the groceries' (meaning I carried the groceries), 'I don't care to help' (meaning I don't mind helping) and all sorts of others, but that doesn't mean any of them are correct.

 

[NotWise]

The word “of” is commonly used in social media (the coronavirus of grammar ) in the UK instead of “have” and I can’t immediately recall it being used on this site.

I’ve checked with Merriam-Webster and can’t find any reference to “drug” being an alternative to “dragged.” It does seem to me, and I could be wrong, it’s mainly a west coast usage.

That usage is near the bottom of Merriam-Webster's page on "drug."

 

[NotWise]

In my original comment I was talking about usage in correct English, UK or US, but if a writer felt local dialogue was needed, whether it was Chicago or Glasgow, then that would be acceptable. But how many stories on here are written with, or need, local dialect?

I'd have a hard time putting a specific local dialect to the use of "of." It seems fairly common, because it's comfortable language -- it's the way a lot of people talk.

As I implied before, I think it's a way of spelling the contraction with have (could've, for instance) which when spoken would sound much like "could of." How do you feel about "coulda," "shoulda," etc?

For me, it's just an informality that will probably never cause me to misunderstand the sentence, so it isn't an important issue.

 

[jaF0]

How do you feel about "coulda," "shoulda," etc?

If'n I'ma gonna slang it, I'ma gonna slang it good and use cudda, shudda, wudda .....

 

[KeithD]

In my original comment I was talking about usage in correct English, UK or US, but if a writer felt local dialogue was needed, whether it was Chicago or Glasgow, then that would be acceptable. But how many stories on here are written with, or need, local dialect?

Umm, all of them who have characters who speak? Everyone speaks in a dialect.

 

[SimonDoom]

Umm, all of them who have characters who speak? Everyone speaks in a dialect.

True, but the narrative doesn't necessarily have to reflect a dialect. British and American writers who conform to commonly held English conventions write similarly but for spelling differences and differences in some word choices.

 

[NotWise]

True, but the narrative doesn't necessarily have to reflect a dialect. British and American writers who conform to commonly held English conventions write similarly but for spelling differences and differences in some word choices.

But neither does narrative have to be formal. Narrative can take on a wide range of voices, depending on the impression you want to give the reader.

I've toyed with the idea of a third person narrator who's almost a character, who speaks informally, and may not be trustworthy. It's a way of toying with the readers' interest.

 

[SimonDoom]

But neither does narrative have to be formal. Narrative can take on a wide range of voices, depending on the impression you want to give the reader.

I've toyed with the idea of a third person narrator who's almost a character, who speaks informally, and may not be trustworthy. It's a way of toying with the readers' interest.

Of course. Huckleberry Finn is one of my favorite examples of that.

 

[KeithD]

True, but the narrative doesn't necessarily have to reflect a dialect. British and American writers who conform to commonly held English conventions write similarly but for spelling differences and differences in some word choices.

Everyone exists with a dialect, which is established both in what they say and what they write (and, as I well know, can quickly change with a change in their environment). Some overthinking and over assuming and asserting going on here.

 

[Emirus]

That usage is near the bottom of Merriam-Webster's page on "drug."

To check if drug was an acceptable alternative to dragged I did use Merriam-Webster (instead of the OED as I would usually do) but I went to the word drag as being the logical thing to do not do it backwards. Whether drug is used in California, which I know it is, as dialect is immaterial. This is a worldwide site not just for Californian readers.

Would someone, unless they are presumably Californian, say “drug the chair over here, please” instead of “drag the chair over here, please?”

I put the phrase “I’ll give it a miss” in the draft of a story and an American friend couldn’t understand it so I omitted the phrase. No one in the UK would misunderstand but that wasn’t important. What is important is every reader should understand every word of every story I write and not have to use a dictionary or think I have made a mistake.

 

[NotWise]

Would someone, unless they are presumably Californian, say “drug the chair over here, please” instead of “drag the chair over here, please?”

I don't think anyone--even in California--would use "drug" that way. "Drug" is past tense, and the sentence is using it in present tense. People might say "That hounddog drug the chair across the room," instead of "That hounddog dragged the chair across the room."

I put the phrase “I’ll give it a miss” in the draft of a story and an American friend couldn’t understand it so I omitted the phrase. No one in the UK would misunderstand but that wasn’t important. What is important is every reader should understand every word of every story I write and not have to use a dictionary or think I have made a mistake.

I don't know how your American friend didn't understand "I'll give it a miss." It seems like a pretty common expression. I'd use it without reservation.

I'll agree that it's important for readers to understand the story, but you can't always write realistic characters that way. If that means readers might struggle a little reading it, then so be it. I'm finishing a story now that has Spanish expressions scattered around pretty liberally. I know a lot of readers won't necessarily follow every word, but it's more important for me that they know the character than that they understand every exclamation or term of affection.

 

[NoJo]

I shit you not: When I lived in US , I was asked more than once how come I spoke English so well when I wasn't from the US.

 

[SimonDoom]

Would someone, unless they are presumably Californian, say “drug the chair over here, please” instead of “drag the chair over here, please?”

.

As NotWise says, nobody in California would say that. Some Californians -- those who are less educated and literate -- might use "drug" as the past tense of "drag" in place of "dragged", but I assure you that's not standard dialect. I know many Californians, and they don't speak that way. They say "dragged."

That's why as a general principle you're probably better off using standard English conventions, unless you have a very strong command of the dialect of the region your characters inhabit.

 

[jaF0]

I'll give it a miss.

I'll pass.

I'll choose not to do that.



All the same.

 

[jaF0]

Does anything in this headline claw your eyes out the way it did mine?

"Zillow's chief people officer unpacks how the company is training managers for its new hybrid workplace"

 

[NotWise]

That's why as a general principle you're probably better off using standard English conventions, unless you have a very strong command of the dialect of the region your characters inhabit.

We had a short discussion on AMD's review thread about writing dialogue. She supported writing dialogue that was more natural than we often see here. Her opinion was based to some extent on dialogue in films.

I admit that I write fairly "perfect" dialogue. Even if some of the grammar might fail (I mean, how often do people use "whom" in spoken English?) or some expressions are colloquial, the sentences and the ideas are complete. If a speaker is interrupted or breaks off a sentence, than it's usually for dramatic affect.

Broken sentences, incomplete thoughts, and a lot of informalisms might work well in real life and in movie dialogue when you have intonation and visual clues to go with what's said. In the absense of those clues, the readers' understanding is probably better when the dialogue is more nearly "perfect."

 

[KeithD]

Would someone, unless they are presumably Californian, say “drug the chair over here, please” instead of “drag the chair over here, please?”

Yes, someone at a lower education level all across the United States might do that. I've heard it in the South. This would be character specific and you could have a character use "drug" instead of "dragged" (consistently) in dialogue if you were trying to succinctly distinguish this character as having a limited educational background.

Just about any screwy term can be used for a specific character's speech in your stories to establish the background of that character.

I'm not sure why this seems such a big deal. If the reader can't understand that different characters would use different sets of terms, and not always at a Philadelphia society level, they aren't very sophisticated readers.

 

[NotWise]

Another colloquial example would be the fairly common use of "acrossed" in the place of "across." It might also be written as "acrosst," or just "crosst." I don't think that usage is associated with a lack of education, it's just the way a lot of people speak.

That usage might be considered a situational variation in spoken vocabulary, rather than a grammatical error. Regardless of how the word is spoken, all those variations mean the same thing.

 

[jehoram]

I’ve checked with Merriam-Webster and can’t find any reference to “drug” being an alternative to “dragged.” It does seem to me, and I could be wrong, it’s mainly a west coast usage.

West coast? I first heard it when I was living on the Eastern Seaboard. It was part of a phrase I heard all the time there: "Look what the cat drug in!"

 

[SimonDoom]

We had a short discussion on AMD's review thread about writing dialogue. She supported writing dialogue that was more natural than we often see here. Her opinion was based to some extent on dialogue in films.

I admit that I write fairly "perfect" dialogue. Even if some of the grammar might fail (I mean, how often do people use "whom" in spoken English?) or some expressions are colloquial, the sentences and the ideas are complete. If a speaker is interrupted or breaks off a sentence, than it's usually for dramatic affect.

Broken sentences, incomplete thoughts, and a lot of informalisms might work well in real life and in movie dialogue when you have intonation and visual clues to go with what's said. In the absense of those clues, the readers' understanding is probably better when the dialogue is more nearly "perfect."

I think if you can pull it off, it's a good idea to write natural dialogue -- broken sentences, incomplete sentences, filler words like "um" and "like", use of regional terms, etc. But it's a bit harder to do, especially to do well. I do a little bit of that, but generally speaking my characters speak in a more grammatically correct fashion than people usually do. With dialogue a little goes a long way. A hint of local word choices and pronunciation will usually do the trick. I applaud people who can pull off natural dialogue well, though.

 

[KeithD]

I think if you can pull it off, it's a good idea to write natural dialogue -- broken sentences, incomplete sentences, filler words like "um" and "like", use of regional terms, etc. But it's a bit harder to do, especially to do well. I do a little bit of that, but generally speaking my characters speak in a more grammatically correct fashion than people usually do. With dialogue a little goes a long way. A hint of local word choices and pronunciation will usually do the trick. I applaud people who can pull off natural dialogue well, though.

I do it to a limited extent. Not nearly as much as it's done in real life, but enough to make it "real life" comfortable for readers and to keep it storyteller informal.

 

[Handley_Page]

Does Grammarly do a good job with creative writing? I assumed it, like MS Word's annoying checker, was mainly for precision in resumes, letters, etc

The old Word 97 version had quite a decent set of tools for style, grammar, etc...
Later versions seem to have settled for "Office use only" writing.

In my original comment I was talking about usage in correct English, UK or US, but if a writer felt local dialogue was needed, whether it was Chicago or Glasgow, then that would be acceptable. But how many stories on here are written with, or need, local dialect?

More than you might expect, I think.

 

[jaF0]

The old Word 97 version had quite a decent set of tools for style, grammar, etc...
Later versions seem to have settled for "Office use only" writing.

I'm in the middle of a non-Lit related situation that has me recalling when businesses were more people focused. People created things that people used, real, everyday people. Not drones. How they did things to keep customers happy, even if it meant bending a rule. Things now are too rigid ... 'office use only' type attitudes. Do it our way because it's our policy. We don't care if you don't like it.