Grinded vs. Ground

[SimonDoom]

Inventive speech tags are the same thing. You don't have to like them, but don't claim that they're grammatically incorrect, because they aren't.

I don't claim that (note my use of "that") they're grammatically incorrect. I think that they're (most of the time) stylistically wrong. It's an indication of less-than-optimal prose choices. Most of the time, they're an indication of overcooked writing.

Not always. But when I see writers going out of their way to choose replacements for "said" and "asked," I think that they are making bad choices and following a wrong standard of what makes good writing. They feel like they have to dress up their writing, when in fact they don't have to, and they'd be better off keeping it simple.

That's me. But it's also what most good published authors do, most of the time, and what most professional editors will say.

 

[IWroteThis]

I could've, but I liked the flow of the one I went with more more. I try to avoid too many tags that aren't said, they tend to stack up and become pretty noticeable if you have a lot of them, and I was already pretty heavy on "he/she whimpered," so I went with a bit more flowy option. It also fit the mood and pacing around it better than the more simple "she whispered," and mood/pacing/flow factors into my decisions around using dialogue vs action tags.

You can also have loud whimpers, medium whimpers, hard whimpers, soft whimpers, all sorts. I wanted to capture the essence of her whimper's fragility, hence the explicit mention of softness.

I'm not a pretentious writer.

Promise.

Guys?

...hello?

And that's your choice. I was simply pointing out that in your example, you weren't using an action tag in place of a speech tag, because it actually was a speech tag. If you just meant instead of the standard "said" speech tag, that's not how I read your comment.

 

[IWroteThis]

So is smile. So is shrug. So is smirk. etc.

Yes and no. They show movement within the body, not movement of the body. The fact you can waltz into a room doesn't mean you can smile, shrug, or smirk into a room.

In fact it is even more appropriate to smile a sentence than it is to waltz into a room since the character speaking is actually smiling and the character entering the room isn't actually waltzing. Waltz is a metaphor that conveys a more vivid picture so that makes it valid. Smiling a sentence is no less valid.

That makes no sense.

Waltzing into a room implies a certain style of movement, not that they were actually dancing a waltz. If that movement is how they moved into the room, it's appropriate to say they waltzed into the room. It's the same for any other words that refer to a style of movement, such as walked, crawled, hopped, skipped, jumped, fell, etc. As long as it matches what they did, it's appropriate to say it's what they did.

However, even if they were smiling as they entered the room, the smile had nothing to do with the movement into the room. It's a separate action.

I don't have a problem with anyone who doesn't care for metaphoric verb license on speech tags and their reasoning for not liking them is totally valid. But this whole notion that smiling or shrugging a sentence is improper grammar is not true at all.

Ah, but you contradict yourself. The fact you need metaphoric verb license to call them speech tags means that they are not. Thus, it is improper grammar, simply ignored in deference to artistic license.

I have a little bit of grammar snobbery myself. I always use 'that' in my narrative, as in "Sheila thought that his shabby attire was inappropriate for the occasion." Most people would leave out the that. I notice this and it trips me when I see it. I prefer to have the that in there, but that's just me and my preference. Leaving out the that is not a grammar error. I'm not going to be snobby about it.

Yeah, I'm with you there. I used to make sure to include 'that' everywhere grammar rules dictated, then I mostly dropped them in dialogue in response to comments. Now, I use a mix, whether in dialogue or narrative. I make my decisions on each instance based on the Read Aloud editing, going with whichever one I think sounds better in the moment.

On the plus side, such inconsistency in usage should lower my AI probability score, right?

Inventive speech tags are the same thing. You don't have to like them, but don't claim that they're grammatically incorrect, because they aren't.

To be clear, I'm not saying you can't use them, and you're right that I don't have to like them, but you're also wrong about them not being grammatically incorrect. They wouldn't be inventive if they were proper grammar, after all. However, the rules of grammar change based on usage, so they'd never change if nobody colored outside the lines. Perhaps you'll start a movement and we'll all get used to people smiling words.

Until then, they will continue to look and sound wrong, largely because there is a mismatch between the action of speaking and the action verb used.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I don't claim that (note my use of "that") they're grammatically incorrect.

You have in the past. More than twice.

 

[XerXesXu]

I'm always amazed so few posters know the difference between 'grammar' and 'style'. Grammar is a feature of spoken language; style is a feature of written language. Style is arbitrary. Style guides are written by people who woke up from a dream and said, 'The world would be a more beautiful and contented place if everyone spelled and punctuated like me.' Consider how that differs from, 'The world would be a more beautiful and contented place if everyone spoke English/ Finnish, and so on, like me.' Bookshelves groan with the number of competing style guides - it's something that happens often.

Tomorrow morning, as you brush your hair in front of the mirror, talk to yourself. Count the number of punctuation marks you see. No writing in the condensation.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Yes and no. They show movement within the body, not movement of the body. The fact you can waltz into a room doesn't mean you can smile, shrug, or smirk into a room.

So? They're both action verbs. There is no difference. You also can't waltz a sentence. What sane writer would try to write either of those?

However, even if they were smiling as they entered the room, the smile had nothing to do with the movement into the room. It's a separate action.

Speaking with a smile or a shrug is part of the communication. Body language can sometimes say more than the actual words. Body language can certainly change the meaning of speech greatly. Therefore it makes perfect sense and it is entirely appropriate to combine these actions into speech.

I used to make sure to include 'that' everywhere grammar rules dictated, then I mostly dropped them in dialogue in response to comments.

Oh, I only use it in narrative, never dialogue, since nobody actually talks that way. However I might drop the 'thats' in a first person voicing that I felt required a casual tone.

To be clear, I'm not saying you can't use them, and you're right that I don't have to like them, but you're also wrong about them not being grammatically incorrect. They wouldn't be inventive if they were proper grammar, after all. However, the rules of grammar change based on usage, so they'd never change if nobody colored outside the lines. Perhaps you'll start a movement and we'll all get used to people smiling words.

If clever speech tags are incorrect grammar then any verb license such as 'waltzing into a room' is also incorrect, because clever speech tags are simply verb license - and no one objects to 'waltzing in' grammatically. Really the argument against clever speech tags boils down to 'no metaphors allowed, must be 100% literal' and you an see just how silly that argument sounds.

 

[SimonDoom]

You have in the past. More than twice.

OK, but that's not the point I'm making right now.

I think there's a sense in which some speech tags, though not all, are bad grammar, because they're being used to convey speech when that's not what that verb is for.

"I don't care," she shrugged. That's an example. Strictly speaking, you can't "shrug" a statement. It's not a word that is intended to convey speech in some way. Unlike, say, "whispered," or "shouted."

You can say you are using it metaphorically. My chief point isn't to quibble with the grammar of it, but to point out that it can overdone very easily. I don't think this is bad if done sparingly. But I've seen some examples of stories here where it's quite obvious the author is going out of their way to use creative tags, to the point that they feel obtrusive.

The better way, IMO, to eliminate the redundant use of "said" is to craft the dialogue so you can cut down on the use of tags of any type.

 

[TheLobster]

I'm a bit irritated that so many people here are talking about grammar here, when discussing weird/metaphorical/incorrect speech tags. It has little to nothing to do with grammar.

Grammar is just the way a natural (and formal) language is structured; a set of rules that allows humans and computers to parse it. Grammatical rules describe how the words go together, and perhaps change forms, to form a structure of the utterance, be it a written or spoken one. It doesn't really describe meaning (i.e., semantics), which is the layer above it, decoded once this basic grammatical structure is discerned.

What this means is that both sensical and nonsensical speech tags are equally grammatical:

"I don't care." She shrugs.

"I don't care," she shrugs.

It's only when you violate the structural that the text becomes incorrect from the point of view of grammar:

* "I don't care." She shrug.

* "I don't care," she shrug.

I know this might seem a bit like pointless pedantry, but when you try to bolster your arguments as advocacy for the correct grammar -- a fundamental property of the structure of the language -- when in fact it's about the meaning of words, you are ascribing to them a stronger authority than those arguments actually deserve.

 

[TheWritingGroup]

@SimonDoom, do you really think unusual is the same thing as incorrect?

You seem to be saying that common poetic devices like metaphor and litotes and hyperbole and euphemism and allegory are "incorrect". After all, if I write "Her head was as empty as the interstellar void," that is literally incorrect, but it isn't wrong. It's just not a measure of the ambient pressure.

 

[Dodola]

“I can’t believe this thread is still grinding on,” he grinded groundedly.

People could certainly follow your lead and be more flexible,
Err, I mean,
Try to straighten things out once and for all,
Uhh,
What I mean is, no one need bend over backwards for anyone else's

Wait, I'm probably not being very helpful

 

[TheWritingGroup]

Question for the assembly: on Literotica, how has this conversation not included Grindr?

 

[XerXesXu]

Lede, in Daily Star 3rd Feb 26.

Daily Star
85.9K Followers

'Best friend slept with 3 guests, grinded on my grandad, threw cake and my ruined party'​

I think I may know who the sub-editor was.

 

[SimonDoom]

@SimonDoom, do you really think unusual is the same thing as incorrect?

You seem to be saying that common poetic devices like metaphor and litotes and hyperbole and euphemism and allegory are "incorrect". After all, if I write "Her head was as empty as the interstellar void," that is literally incorrect, but it isn't wrong. It's just not a measure of the ambient pressure.

That's not what I'm saying. Not what I intend to be saying, anyway.

 

[IWroteThis]

So? They're both action verbs. There is no difference. You also can't waltz a sentence. What sane writer would try to write either of those?

Once again, you're contradicting yourself. Based on your own words, waltzing a sentence would be possible. It's an action you can do while speaking, after all.

Speaking with a smile or a shrug is part of the communication. Body language can sometimes say more than the actual words. Body language can certainly change the meaning of speech greatly. Therefore it makes perfect sense and it is entirely appropriate to combine these actions into speech.

You started out so good... Yes, body language can express things. That's why speech tags are sometimes used in reference to body language, even though it's not literal speech.

Her smile said, "I just farted."

To convert that into your style just looks and sounds wrong.

Her face smiled, "I just farted."

Oh, I only use it in narrative, never dialogue, since nobody actually talks that way. However I might drop the 'thats' in a first person voicing that I felt required a casual tone.

Then you're missing out. There are times when including that "that" adds important emphasis, or just stops certain sentences from sounding as bad as smiling a sentence.

If clever speech tags are incorrect grammar then any verb license such as 'waltzing into a room' is also incorrect, because clever speech tags are simply verb license - and no one objects to 'waltzing in' grammatically. Really the argument against clever speech tags boils down to 'no metaphors allowed, must be 100% literal' and you an see just how silly that argument sounds.

Once again, waltzing refers to a style of movement. There is NO verb license needed to use a word to mean exactly what it means. Your argument against the word waltzed seems to be the same as if you said a frowning person smiled a sentence. Yes, if the action word doesn't match the action, it's incorrect. However, if their stride was consistent with the movements of a waltz, they waltzed into the room.

Actually, the biggest argument against "clever speech tags" is that they are neither clever nor speech tags. But, like I said, you are free to use them. However, you are not free to claim they are proper.

 

[TheWritingGroup]

Actually, the biggest argument against "clever speech tags" is that they are neither clever nor speech tags. But, like I said, you are free to use them. However, you are not free to claim they are proper.

What do you mean by "proper"? Would Nineteenth Century grammarians like it?

Actually, maybe, but seriously, what is "proper" in this context?

 

[Statius]

I could've, but I liked the flow of the one I went with more more. I try to avoid too many tags that aren't said, they tend to stack up and become pretty noticeable if you have a lot of them, and I was already pretty heavy on "he/she whimpered," so I went with a bit more flowy option. It also fit the mood and pacing around it better than the more simple "she whispered," and mood/pacing/flow factors into my decisions around using dialogue vs action tags.

You can also have loud whimpers, medium whimpers, hard whimpers, soft whimpers, all sorts. I wanted to capture the essence of her whimper's fragility, hence the explicit mention of softness.

I'm not a pretentious writer.

Promise.

Guys?

...hello?

We've had a number of threads in the past on the subject of tags, and there's a wide variety of opinion on this subject. I take Elmore Leonard position in favor of using said and asked and keeping it simple. But many others disagree.

First, I did not mean to include @anthrodisiac in this post, can't delete it so it's stuck, apologies for that.
@SimonDoom,
As the rest of this thread has expanded, it is a perfect example of why I said the first 5 posts above mine were perfect for writing advice for a new writer seeking insight. Everything else is hair splitting and perhaps too in depth and confusing when simplicity is best. The amount of voices, though well intentioned, becomes overwhelming for a new writer. Please do not take this as an argument or disagreement, it isn't. The thread is insightful and interesting, just overwhelming for someone new is all I'm saying.

Peace.

 

[SimonDoom]

First, I did not mean to include @anthrodisiac in this post, can't delete it so it's stuck, apologies for that.
@SimonDoom,
As the rest of this thread has expanded, it is a perfect example of why I said the first 5 posts above mine were perfect for writing advice for a new writer seeking insight. Everything else is hair splitting and perhaps too in depth and confusing when simplicity is best. The amount of voices, though well intentioned, becomes overwhelming for a new writer. Please do not take this as an argument or disagreement, it isn't. The thread is insightful and interesting, just overwhelming for someone new is all I'm saying.

Peace.

This is what I recommend for a writer that considers themselves "new." Pay attention to these debates, learn what you can, but realize that you're just getting subjective opinions from a very small sliver of all the people who write here. It's not worthless, but it's not gospel.

My recommendation is to read, to read a lot, and to read carefully. Rather than listening to people talk about how they write, look at how they write. How does it work, for you? Look at how they handle dialogue. Narration. Point of view. A good writer is a good reader.

 

[LFM90]

Okay, this one has been tripping me up as I read various stories here.

It's the act of one person rubbing their sexual region against another person's sexual region. Doesn't really matter the genders involved.

The present tense of the word is "Grind". But many are writing in the past tense. To me it seems like "ground" is the word choice to go with. "Debbie ground her clit across Chad's pubic bone."

But I am seeing the word, "Grinded" a lot. "Debbie grinded her clit across Chad's pubic bone." Now I don't find grinded in Miriam Websters, but I do find it in Wordhippo.



Grinded just doesn't quite sound right to my ears. How does it sound to your ears? What version do you use when you write?

Either way I want a girl to hump and grind grinded or ground my face

 

[anthrodisiac]

First, I did not mean to include @anthrodisiac in this post, can't delete it so it's stuck, apologies for that.

 

[Statius]

View attachment 2594918

Appreciate your sense of humor