Crazy grammar

[geronimo_appleby]

Not so much the grammar but smart-arses that correct it. The current favourite is correcting people when they say 'who' instead of 'whom'. "To whom, whom!" they chant, sounding like an owl on a chimney pot, accompanied by a patronising smile that deserves a bucket of water.

I'm not going to preach because I constantly have to amend what my fingers type. My fingers are clearly wired to the phonetic part of my brain, so I'll type its, then cuss myself when grammar-brain spots the error and my fingers grumpily change its to it's.

Despite numerous tricks, techniques and proof readers I still find 'a' instead of 'and' or even a 'your' instead of 'you're' months later in my stories.

I'm currently reading a novel written with a long-hand version of a Nottingham accent, which is tiresome and unnecessary imo.

ah, reet tedious, m'duck...

taxi!

 

[stickygirl]

ah, reet tedious, m'duck...

taxi!

Y'might enjoy the book be Paris Lees, 'What it feels like for a girl'

 

[XerXesXu]

I don't know where you get any of this.

.....


That's the way people actually use the word. Nobody actually uses it the way you do.

[I don't know where you get any of this.]

Err …. Yes you do, because I told you with pellucid clarity in my post, and I’m certain you have no problems with comprehension.

[Nobody actually uses it the way you do.]

Errr… you know that linguists do, again, I told you in my post.

There was some kerfuffle about pronouns, he/him, she/her and I gave you a simple example of a training set. Were you able to infer anything about, whom and where the person was, who used he/she where you would have used him/her?

Would you expect ever to encounter the non-prescriptive construction in dialogue – in the voice of a character? Or in narration – the voice of the writer? Can such deviations from ”correct grammar”, as one poster put it, diminish or contribute to the telling of a story?

[As a practical, day-to-day matter, grammar is, absolutely, prescriptive. If you don't learn the rules of grammar with at least some degree of proficiency, you won't be eligible to get certain jobs. People will think less of your abilities. Your written work will be rejected (e.g., Literotica). Try telling your prospective employer who doesn't like your grammar that he's being a prescriptivist.]

I did expressly acknowledge your background, you work in a world requiring consistency, my background is in a world discovering truth. Neither of us should be upsetting to the other; live and let live.

 

[Payne_Hall]

The entirety of this thread is why I switched from a TEFL degree to Computer Engineering. It was way easier to tell when you fucked up in the languages of vector analysis or C#.

 

[MetaBob]

I look to Noam Chomsky and his successors for what is and is not grammatically "correct." Sure, published "grammar guides" are helpful for basics. Business writing, high school and even some college papers. Some adherents spin up easily, unaware and uncaring of what's real.

What is and is not "correct" grammar is a subject best left alone, I have concluded, when so many claim to know so much but are in fact lost. Arguing with them is wasted effort. They have their "grammar guides," after all. Unless they are challenged and can't actually find those grammar guides to back up their assertions.

Most (90-95%) of what Grammarly gives me is crap, by the way. And many of the finest authors who have ever been published write ungrammatically, according to some. Those authors understand the basics and improvise around them. Carefully, of course. That's how it should be, I think.

 

[TadOverdon]

I ignore most usage callouts on free Grammarly. I find the punctuation flags, particularly regarding commas, pretty useful. And its spellchecker is, well, another spellchecker.

 

[MetaBob]

I ignore most usage callouts on free Grammarly. I find the punctuation flags, particularly regarding commas, pretty useful. And its spellchecker is, well, another spellchecker.

Mostly the valid stuff Grammarly catches for me (about one valid thing per 10K words) is misspellings of esoteric words (it fixed ophthalmologist for me, yay!), missing words, and doubled doubled words.



Commas are another grammar-related rabbit hole. I prefer fewer. But they are sometimes required.

 

[MetaBob]

an owl on a chimney pot

Oh, that's nice.

 

[SimonDoom]

And many of the finest authors who have ever been published write ungrammatically, according to some. Those authors understand the basics and improvise around them. Carefully, of course. That's how it should be, I think.

This is the crucial point that the anti-grammar crowd overlooks. The great authors don't always follow the so-called rules of grammar, but they know and understand them, in part because they studied them, and in part because they read other great authors and wrote all the time. When they break the rules, they do so knowingly.

Grammar rules aren't something to follow slavishly. But they are something to know, or at least to understand on an intuitive level through the experience of reading and writing. You will be a better author if you really, deeply understand the way the language works and you develop a feel for both the logic and the poetry of the words.

 

[Nouh_Bdee]

When they break the rules, they do so knowingly.

And when the greats break the rules, it increases the depth of their communication. When the lazies do it, they're just harder to understand.

 

[SimonDoom]

And when the greats break the rules, it increases the depth of their communication. When the lazies do it, they're just harder to understand.

Right. Which is why "Great authors break the rules all the time" is not in any way a justification for "I don't need to know the rules."

 

[ElectricBlue]

Grammar rules aren't something to follow slavishly. But they are something to know, or at least to understand on an intuitive level through the experience of reading and writing. You will be a better author if you really, deeply understand the way the language works and you develop a feel for both the logic and the poetry of the words.

Agree. Why would you not use tools that make your life easier?

"What are you doing with that flint, Ngghhh?"

"Making sparks to start a fire."

"Why don't you wait for a thunderstorm and lightning, like I do?"

 

[KeithD]

Agree. Why would you not use tools that make your life easier?

You don't have to put in the work if you can just pretend it doesn't matter. The writer's easy button.

 

[XerXesXu]

Right. Which is why "Great authors break the rules all the time" is not in any way a justification for "I don't need to know the rules."

Forget the great, what about the tyro?

Would you advise him/her/them(you choose) to write his/her/their (you choose) characters' dialogue compliant with, whatever term you might use, some have used correct grammar, but what may be described as literary conventions in the publishing industry?

Would you advise them that Yoda would be a much more compelling character if his grammar was 'corrected'?

Would you advise them that the use of the characters' natural grammar will never give them the variety and veracity that good dialogue requires?

None of my questions are rhetorical, incidentally.

 

[SimonDoom]

Would you advise him/her/them(you choose) to write his/her/their (you choose) characters' dialogue compliant with, whatever term you might use, some have used correct grammar, but what may be described as literary conventions in the publishing industry?

Would you advise them that Yoda would be a much more compelling character if his grammar was 'corrected'?

Would you advise them that the use of the characters' natural grammar will never give them the variety and veracity that good dialogue requires?

None of my questions are rhetorical, incidentally.

Dialogue should be snappy and entertaining and to the point, especially in a movie screenplay, while giving the appearance of being authentic. It's not important for a character's dialogue to abide by correct grammar rules, because people do not in fact speak with perfect grammar. It's also probably not advisable to write a character's dialogue in a manner that completely mirrors the way people actually speak, because it would be tedious to read that. Verisimilitude, not 100% realism, is the right approach.

Regarding Yoda, I would say it's completely obvious that the person who wrote Yoda's dialogue knew what correct grammar was and that this knowledge helped inform that author's creation of Yoda's unusual syntax, and that the result worked.

I don't understand the third question.

Dialogue and narrative warrant completely different treatments, unless a story is told in first-person POV, in which case the narrative may take on speaking conventions peculiar to the protagonist/narrator.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

The entirety of this thread is why I switched from a TEFL degree to Computer Engineering. It was way easier to tell when you fucked up in the languages of vector analysis or C#.

And you get to learn a lot more languages in Computer Science.

Why I know a lot. I started a long time ago.

Fortran, Cobol, RPG, Pascal, C, C+, C++, C#, Basic, SQL, PL/G, etc.

And each of them has it's own Grammar!

 

[TadOverdon]

I ignore most usage callouts on free Grammarly. I find the punctuation flags, particularly regarding commas, pretty useful. And its spellchecker is, well, another spellchecker.

OTOH, Grammarly thinks Al-Khwarizmi is some kind of verb.

 

[MetaBob]

OTOH, Grammarly thinks Al-Khwarizmi is some kind of verb.

Methinks their algorithm could use a little tweaking.

 

[TadOverdon]

Methinks their algorithm could use a little tweaking.

Nicely done.

 

[XerXesXu]

1. people do not in fact speak with perfect grammar.

2. It's also probably not advisable to write a character's dialogue in a manner that completely mirrors the way people actually speak, because it would be tedious to read that. Verisimilitude, not 100% realism, is the right approach.

3. Regarding Yoda, I would say it's completely obvious that the person who wrote Yoda's dialogue knew what correct grammar was and that this knowledge helped inform that author's creation of Yoda's unusual syntax, and that the result worked.

4. I don't understand the third question.

5. Dialogue and narrative warrant completely different treatments, unless a story is told in first-person POV, in which case the narrative may take on speaking conventions peculiar to the protagonist/narrator.

1. This is where we disagree. Most of the world, I believe, is either illiterate or semi-literate. Almost every human-being is able to communicate grammatically before they learn to read. Their grammar is perfect; but, it's not 'house-style for university-press type-setters'. 'perfect grammar' has different understandings, and different emotional triggers, apparently, in different fields of endeavour.

2. Broadly agree. Who understands, '(guttural sound)'smezd'z'Koo'?

3.Broadly agree.

4. (?) I know you understand that. I'm so polite. See 3 and response.

 

[MetaBob]

OTOH, Grammarly thinks Al-Khwarizmi is some kind of verb.

Methinks their algorithm could use a little tweaking.

Nicely done.

One of us, or both of us, walked right into that one.