Grammarly... is it wrong?

[Zeb_Carter]

And last night... the bullets went right through the door with several loud bangs. Had some asshole shooting up the place last night... cops still here this morning. Word is they caught the guy, on the way out of the complex he smashed head on into a large Texas pickup truck. Not doing so well after that.

 

[TadOverdon]

Dear Grammarly,

I do not mean to say that "She was tall, long-legged, and hard." I wish to say that "She was tall, long-legged and hard."

I cannot explain to you why I want it. I just do.

OTOH, I will HAVE the comma in "He was deferentially polite, and dressed only in a thong and straw sandals," despite your Borg-brained pronouncement of its superfluity.

Furthermore, I sneer at your clueless insistence that "completely wind and solar" ought to be rendered as "completely winding and solar."

 

[SimonDoom]

Dear Grammarly,

I do not mean to say that "She was tall, long-legged, and hard." I wish to say that "She was tall, long-legged and hard."[/I]

The use of the serial comma is a matter of dispute. I use it, nearly always. The Chicago Manual of Style strongly recommends it. But many authors prefer not to use it.

In this case it's not confusing. But in general, the serial comma eliminates more confusion than it causes. Take this example: My uncle disliked many people, including my parents, Donald Trump and Madonna.

OTOH, I will HAVE the comma in "He was deferentially polite, and dressed only in a thong and straw sandals," despite your Borg-brained pronouncement of its superfluity.[/I]

I, too, would get rid of the comma in this instance, because no comma is needed before "and" to join two predicate adjective phrases. The words after the comma do not form a clause, dependent or independent. But as a matter of style I think it's OK. It suggests a pause that some people like.

Furthermore, I sneer at your clueless insistence that "completely wind and solar" ought to be rendered as "completely winding and solar."

I'm with Grammarly on this one. "Wind" is a noun. "Completely" is an adverb, and cannot modify a noun. It might sorta make sense if the sentence was "The city's power was completely wind- and solar-generated" because in that case "wind and solar-generated" functions as an adjective phrase and can be modified by an adverb. But I don't understand "completely wind and solar" by itself. You could also write "The city relied completely on wind and solar power sources. In that case "completely " modifies the verb "relied" and you have no problem or confusion.

 

[TadOverdon]

Well, because it's dialogue, and entirely natural for someone to casually say "We'll be completely wind and solar in five years."

The short version is, as others have noticed, free Grammarly doesn't know jack about fictional narrative. Also, it's not understanding what it reads.

 

[XerXesXu]

I'm with Grammarly on this one. "Wind" is a noun. "Completely" is an adverb, and cannot modify a noun.

'Be' is a verb, 'completely' modifies the verb.

 

[TadOverdon]

'Be' is a verb, 'completely' modifies the verb.

In this case, yes, but then I hadn't quoted the entire sentence to SimonDoom when he responded to my tongue-in-cheek complaint. So, my bad.

I was sort of poking fun at the obvious: "wind and solar" is such a ubiquitous and easily recognized phrase now, and the very rudimentary "expert algorithm" of Grammarly is of course incapable of recognizing it.

 

[SimonDoom]

'Be' is a verb, 'completely' modifies the verb.

We need the full sentence to be sure exactly what is meant. In the snippet given, there's no verb at all. But in general, the verb "to be" is a linking verb and does not take adverbs. The verb "to be" links the noun with a predicate adjective that modifies the original subject noun, OR it links the original subject noun with a predicate nominative (another noun), which renames the subject noun.

The word "completely" in this case modifies the adjective, but in this case the predicate consists of an adjective and a noun, unless there's a missing implied noun, like "wind and solar technology." It's confusing.

Example: I am completely stoned. "Completely" is an adverb that modifies the adjective "stoned." This is how most English teachers view this. The adverb tells you that "I" + am + [very/completely/totally stoned]. I'm not partly stoned. I'm completely stoned.

Example: I am a complete stoner. "Complete" is an adjective that modifies the noun "stoner."

This issue isn't completely undisputed. Some people think an adverb can modify a linking verb. But that's not the majority view. And it makes less conceptual sense that grouping the modifier with the adjective or noun that follows, because that's the word that's really being modified.

In this case, I don't understand the usage, and we don't know the verb, so it's difficult to know exactly what is going on.

Edit:

I didn't see TO's comments before I wrote mine.

I see no problem with this as a matter of dialogue. That's how people talk. I wouldn't write that as part of narration unless it's in first person and the narrator has a colloquial way of narrating.

 

[XerXesXu]

The word "completely" in this case modifies the adjective, but in this case the predicate consists of an adjective and a noun, unless there's a missing implied noun, like "wind and solar technology." It's confusing.

The rule is very simple, adverbs modify verbs, adjectives modify nouns. Look for the verb.

 

[SimonDoom]

The rule is very simple, adverbs modify verbs, adjectives modify nouns. Look for the verb.

Finding the verb doesn't tell you that the adverb modifies the verb. It may modify an adjective in the sentence, or another adverb.

In the sentence

He spoke very quickly.

Quickly is an adverb that modifies spoke, and very is an adverb that modifies quickly. This is obvious despite the fact that very immediately follows spoke. The way you can tell for sure is to eliminate quickly. Then you get:

He spoke very.

That's obviously wrong. Very modifies quickly.

You have to look carefully at the function of the word in question, not just whether there's a verb nearby.

 

[XerXesXu]

Finding the verb doesn't tell you that the adverb modifies the verb. It may modify an adjective in the sentence, or another adverb.

In the sentence

He spoke very quickly.

Quickly is an adverb that modifies spoke, and very is an adverb that modifies quickly. This is obvious despite the fact that very immediately follows spoke. The way you can tell for sure is to eliminate quickly. Then you get:

He spoke very.

That's obviously wrong. Very modifies quickly.

You have to look carefully at the function of the word in question, not just whether there's a verb nearby.

'very quickly' modifies 'spoke'. 'very' is an intensifier.

 

[SimonDoom]

'very quickly' modifies 'spoke'. 'very' is an intensifier.

Yes, "very" is an intensifier that intensifies the word "quickly." "Very quickly" is a phrase, not a word. "Very" modifies "quickly" and therefore is an adverb (AND an intensifier).

Cites:

https://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/intensifier.htm "An intensifier is a word that strengthens or weakens another word (usually the word immediately to its right). An intensifier has no real meaning by itself and can usually be removed from the sentence. Intensifiers are adverbs."

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/intensifiers-very-at-all"Intensifiers are adverbs or adverbial phrases that strengthen the meaning of other expressions and show emphasis. Words that we commonly use as intensifiers include absolutely, completely, extremely, highly, rather, really, so, too, totally, utterly, very and at all:"

https://gonaturalenglish.com/how-to-use-intensifiers/

A LITTLE GRAMMAR NOTE
Notice that many of these intensifiers have the ending -ly. This is a word ending that means “like.” It can turn an adjective into an adverb. Adverbs are words that modify verbs, but they also modify other adjectives. For example,

That pizza is incredible.
That pizza is incredibly delicious!

In the first sentence, incredible is an adjective that modifies the noun pizza.
In the second sentence, incredibly is called an adverb, because it modifies the adjective delicious, which tells us what kind of pizza it was.

 

[XerXesXu]

Yes, "very" is an intensifier that intensifies the word "quickly." "Very quickly" is a phrase, not a word. "Very" modifies "quickly" and therefore is an adverb (AND an intensifier).

Cites:

https://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/intensifier.htm "An intensifier is a word that strengthens or weakens another word (usually the word immediately to its right). An intensifier has no real meaning by itself and can usually be removed from the sentence. Intensifiers are adverbs."

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/intensifiers-very-at-all"Intensifiers are adverbs or adverbial phrases that strengthen the meaning of other expressions and show emphasis. Words that we commonly use as intensifiers include absolutely, completely, extremely, highly, rather, really, so, too, totally, utterly, very and at all:"

https://gonaturalenglish.com/how-to-use-intensifiers/

A LITTLE GRAMMAR NOTE
Notice that many of these intensifiers have the ending -ly. This is a word ending that means “like.” It can turn an adjective into an adverb. Adverbs are words that modify verbs, but they also modify other adjectives. For example,

That pizza is incredible.
That pizza is incredibly delicious!

In the first sentence, incredible is an adjective that modifies the noun pizza.
In the second sentence, incredibly is called an adverb, because it modifies the adjective delicious, which tells us what kind of pizza it was.

'Very blue', 'Not very blue', 'Very, very'.

Adverb is a category conventionally used as a residual category, if a word can't be fitted into another part of speech it's classified as an adverb, even if it's not.

Easiest thing is to describe it as what it is. 'Very' is an intensifier, 'not' is a negation.

 

[Handley_Page]

I don't know about the paid version but I'm with you on the free version. Very odd suggestions at time. And perfectly normal sentences are flagged for reason I can't figure out.

I do miss editminion I used it a lot. But it's gone now, or I can't access it. Anyone else have issues with Editminion not loading up?

this one??

The day I take writing tips from Microsoft Word is the day I cut off my dick, mash it into pâté, and serve it on crackers at a Radical Women feminist rally.

Ben

Love it.

But I have to say that Word 97 had a variable 'style' thing which meant one could edit your text in a suitable manner. Later versions seem to insist on the style being 'office formal'.

 

[TadOverdon]

Grammarly rejects "nervous quaver" as a misspelling. Clearly I meant "quiver." After all, the Googleverse favors "nervous quiver" almost three to one.

Goddamn it, G, you can't even read a story much less read my mind!

Yeah, okay, "So why do you use it if it annoys you so much?"

The obvious truth is that, for me, free Grammarly is a limited but really useful tool that helps me proofread as I go. I love the damn thing the way I love Word spellcheck and the way I love my partner who apparently today is just pacing himself between nudgy texts about things I forgot to do before I left yesterday.

I just feel sometimes like maybe Grammarly and I could have our own rooms. Only sometimes.

(Actually, the sentence "The nervous quaver in Stefan's voice belied his joking attitude" sucks no matter how you spell it. But I'm moving on anyway.)

 

[MillieDynamite]

Well, because it's dialogue, and entirely natural for someone to casually say "We'll be completely wind and solar in five years."

The short version is, as others have noticed, free Grammarly doesn't know jack about fictional narrative. Also, it's not understanding what it reads.

The problem could be the word wind, is it the wind is blowing, or wind as in wind the clock. Then there is the bow of a ship or the bow on a package. Words that have multiple means are hell in Grammarly.

Edit: Simultaneous post. Yes Grammarly, even on creative, leaves much to be desired. With that said, it's still the best we have.

 

[SimonDoom]

Grammarly rejects "nervous quaver" as a misspelling. Clearly I meant "quiver." After all, the Googleverse favors "nervous quiver" almost three to one.

Goddamn it, G, you can't even read a story much less read my mind!

Yeah, okay, "So why do you use it if it annoys you so much?"

The obvious truth is that, for me, free Grammarly is a limited but really useful tool that helps me proofread as I go. I love the damn thing the way I love Word spellcheck and the way I love my partner who apparently today is just pacing himself between nudgy texts about things I forgot to do before I left yesterday.

I just feel sometimes like maybe Grammarly and I could have our own rooms. Only sometimes.

(Actually, the sentence "The nervous quaver in Stefan's voice belied his joking attitude" sucks no matter how you spell it. But I'm moving on anyway.)

But don't you feel like it's a useful process? That in the process of arguing with Grammarly over its suggestions, your writing is becoming sharper? That's how I feel. Tools like Grammarly or Word's editor point things out to me, some of which I would have missed, and give me the option to accept their recommendation or reject it. At the very least, they make me more conscious about what I'm writing. I often disagree with them about word choice. Usually, I agree about punctuation. I agree most of the time about deleting words and making my writing more succinct.

 

[TadOverdon]

But don't you feel like it's a useful process?

Yes, I do. That's why I still have the little cocksucker installed in Word.

It's even kind of useful to provoke conversations about grammar and usage in Author's Hive.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Yes, I do. That's why I still have the little cocksucker installed in Word.

It's even kind of useful to provoke conversations about grammar and usage in Author's Hive.

I almost feel like I'm missing out on shit here, not using any of these tools except spell check.

"Almost" being the operative word. It was tedious enough with Word trying to tell me it's when I knew damn well it was its. Reading you guys in these threads is educational, but the idea of using grammarly (which I tried to, once) - I'd rather die a slow unnatural death, to be honest. I'm fine when someone explains it to me, but trying to figure it out for myself? That just sounds like work.


WORK
Words and music: Lou Reed & John Cale

Andy was a Catholic, the ethic ran through his bones
He lived alone with his mother, collecting gossip and toys
Every Sunday when he went to Church
He'd kneel in his pew and say, "It's just work,
all that matters is work."

He was a lot of things, what I remember most
He'd say, "I've got to bring home the bacon, someone's got to bring home the roast."
He'd get to the factory early
If you'd ask him he'd tell you straight out
It's just work, the most important thing is work
No matter what I did it never seemed enough
He said I was lazy, I said I was young
He said, "How many songs did you write?"
I'd written zero, I'd lied and said, "Ten."
"You won't be young forever
You should have written fifteen"
It's work, the most important thing is work
It's work, the most important thing is work

"You ought to make things big
People like it that way
And the songs with the dirty words - record them that way"
Andy liked to stir up trouble, he was funny that way
He said, "It's just work, all that matters is work"
Andy sat down to talk one day
He said decide what you want
Do you want to expand your parameters
Or play museums like some dilettante
I fired him on the spot, he got red and called me a rat
It was the worst word that he could think of
And I've never seen him like that
It's just work, I thought he said it's just work
Work, he said it's just work

Andy said a lot of things, I stored them all away in my head
Sometimes when I can't decide what I should do
I think what would Andy have said
He'd probably say you think too much
That's 'cause there's work that you don't want to do
It's work, the most important thing is work
Work, the most important thing is work

 

[KeithD]

I almost feel like I'm missing out on shit here, not using any of these tools except spell check.

I only use Word spell/grammar check and it's useful, but it doesn't override the grammar books on the shelf to my left.

 

[TadOverdon]

I almost feel like I'm missing out on shit here, not using any of these tools except spell check.

"Almost" being the operative word. It was tedious enough with Word trying to tell me it's when I knew damn well it was its. Reading you guys in these threads is educational, but the idea of using grammarly (which I tried to, once) - I'd rather die a slow unnatural death, to be honest. I'm fine when someone explains it to me, but trying to figure it out for myself? That just sounds like work.

As a practical matter, for the most part it alerts you to instances in your manuscript of usage issues you already know but have to scan the document for, anyway. That's why I said it saves me time in proofreading. The hair-tearing, which is half in jest, is the occasional ambiguous or edge case. But I'd find the mechanics of working a little more tedious without it - same as with spellcheck.

IOW, pretty much this:

I find it very helpful, actually. It's a tool. I don't defer to it, but I use it to spot things that I overlooked or did as a result of a typo or a bad habit. I found it useful at catching instances of one of my bad writing habits -- too many qualifiers. I use words/phrases like some, somewhat, pretty, a little bit, etc. far too often, and Word is good at catching those uses.

 

[ElectricBlue]

As a practical matter, for the most part it alerts you to instances in your manuscript of usage issues you already know but have to scan the document for, anyway. That's why I said it saves me time in proofreading. The hair-tearing, which is half in jest, is the occasional ambiguous or edge case. But I'd find the mechanics of working a little more tedious without it - same as with spellcheck.

I seem to be lucky, decades of reading and business writing, I guess; and using a small cluster of tools and edit techniques that work for me.

I can never be accused of over-thinking my edit. I reckon 97% of the raw draft gets through to the final story, untouched. I don't get called out on much. Except by Simon and his tenses (and I still haven't fixed that story ).

I'm finding out at the moment that I'm quite good, apparently, at applying techniques I'd never even heard of, like polysyndaton and asyndeton. Who knew?

 

[TadOverdon]

I never really have a raw draft. By the time I have an entire book it's sort of like a thrice-restored car being prepped for paint in a body shop - there are spots where it's down to bare metal and patches of primer, and islands with ring upon ring of different colors.

https://i.imgur.com/UNiMte1.jpg

 

[SimonDoom]

I only use Word spell/grammar check and it's useful, but it doesn't override the grammar books on the shelf to my left.

Agreed. These tools should not be looked upon as definitive grammar guides. There's no substitute for having good guides on your bookshelf nearby. I have a bunch, including several dictionaries, Roget's Thesaurus, various grammar guides, Strunk & White, Dreyer's English, and some others, but most of them are old, other than the Chicago Manual of Style that I bought a couple of years ago, and Dreyer's book. I've ordered some more. They should arrive by Monday.

Grammarly and similar apps are tools that are helpful to spot things you missed. I miss things all the time, not because I don't know grammar but because my fingers do things my brain doesn't know they are doing. The tools catch some of those things.

 

[KeithD]

The most important thing I know about grammar is where to look it up and which book/style is germane and most helpful/authoritative to the issue. (Hence, I do have a Strunk and White--next to the Turabian's--but it's "over there" on a bookshelf under the front window rather than on the bookshelf right at hand).

 

[RoperTrace]

Dear Grammarly,

I do not mean to say that "She was tall, long-legged, and hard." I wish to say that "She was tall, long-legged and hard."

I cannot explain to you why I want it. I just do.

OTOH, I will HAVE the comma in "He was deferentially polite, and dressed only in a thong and straw sandals," despite your Borg-brained pronouncement of its superfluity.

Furthermore, I sneer at your clueless insistence that "completely wind and solar" ought to be rendered as "completely winding and solar."

It sounds like you're describing one of my old favorites. I think Allan Clarke of The Hollies said it more succinctly:

She was a long cool woman in a black dress
Just-a 5'9, beautiful, tall

Which by the way, didn't make much sense grammatically.

One of the more iconic guitar intros in all Rock & Roll. Grammarly didn't try to correct the line as I copied it.