Another Question for the Language Nazis

[snowy ciara]

2 or 3 really!


I'm editing/collaborating with someone right now. She is not a native speaker. Her English has a curious rhythm to it, and her typing is a little funnier than that because she's apostrophe impaired.

Question 1. Do you think her writing should be edited so that is sounds "normal" to the native ear? I'm talking about rearranging the minor grammatical oddities that come up, as well as the rhythmic differences She's never really glaringly wrong, it's just a little odd sometimes.

Question 2. When she does sometimes make grammatical errors, they're somewhat logical. For instance, the correct past tense of "to heat" is "heated".

"She put the pan of dal back on the burner to heat."

"She had heated the dal."

"She hotted the dal up."

The last is a slang term that I have seen elsewhere as well as a common grammar goof seen with non-native speakers, which the character in the story is. I did suggest changing it since it annoyed my ear and when I asked her what the past tense is (in a PM) and she did say "heated", but it could go either way.


Basically, I'm asking do you prefer the grammatically correct but slightly unusual stuff, and do you feel that incorrect grammar is okay occasionally when it makes sense in the context of the piece of writing?

 

[bouquiniste]

Even Virgil's <i>Æneid </i> - with the intervention of Augustus, and his subsequent appointment of Varius Rufus and Plotius Tucca (and, admittedly, posthumously, <i>and </i> against Virgil's own express wishes) - was subjected to having been edited. Since you clearly have feelings regarding the possible interruption of literary flow, I'd opt for editing, at least in the name of conformity of language, though only after discussing the matter of editorial 'tweaking' with your collaborateur.

 

[Marquis]

hit new thread by accident?

 

[snowy ciara]

No, actually, I didn't. I'm trying not to hijack so much. Since that thread has gone mostly into pet peeves I made a new one, because this is a different set of questions.

Maybe I'll just go back to hijacking..

 

[catalina_francisco]

I would talk to the person in question first, but for Francisco when he puts things in a way which are not exactly correct or recognised as how spoken in English, he wants them put in a way which will be generally understood by native speakers. It also helps him recognise some of those hiccoughs, many which I point out to him are made by native speakers as well.

Catalina

 

[Miss Diva]

I think the answer is "It depends on the context".

I mean if you are editing a play and the dialogue is using incorrect grammar then perhaps you should leave it for the sake of the play. (I was thinking if Magaret Mitchell, Gone with the Wind, had not written the dialogue the way she did with all its inaccuracies it would not be the book it is today and would not have the flavour it has.)

However if it is a formal invitation or a thesis or a paper or a cookbook, then the grammar should be corrected for the masses.

 

[FungiUg]

I personally find if it's something they are saying, as in spoken language, then keeping the natural language is fine. Otherwise, I find it best to have English text in, well, English. Has anyone here read any James Joyce? I want what I read to be escapism and to capture me, not to have to work at it.