Language & Grammar discussion

Stephen wrote: "Garry wrote: "... So, anyway, I've turned twenty and I only really took reading and writing seriously two years ago...any tips on how to improve on my grammar?"

I checked out your profile and re..."

Hmmm. Ok. Anyway, thanks for everyone's advice. I guess the reading thing was obvious... I'll just put more dedication into it. And I'll keep writing until I find my spark.

Writers write every day. Then they pan for gold in all the muck. I know this but I don't heed my own advice.

(Writing on GR threads does not constitute "writing every day," alas.)

P.S. Re: Gatsby. I think a lot of classics come across as "boring" when you're young. Not all, but a lot. They have to grow on you. Or, with age, you tend to appreciate them more. I was never a fan of Fitzgerald young OR old(er), and ditto to Faulkner (who's even worse). But I loved most of Hemingway's stuff from the get-go. I think it's because his diction is so simple, making it a direct match with my brain.

That's funny, because I've never been a fan of Fitzgerald, Faulkner, or Hemingway, but the reasons have changed with age. When I was a kid, I was just irrationally angry at the authors for not writing something that would have made school more interesting (school even sucked the magic out of books I loved: when I got to Macbeth, my favourite play, in high school, it felt something like a formerly deep and passionate love that I had once stayed up at night pining for, but about whom I was somewhat ashamed in the cold light of the present and the deadness of the longing for that old, lost feeling of deep affection). But as I've got older, I've sought out many authors again, because tastes change and the capacity for objectivity increases with maturity (at least until one hits post-middle-age, as far as I can glean). Unfortunately, for some authors, of whom Hemingway, Fitzgerald, and Faulkner stand as symbols, I only discovered more coherent reasons to regard them as less-than-demiurgic writers.

Garry wrote: "This isn't a direct grammar question, either. But it's about grammar. So, anyway, I've turned twenty and I only really took reading and writing seriously two years ago (surprise, surprise, I haven'..."

May I suggest also listening to a few books? One learns language initially through one's ears, and listening to something well written and in the style one wishes to write gives one a sense of how things should sound. Not that I'm advocating writing in an accent. There is a book out that I enjoyed called Reading Like a Writer by F Prose; not that I'm a writer but I enjoyed the book. Non Fic, of course.

Ruth wrote: "Nita--"outputs" in this plural form is acceptable in a tech context. It's not pretty, though, so in writing for a general audience I would reword. :-)"

Thanks, Ruth! This is for a technical document.

Newengland wrote: "Nita -- I would look for an alternative word for "outputs" because it's repetitive (after "output" in the singular) and also sounds like jargon from the business field, though you don't indicate th..."
Thanks, Newengland. This is a sentence (modified because I didn't have the sentence in front of me when I was posting the question) that goes into a user manual for engineers.

Oh, Lord. "Engineer talk" -- another language entirely.

Hi, I'm a lurker, but I'm stumped and am seeking the guidance and opinion of others who know more than me.

Do you always use italics to show a character's internal dialogue/thoughts in a manuscript, regardless of the amount of internal dialogue there is? I know you should never overuse italics for emphasis, but using italics for internal thought is not the same as using it for emphasis, so that rule shouldn't apply the same. I just feel like there "looks like" there is too much italics in a section of manuscript. I'm inclinded to say, a rule is a rule and use the italics for the internal dialogue, but don't want the reader to be too distracted either.

Stacey Jo wrote: "Hi, I'm a lurker, but I'm stumped and am seeking the guidance and opinion of others who know more than me.

Do you always use italics to show a character's internal dialogue/thoughts in a manuscrip..."
Hi Stacey, I'm not posting this opinion as an expert (I'm not an expert!). But as an avid reader, I think italics are very distracting. The only time I think italics work in fiction (particularly, crime fiction) is when they are used to highlight a sentence that's meant to surprise or shock the reader. Internal thoughts are best left in the default font.

In my experience, italics are the exception rather than the rule. You should be able to write your scene well enough so it's obvious that the character is thinking. No need for "he thought" or italics.

Ruth wrote: "In my experience, italics are the exception rather than the rule. You should be able to write your scene well enough so it's obvious that the character is thinking. No need for "he thought" or ita..."

Thanks Ruth and Nita. That helps. It did feel like the italics were really excessive.

I've also seen thoughts placed in quotation marks but, like the italics, this is the exception and not the rule. An adept writer should be able to signal thoughts by the writing, no gimmicks (or conventions) needed....

Hi,

Which is correct:

* One or more...is
* One or more... are

Thanks!

Two words separated by OR take a singular predicate (e.g. John or Sue is driving Mom to work.), but when one word of the pair is singular ("One") and the other is plural ("more"), you go with the one closest to the verb.

My choice: "One or more are...."

Newengland wrote: "Two words separated by OR take a singular predicate (e.g. John or Sue is driving Mom to work.), but when one word of the pair is singular ("One") and the other is plural ("more"), you go with the o..."
Thanks much!

I would normally agree, but I see more as a collective and singular in it's more-ishness (!) ....if it was 'One or two' I would say 'are', but in this case I just think 'one or more is' sounds better.
But what would I know....!!!

A classic case where rewriting the sentence is best of all!

Has anyone else noticed the loss of the simple past tense in verbs like swim (swam is now swum), shrink (shrank is now shrunk)?
And when did we lose the "If I had... , I would have..." Now it's just "If I would have ..." or, even worse, "If I would of". Shudder.

Who'd a thunk it?

Heehee!

I swam out to the point.

My shirt shrank in the dryer!


Hmn. Not sure how "swum" or "shrunk" would work in either of those sentences. Am I missing something? Am I thunking incorrectly?

I have swum out to the point, Why use extra words when one will suffice.

My shirt has shrunk in the dryer.

We old schoolers can continue with our fewer words , I am thunking.

Kitty wrote: "I have swum out to the point, Why use extra words when one will suffice.
My shirt has shrunk in the dryer.
We old schoolers can continue with our fewer words , I am thunking."


The difference is in the tense and there are slight differences in meanings when used properly.
Past Tense - My shirt shrank in that dryer.
Present Perfect - Things have shrunk in there before.

Present perfect tense describes an action that happened at an indefinite time in the past or that began in the past and continues in the present.This tense is formed by using has/have with the past participle of the verb.

http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/grammar/t...

And the earlier example "If I had... , I would have..." is tied up into the whole confusion about the subjunctive tense.

Use of the Subjunctive

We use subjunctives mainly when talking about events that are not certain to happen. For example, we use the subjunctive when talking about events that somebody:
•wants to happen
•hopes will happen
•imagines happening

Just remember Tevye had it right ... If I were a Rich Man!

This is not a grammar question. But I just learnt that "blogging" used to be a word much before "blogs" were created, but it meant something different. I'm curious to know what it used to mean. Please can someone tell me? Thanks!

Okay, here's another - has anyone noticed (and moaned at) the loss of the verb "to have"? No more I have...", They have..."; now it's "I got..." and "They got...". I wince when I hear Matt Lauer tell us that they " got a great show today!" My moans go unnoticed, except by my my long-suffering husband.
I am trying to change my attitude so that I no longer moan, but take an academic interest in " seeing my native language evolve before my eyes". I did have to fight myself to keep from typing "deteriorating before my eyes."

Does Lauer actually say "we got a great show" or "we have got a great show", i.e. is your objection to the absence of "have", the addition of "got" or both?

To my British ears, "we got" is odd and ugly and "we have got" is utterly commonplace. There wouldn't be anything wrong with "we have a great show", though it is more formal and less idiomatic in BrE than the "have got" that so many Americans dislike.

Stephen wrote: "Kitty wrote: "I have swum out to the point, Why use extra words when one will suffice.
My shirt has shrunk in the dryer.
We old schoolers can continue with our fewer words , I am thunking."

..."
Thanks I told you I stunk, stank at grammar.

They are leaving out the 'have' here in NZ too.....I am constantly correcting the kids I teach....the ones who say, "I got none".....sometimes with an 'ain't' thrown in as well for good measure.

Cringing!

Cecily: No, he (and, lamentably, so many others) actually says "We got...". Not a "have" in sight.
Moan.

I wonder if it's an affectation... Remember how US broadcasters always try for that bland midwestern accent so that they will appeal to the most people? Perhaps Matt is taking it a step further by adopting incorrect but common usage.

Ah, for the days when "common" was an insult!

Not an affectation here.....these kids have grown up with adults who speak like that. They probably think I am terribly affected!

This is a heading for an article on the internet.

It sounds wrong to me.

"Nearly 1 in 3 American Children is overweight or obese. I say it should be are my husband says no .

Kitty wrote: "This is a heading for an article on the internet.

It sounds wrong to me.

"Nearly 1 in 3 American Children is overweight or obese. I say it should be are my husband says no ."

'Is' is correct, because its subject is the ONE of the three, not the three.

It does sound odd though. That was my husbands argument also . Thank you for your answer.

Remember what Hamlet says of the gravedigger:

'Custom hath made it in him a property of easiness.'

The oftener one uses an odd-sounding construction (such as 'oftener') the easier it will become.

Heehee! Thanks

Ok to add a BIT of fuel to that fire... It said nearly one in three if it had said 32%, would that have made it OK to use are?

HMMM 1% is singular? 32% plural? Or as a whole it is still singular? Good question , better people than me can answer.

Nearly is an adverb modifying a quantifier, which can act as both noun and adjective. The 'one' is still the subject here.

But it is less than one ;->!!

Kitty wrote: "This is a heading for an article on the internet.

It sounds wrong to me.

"Nearly 1 in 3 American Children is overweight or obese. I say it should be are my husband says no ."

Surely the subject is American Children- plural (and the one in 3 is a cross whole population so it is also indicating a plural quantity) so I say "are", but I'm no grammarian!

Sorry Cathy but the grammarian in me says that the subject is "one" and so calls for the sigular verb form. (It might have been all those years of diagramming sentances)

There is no other issue than what the subject of the verb 'be' is, and the answer is 'one', which is singular.

I have been doing some proof-reading of passgaes for a book of remembrances and several times have come across statements such as: "Golf is an interest of Tom's." or "Dogs have been an interest of Bill's for most of his life." To me, these sound right, they sound natural to say, yet they cannot be correct. But "Dogs have been an interest of Bill for most of his life." sounds odd. Anyone have a view?

They sound fine to me, albeit a little informal, so what (who?) made you think they cannot be correct?

If we know what you dislike, it might be easier to suggest alternatives. As you dislike the second example, the issue is not just that you don't want to end a sentence with a possessive, so I'm not sure what it is.

You could say "Bill's interests included dogs and golf", but that sounds very cold to me. Another option would be to elaborate, e.g. "Bill's interest in dogs reached its peak when Fido won the silver trophy..." of "Bill devoted years to improving his golf handicap, but the camaraderie of the golf club mattered to him even more."

I don't know - those constructions sound labored to me. More natural, I think, would be "Tom is interested in golf" and "Bill has been interested in dogs for most of his life."

"Dogs have been an interest of Bill's (rather than Bill) for most of his life'....sounds better?

Since this is a story about Bill, not one about dogs, I think he should be the subject of the sentence.

Bill has been interested in dogs for most of his life.

The sentences you give are somewhat awkward, and I would try to reword them. But the original sentences are entirely grammatically sound.