Grammer - A general rant

[Ray Dario]

Last night I went to my local Barnes & Nobel book store to pick up a new/better grammer guide. There on the shelves were no less than 20 different books proclaiming to be the definitive source for correct grammer. Only a little overwhelmed I started going through them, trying to find one that was easy to use, but complete enough to be the last grammer book I would have to buy.

Then as I went through them, I began to notice something odd. They disagreed about some things, sometimes even fundamental things.

I looked harder and sure enough, this book said one thing, that book something else. Well maybe it's just little things, I thought, so I took a stack of the books (earning me a dirty look from one of the girls who worked there) to a table and started really going over them. Two hours later I gave up. All of the books agree about some things and all of them disagree about others.

No wonder writers, here and other places, have so much trouble with grammer. Even the "experts" can't agree. And they disagree about some pretty basic things.

Funk and Wagner say to put a comma in front of conjunctions.
"The elements of English Grammer" says they are unnecessary.
"The elements of style" by White and Wagner say they should be used if the following sentence is complex but omitted if the following sentence is simple.

Funk and Wagner say to use elipses only for lapses of thought or for missing words.
"The elements of English Grammer" says that elipses may be used to indicate dramatic pauses as well
"The elements of style" say elipses should always be avoided unless there is no convienient way write around them, then they may be used to indicate missing words in quotes.

Add into that the difference in proper grammer caused by international conventions and trying to write "properly" turns into a royal pain in the ass.

So the next time someone tells me I have used improper grammer I'm going to ask, "Based on what? Who's proper grammer have I violated? Show me the "definitive expert opinion" on what I have done wrong and I'll show you ten that disagree!"

Oh, I'm still going to struggle to make my writing as good as I can. I bought "The elements of style" and I'm going to do my best to follow the rules laid out therein, but right now I'm pretty disgusted by the whole "grammer" fiasco.

Maybe we should just scrap the whole damned English language and start over. Anyone want to learn Mandarin Chinese with me?

Ray

 

[KillerMuffin]

A creative writer is generally better off following rules that agree with mssrs Strunk and White. Excepting on the occasion when they're not.

Grammar is transitionary. We're moving from a time when ellipses were use only for omissions into a time when they indicate dramatic pauses or fades.

You should check into the War of the Split Infinitive. It began back when Byron was an upstart and hasn't conluded yet.

Find one that's easy to use, easy to understand, and has that generally accepted name on it. You'll be okay.

Mandarin Chinese is okay, but I prefer to conjugate verbs. How does Japanese strike you?

 

[Ray Dario]

Oops, yep, "The elements of style" is by Strunk and White. I screwed up my notes. Must have been that clerk that kept kicking my chair as I poured over the books in the store.

So, I guess I picked the right book for all the wrong reasons. I chose "The elements of style" not because it was the best book, but because it was the cheapest.

Ray

P.S. KM, I ain't gonna learn Japanese. They already own half of the U.S., I ain't givin' them any more. I don't ride a rice-burner and I ain't speakin' the lingo!

 

[SexyChele]

Maybe we should just scrap the whole damned English language and start over. Anyone want to learn Mandarin Chinese with me?

Not sure about Chinese or Japanese - but I think I gettin' the Spanish corner covered fairly well!

 

[KillerMuffin]

The good news:

The Elements of Style is practically a necessity for the average writer to get published.

The bad news:

It's not a grammar guide.

Here are some KM picks from Amazon. Perhaps some others would like to chime in with their picks as well.

Grammar Smart: A Guide to Perfect Usage There's no such thing, but it's relatively easy to understand.

Woe Is I: The Grammarphobe's Guide to Better English in Plain English I've never read it, but the title is really adorable.

The Chicago Manual of Style This is the American Grammar Bible, or so I hear.

Webster's Grammar Guide I've got this one. It's done me good so far. Hey, 20 cents a garage sale, you can't beat it. Not even with a stick.

 

[Closet Desire]

Strunk and White...

...is an absolute essential in any writer's arsenal. It's a delightful little book that gets to the essentials of language.

The Chicago Manual of Style is the most often cited authority for publishers. When you go through the guidelines from publishers they will often mention this as the authority you should rely on. It's simple, well-organised, and you can pick it up for three or four bucks at Barnes and Noble (it will be one or two editions out of date--but that's usually close enough).

One thing is for sure--you will never be criticised for relying on the CMS.

 

[Ray Dario]

Re: Strunk and White...

The Chicago Manual of Style is the most often cited authority for publishers. When you go through the guidelines from publishers they will often mention this as the authority you should rely on. It's simple, well-organised, and you can pick it up for three or four bucks at Barnes and Noble (it will be one or two editions out of date--but that's usually close enough).

One thing is for sure--you will never be criticised for relying on the CMS.

At my Barnes & Nobel it was $36.00.

Wish I was near yours

Ray

 

[Closet Desire]

Ouch!

Well, the nearest one is about 4,000 miles! I picked mine up from a Barnes and Noble in Houston on the "discount clearance" rack for about $4.99. Guess I got lucky!

Did some checking. Amazon lists it at $31.50. There are a number of older editions available on Abe.com for under $20--still a bit pricy for older editions.

BTW--if you're into buying used, out of print, or difficult to find books be sure to check out www.abe.com. This is a network (sort of like napster) of private book sellers over the world. My work often requires editions of books published in the 18th and 19th century. I hate waiting on the library to find them so I search them out and order them with a credit card. Some good bargains.

 

[Suzi]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

Mandarin Chinese--sounds like a plan! Ray--want my phone number?

$31-36 for one book? No thanks, I'll sit in on 4th grade English class and see if I improve! As for where the comma goes, I thought it always went before, unless you use a colon early on before listing things (then one uses a semi-colon).

By the way----what are split infinitives?

Suzi

 

[Closet Desire]

If you're a professional...

...then only a professional's tools will do.

A reference will help you recognise when you have created a "comma splice" (this is when you need to use a semi-colon to set off an independent clause--a common mistake). Send an editor too many of those and you'll get it back by return post.

I've just completed reviewing about fifty submissions for a book and only a few measured up to "professional" standards. We'll accept them if the material is basically good, but it's no surprise to me that so many writers get rejected. If I was having to scan as many manuscripts as most editors do I wouldn't waste my time with anything that wasn't absolutely spit polished. One bad spelling, one transposed word (like using "than" for "then"-- a common mistake that spell checkers will miss), or not following guidelines and the bell would ring. "Thanks for playing, but you lose!" If a writer doesn't have time to check for the obvious then an editor doesn't have time to endure it.

Writing is no different from any other profession. "I'm sorry, " the surgeon says, "but we operated on the wrong foot." Or, "Gee Mr Smith, you mean you wanted us to replace all six spark plugs?"

Pride shows in anything you do which will be presented to others. It's especially important in creative arts, including literature, where it is such a personal statement of who you are.

This is sort of a rant but not the kind you think. We get some really tremendous stories, some of which have been rejected by other publishers/editors only because they were sloppy and unpolished. We'll take the time to clean them up because our books are such a personal thing, but most editors and publishers don't have the patience to sift through page after page of poor presentation. I hate to see talented, imaginative writers sabotage their own creations by not applying the finishing touches. Nobody would buy a painting that still had the pencil sketch marks showing. Great writers can get away with it, but the rest of us poor mortals have to apply some extra care. I hate even more to see writers become bitter because of repeated rejections when the only thing between them and success is the notion that fourth grade grammar, spelling, or style is good enough.

I wrote this because the thing I hate writing most of all is a rejection letter--and I don't use form letters.

 

[Quint]

Suzi,

Split infinitive: "to boldly go where no man..." "To go" is the infinitive form of the verb. Inserting ANYTHING in between "to" and the verb is, rather obviously, splitting the infinitive. One of those things that gives OC people like me the nervous eye tic.

 

[Ray Dario]

Suzi,

Split infinitive: "to boldly go where no man..." "To go" is the infinitive form of the verb. Inserting ANYTHING in between "to" and the verb is, rather obviously, splitting the infinitive. One of those things that gives OC people like me the nervous eye tic.

And yet some would say that the quote from Star Trek "To boldly go where no man has gone before" is one of the most powerful images to come out of the sixties. Isn't that interesting?

Ray

 

[Uther_Pendragon]

Funk and Wagner say to put a comma in front of conjunctions.
"The elements of English Grammer" says they are unnecessary.
"The elements of style" by White and Wagner say they should be used if the following sentence is complex but omitted if the following sentence is simple.

Funk and Wagner say to use elipses only for lapses of thought or for missing words.
"The elements of English Grammer" says that elipses may be used to indicate dramatic pauses as well
"The elements of style" say elipses should always be avoided unless there is no convienient way write around them, then they may be used to indicate missing words in quotes.
RAY [/B]

I've cut this, if not enough. 1) It's spelled "grammar." I'm not a spelling fan, but if you are going to complain about rules, follow a few simple ones.
2) I remember Funk and Wagnel, when did Wagner come in?
3) You put a comma in front of conjunctions when they join INDEPENDENT clauses. (Clauses which could stand alone as sentences) You don't use them when you are joining words or dependent clauses.
The question of ellipses, as dealt with by Struck and White, is a STYLE question. It isn't a grammar question. "Avoid them if you can" isn't because they are ungrammatical. It is because the authors don't like them.
Similarly, you can write an entire essay in one long sentence joined together with semicolons. It is acceptable grammar; it is nauseating style.
There are a few gramatical principles on which rule books actually disagree. But there aren't anywhere near as many as might appear to a careless reader.

 

[Ray Dario]

Re: Re: Grammer - A general rant

I've cut this, if not enough. 1) It's spelled "grammar." I'm not a spelling fan, but if you are going to complain about rules, follow a few simple ones.

Hey Uther, Sorry I screwed up the word grammar. I don't have a spell checker on the boards and I posted when I was annoyed. Still no excuse, you're right.

About the others. I was taking quick notes on the back of my checkbook while an irritated sixteen year-old clerk stood behind me clearing her throat and kicking my chair. Forgive me if my notes weren't perfect. Still what I said holds. Don't believe me? Do a search on the web for sites that give grammar rules. The search engine I use, Yahoo, gives many, many results and a quick run-through of those sites reveals that there are a lot of contradictions and disagreements.

Want more proof. Look at the posts on this board. There are lots of disagreements over grammar, often by those here who, like you, consider themselves experts.

The plain and simple truth is that while some grammatical rules are well established, many others have changed or are changing and there very well may not be a "right" and "wrong" way to do it. It used to be incorrect grammar to use ellipses to signify a long pause. Now it is becoming correct. It used to be incorrect grammar to not precede a conjunction that connected independent clauses by a comma. Now it isn't always necessary. Give me a grammatical rule and I bet I could find an expert opinion that disagrees with it.

Does this mean that we shouldn't even try to use proper grammar? NO! But maybe it does mean that we should be a little more tolerant when we see someone make what we think is a grammatical error. It's very possible that he/she read something somewhere that told them to do it that way. Feel free to give them feedback, stating your source, about how it should have been done. And if your source is your own opinion with nothing firm to back it up, state that, or go look it up to make sure your right. But you might reconsider going off on them full tilt about that misplaced comma or that misused ellipse; it just may be you that is wrong, or it may be that neither of you is wrong and it is just a question of style.

Ray

 

[Hitchhiker]

mandarin

Grammer huh!

Mandarin ha.
Try this Ray

Happy new year "Sing Ling Qui La" got that bit ?
Now a direct translation of the words as they show
"NEW year happy"

Chinese is spoken backwards, so next time you talk to a Chinese, have great respect for them, they have had to learn to speak backwards which is our forwards.

Grammer bollocks, if it sounds right what the heck

So I will boldy go where no one has gone before. Split infinatives huh!

 

[Whispersecret]

So sorry, but it's English that is backwards, old chap. The Chinese civilization is thousands of years old. Please respect us Chinese people for other more important reasons than a complex language. (And for the record, I only speak English and a smattering of Spanish.)

Also, many other languages besides Mandarin put the adjective after the noun. If you've ever eaten chili verde, that's "chili green."

 

[Quasimodem]

So I will boldly go where no one has gone before. Split infinitives huh!

By now, everyone must have heard Churchill's response to criticism of one of his split infinitives:

"That is the kind of pedantic pedagoguery with which I will not up put!"

Keep Trekking!

 

[Hitchhiker]

Push me pull you

Whisper,
I wasn't knocking Chinese or the Chinese culture, yes it is much much older than English. Has greater depth and understanding.

What was getting at, is how we worry about such trivial things.
Backwards forwards, up down, left right.

I n the end we'll all end up flying up our own arses.

The only constant in this huge universe is CHANGE, and what do we humans hate most????????

So I will boldly go where I've not gone before, with as little change as possible.

 

[Suzi]

ROTFL!!!

In other words, we can't see the forest for the trees. If we concentrate on every triviality, we will miss or forget about the "big picture"---am I warm, Hitchhiker?


Suzi

 

[SlickTony]

It's Funk & Wagnall. I know, I had a whole set of their encylopedias that I bought over a period of time at the grocery when I lived in Texas.

Anyway, George Orwell, another writer whom I've always admired, at the end of his set of rules, said to break any one of them rather than say anything outright barbarous.

'Course, Orwell got proved wrong a bunch of times. For one thing, 1984 hasn't happened yet. At least it didn't happen in 1984. Socialism has proven to not to be a viable economic system, at least not for a complex society. It works fine for a small group of people camping for a week; otherwise, it breaks down.

Also, he said something to the effect that someday readers would view the trend to depict lovemaking in detail about the way we now viewed Dickens' account of the death of Little Nell. Ha!

 

[Closet Desire]

Ummmm...

...you might want to look this up in your Funk and Wagnalls.

Orwell proven wrong? I'll just pluck a couple of things from the news on CNN.com today to suggest otherwise.

First...

www.abortioncams.com

I won't need to explain this one to demonstrate the loss of privacy or the intrusion of the "watchers" into society. On this site you will find not only the photographs of women entering or leaving abortion clinics but in some cases their medical records, names, addresses, tag numbers, etc.

Second...

The phone companies have won major victories into requiring customers to "opt out" rather than "opt in" to their plans to distribute your calling records (ie. phone numbers dialled, names of people called, time spent, etc) to their "affiliates" for promotional and marketing purposes.

Someone mentioned not seeing the forest for the trees? 1984...you are there now.

Socialism not a viable economic system? Ahhhhh...a rose by any other name...and so forth. Minimum wage, social security, food stamps, ADC, medicare, public schools are all socialist ideas and they exist because a purely market driven society cannot measure up to its ideals any more than pure capitalism, communism, or democracy. For that matter, democracy doesn't really exist in the US either. Bush as president is the only proof you need of that.

 

[SlickTony]

Closet, I've read and noted your news stories, and fear that you're right in that regard. I mean the sociopolitical aspect. A while back in my state a huge fuss ensued because they were surveying everyone who passed through the gates of a stadium down in Tampa, to see if anybody's face matched photographic files of known and wanted criminals. I think that privacy is getting redefined, little by little and it's a good question what's going to be left. As it is, one is reminded of the story of the frog and the pan of water. You know, where they increased the temperature degree by degree and he was boiled before he knew it...

However, the other thing, Orwell's prediction that sexual description in literature would one day go out of style, has been proven gloriously wrong.

 

[Ray Dario]

Re: Ummmm...

For that matter, democracy doesn't really exist in the US either. Bush as president is the only proof you need of that.

Funny you should say that since America is NOT a democracy. It is a representative republic. Many of our un-enlightened faces on the news cannot comprehend the difference, but I would think that someone as intelligent as you would.

In a democracy everyone votes and the popular vote wins.

In a representative republic each person is represented by someone else. The representative votes and the outcome is decided by how the representative votes not how the individual votes.

I suppose you are whining about how Bush lost the popular vote but still won the presidency. He won by winning the most votes in the electoral college. This is a system where people in a state vote to elect a representative that will, hopefully, vote the way the people did. Each state receives a certain amount of votes. So if a candidate wins big in small states like New Mexico but his opponent wins by a slim margin in bigger states then it is possible to win the popular vote but lose the election. This is what happened to Algore. And I for one thank God for the electoral college.

Now if you're talking about the fiasco in Florida, that is a different matter. There were serious problems with the vote in Florida, starting with faulty voting machines and ending with a political system that would have allowed counties to recount and recount and recount and recount and recount until they had damaged enough ballets to maybe swing the vote toward someone who didn't really win.

And the whiny butt excuse "I was too damned dumb to vote right" was just plain asinine.

But what in the hell does this have to do with Grammer?

Ray

 

[karmadog]

re: split infinitives

Ignore the supposed "rule" banning split infinitives. It does not exist. Read this article.

http://www.uclick.com/client/ven/jk/

This was written by a well-respected editor and scholar of the English language.

 

[SlickTony]

Ray, I don't disagree with what you have said, but I do wish you'd spell grammar right. You keep writing grammer and I think of Kelsey.