Referential Statements by Inanimate Objects

[Candy_Kane54]

I am in the process of editing a new story using Grammarly and it is making some suggestions that I find objectionable and I'd like the opinion of other authors on it.

For example, I am writing the sentence: "They had decided to hike the east end of John Bryant State Park."

Grammarly is insisting that I rewrite it as: "They had decided to hike John Bryant State Park's east end."

I disagree. Inanimate objects can't make referential statements about themselves since they are, by definition, inanimate.

Another example: "The left hand of the statue was clenched into a fist."

Grammarly wants me to change it to: "The statue's left hand was clenched into a fist."

Am I wrong? I'd like to know what you think about this. Thanks!

 

[ElectricBlue]

I would write both sentences your way rather than Grammarly's way. But then, I don't get hung up on strict grammatical rules. Gramnarly may be formally correct for business writing, but you're writing fiction.

 

[TadOverdon]

I'd say either is correct. There's no definitive answer on this; the Chicago Manual of Style permits the use of the possessive for the attributes of an inanimate object. "The chair's front legs were too short."

I'd say, for instance, "the car's left headlight was smashed." It's less wordy than "the left headlight of the car was smashed."

And of course an inanimate object can act, grammatically speaking: "the car sped," "the rock fell."

In your example, oddly enough, I think I'd go with your construction rather than Grammerly's. It seems more clear.

 

[lovecraft68]

They both are correct and with the same meaning, but Grammerly' versions sound less natural as far as how people speak in real life.

I wouldn't worry about it.

I just had an issue with the new version of word where it underlined a section of a sentence that I felt was correct, and when I clicked on it I got
"This may offend some readers"

They now have some kind of 'sensitivity' checker.

That was shut off immediately.

 

[SimonDoom]

I agree with you.

As to the first example, I believe yours is more correct for the reason you give. A park cannot possess something, although using the possessive in this way is fairly common.

As to the second, I believe either one works but that yours is better.

 

[NotWise]

They both are correct and with the same meaning, but Grammerly' versions sound less natural as far as how people speak in real life.

I wouldn't worry about it.

I just had an issue with the new version of word where it underlined a section of a sentence that I felt was correct, and when I clicked on it I got
"This may offend some readers"

They now have some kind of 'sensitivity' checker.

That was shut off immediately.

That's funny -- a PC word processor.

Language Tool in LibreOffice Writer highlights obscenities. It makes it easy to see all the times my characters say "fuck" or "cunt."

 

[TadOverdon]

They both are correct and with the same meaning, but Grammerly' versions sound less natural as far as how people speak in real life.

I wouldn't worry about it.

I just had an issue with the new version of word where it underlined a section of a sentence that I felt was correct, and when I clicked on it I got
"This may offend some readers"

They now have some kind of 'sensitivity' checker.

That was shut off immediately.

It is probably a godsend for people writing professional emails and interoffice memos. Will save a career somewhere. LOL

 

[lovecraft68]

That's funny -- a PC word processor.

Language Tool in LibreOffice Writer highlights obscenities. It makes it easy to see all the times my characters say "fuck" or "cunt."

The word it flagged for me was slut, it left most obscenities' alone so maybe it knows context as in saying a word or calling someone that word.

I know there are now sensitivity beta readers

The sadistic part of me wants to find one and send them one of my novels to make their head explode.

 

[mynameisben]

Grammarly is an inanimate object. And that is the root of the hypocrisy from which Grammarly speaks.


Ben

 

[AvroAnsonXIX]

"This may offend some readers"

They now have some kind of 'sensitivity' checker.

That was shut off immediately.

Douglas Adams (who wrote Hitchhiker's Guide) wrote a short story: 'The Electric Monk,' in which an entire society collapsed because of the eponymous robots that were created to act as intermediaries and avoid any form of offence between humans.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I disagree. Inanimate objects can't make referential statements about themselves since they are, by definition, inanimate.

Another example: "The left hand of the statue was clenched into a fist."

Grammarly wants me to change it to: "The statue's left hand was clenched into a fist."

Am I wrong? I'd like to know what you think about this. Thanks!

First example, your wording seems more natural. Second example, I like Grammarly's better.

I'm not aware of any rule that forbids using the possessive in connection with inanimate objects, and trying to apply that can lead to some very stilted constructions. For instance:

"The statue's posture caught my attention. Its patina suggested considerable age, but its face was in a very modern style. I'd have loved to ask its owner some questions."

vs.

"The posture of the statue caught my attention. The patina of it suggested considerable age, but the face of it was in a very modern style. I'd have loved to ask the owner of it some questions."

Granted there are options for recasting the second sentence, but it seems like an unnecessary and limiting rule. The grammatical possessive doesn't have to be about property ownership.

 

[lovecraft68]

Douglas Adams (who wrote Hitchhiker's Guide) wrote a short story: 'The Electric Monk,' in which an entire society collapsed because of the eponymous robots that were created to act as intermediaries and avoid any form of offence between humans.

That's happening today, its called Twitter and cancel culture

 

[latecomer91364]

I like your version of the first sentence, but I would choose Grammerly's version of the second sentence.

The question is: If you have confidence in your writing ability and your command of the language, why use Grammerly at all? I write constantly - mostly for work, and had never heard of it until here. Trust yourself.

That said, neither sentence is an instance of an inanimate object making statements about themselves. Rather, they are instances of you, the author, making omnipotent observations about inanimate objects

 

[KeithD]

No computer grammar system has been developed yet that can handle the nuances of English-language fiction. You have to have a pretty good handle on grammar before any computer grammar system will be a help to you. There's no easy button there. You want to be a good writer? Make the time and effort to learn the basics yourself.

 

[TadOverdon]

It's a spelling and grammar checker with more AI, or expert algorithms if you prefer, than most. That's all.

So the software flags something, you look at it. If you're sure of what you want and you did it, you click the little ashcan. If you're sure of what you want and you screwed up, you accept Grammarly's version.

If you're not sure, you do some research. Sometimes that's opening a topic at Literotica (or somewhere) and asking for advice.

It's just one aid to proofreading, really. I have gotten a lot of use out of it for some specific things. But I'm just using the free version.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

They both are correct and with the same meaning, but Grammerly' versions sound less natural as far as how people speak in real life.

I wouldn't worry about it.

I just had an issue with the new version of word where it underlined a section of a sentence that I felt was correct, and when I clicked on it I got
"This may offend some readers"

They now have some kind of 'sensitivity' checker.

That was shut off immediately.

So, now Word is Woke? Yet they still can't get a bug free version of any of their products. Surprise, surprise.

 

[8letters]

I am in the process of editing a new story using Grammarly and it is making some suggestions that I find objectionable and I'd like the opinion of other authors on it.

For example, I am writing the sentence: "They had decided to hike the east end of John Bryant State Park."

Grammarly is insisting that I rewrite it as: "They had decided to hike John Bryant State Park's east end."

I disagree. Inanimate objects can't make referential statements about themselves since they are, by definition, inanimate.

Another example: "The left hand of the statue was clenched into a fist."

Grammarly wants me to change it to: "The statue's left hand was clenched into a fist."

Am I wrong? I'd like to know what you think about this. Thanks!

To me, the answer depends on the context. What I've learned is to put the important information earlier in a sentence. Also, old information should come before new information. So if the group has been discussing which part of John Bryant State Park they are going to hike, then "the east end" should go first as that is what is important - that's the area the group has decided on hiking. If the group has been debating whether to go to Joe Smith State Park or John Bryant State Park, then "John Bryant State Park" should go first as it is the important news and which part of it the group is going to hike is much less important.

As for the status's hand, it depends how you get to the observation. If the narrator is looking at the statue in general and then drops his/her gaze to the hand, it should be "The statue's left hand". If the narrator is examining the statue's extremities for clues, then "The left hand of the statue".

Edit: Also, shorter before longer. So if they've been discussing go hiking but no specific place, it should be "the east end of John Bryant State Park" as "the east end" can easily be stored in short term memory while the reader processes "John Bryant State Park".

 

[davion2308]

Not wrong

Neither are wrong, you're just getting passive voice from Grammerly.

You're writing in active voice, which I much prefer and feel is stronger and pushes action better.

"The bazooka was fired at the ogre by the Marine."

"The Marine fired the bazooka at the ogre."

One sounds much better to me.

Neither are wrong in the pure sense but the second is stronger.

 

[Candy_Kane54]

Thanks everyone for your responses. I appreciate everyone who took the time to answer my question.

 

[horrorotic]

Does anyone still use that old one whitesmoke I think it was called? Is it still around?

 

[Emirus]

No computer grammar system has been developed yet that can handle the nuances of English-language fiction. You have to have a pretty good handle on grammar before any computer grammar system will be a help to you. There's no easy button there. You want to be a good writer? Make the time and effort to learn the basics yourself.

It’s not often I agree with KeithD but I’m with him on this one. I totally agree with him when he says “You want to be a good writer? Make the time and effort to learn the basics yourself.”

The responsibility for getting my stories technically correct lies with me.

My first story, on which I asked for constructive advice in Story Feedback, was savaged on the technical content. As a result I took the time to go through it, correct all the mistakes, and submit it a second time. I also changed the category from Transgender to NonCon (I’d been in a quandary between the two originally) because I was advised to do so and I considered it good advice.

My opinion is any writer who always uses a computer program to rectify their mistakes is lazy and their writing will never improve in that area. Although I’ve never used a program I can see, and understand, it being helpful when starting out but not to carry on doing so forever.

Having said which whatever technical issues there may be it has nothing to do with the quality of the story itself. I’ve read great stories which have been a nightmare as regards grammar and some technically correct which have been awful.

The categories in which the OP and KeithD write are not for me so my opinion is not biased in any way. I’ve no idea as to the quality of their writing but their readers seem to enjoy their stories so they must be doing something right.

If any writer wants to use Grammarly, or any similar program, that’s up to them. But I want the praise for my stories being technically correct not to give it to a computer program.
*
*

 

[KeithD]

I run all of my work through both a grammar and a spellchecker--probably at least three times before it gets published. That does find a lot of mistakes. (I also recheck quote marks at each step of my process.) I only accept about half of what the grammar checker suggests and the spellchecker is occasionally wrong on the word meant and can't handle hyphenation at all. I have an open dictionary and two shelves of writer's aids at my left elbow--and I've learned how to use them (and even when it's all gone through another editor, a few mistakes remain). The question is not whether or not to use them; it's to realize that they can't manage the nuances of English-language fiction reliably--that the trained human brain can beat them at that.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

I don't use a program to correct my mistakes; I use a program to point out possible issues, and then I consider the suggestions.

This. Anyone who relies on Grammarly or any tool will produce.something that reads like it's been through Google Translate. I once read an essay by.my spouse who had simply hit the top option on Word's spell check, which ended up pretty much intelligible.

Tools alert me to things to look at again. 90% of the time, it's what I intended to say, but there's always a few missed/repeated words or wrong words, and sometimes just a better way to phrase something, if I've used the same sentence.steucture too many times in a row.

 

[SimonDoom]

I don't use a program to correct my mistakes; I use a program to point out possible issues, and then I consider the suggestions. I don't think that's lazy, I think it's smart to make use of tools that improve your work. And I do think my writing has improved greatly, since I started using Grammarly. Not getting to know your flaws means not learning how to improve them.

I find spellcheckers and tools like Grammarly very helpful. I don't rely on them to tell me what proper grammar is or to tell me how to spell a word, because I already know that. But they catch proofreading errors. I know the difference between "their" and "there," but I will transpose the words anyway just because my brain works that way sometimes when I write.

 

[TadOverdon]

I find spellcheckers and tools like Grammarly very helpful. I don't rely on them to tell me what proper grammar is or to tell me how to spell a word, because I already know that. But they catch proofreading errors. I know the difference between "their" and "there," but I will transpose the words anyway just because my brain works that way sometimes when I write.

Yes.

All of these things are just a first pass at revision. Grammarly's interactivity makes it easy to catch the majority of proofreading errors as I'm writing rather than when I go back to revise.