tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519912440753252776.post8413421546521393329..comments2023-06-12T17:08:36.320+01:00Comments on How Publishing <i>Really</i> Works: What Is Grammar For?Jane Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03411253302725735470noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519912440753252776.post-39399789631679801652009-05-25T05:20:08.068+01:002009-05-25T05:20:08.068+01:00Jane,
I think you get most to the point when you ...Jane,<br /><br />I think you get most to the point when you talk about being clear and effective -- grammar exists to remove confusions of meaning and to better express your point. This doesn't mean use the simplest wording possible; complex sentences inherently carry new levels of meaning before you even consider the content.<br /><br />You can break the rules of grammar for meaningful purposes (such as your dialogue example), or if the rule gets in the way of actually conveying your point or draws unwanted attention to itself.<br /><br />The most important part isn't having "good" grammar, but considering grammar as a key element in your writing and actually caring.David Dittellhttp://alphabetsoupkitchen.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519912440753252776.post-38886309926011623602009-05-20T10:55:34.070+01:002009-05-20T10:55:34.070+01:00Buffy: But "number" is not the subject of "A numbe...Buffy: But "number" is not the subject of "A number of colleges has made this student an offer"!!! <br /><br />And "many" is not an adjectival noun in this context!!!! <br /><br /><br />"A number of" is a quantifier! <br /><br />"A great many" is a quantifier too, damn it!!!<br /><br />The noun is "colleges". The subject of the sentence is the quantifier and the noun!!!! A NOUN PHRASE!!!!!<br /><br />We use a plural verb when we modify a countable noun with a quantifier indicating more than one!!!!!!!! <br /><br />Aargh. I HAVE NO MORE EXCLAMATION MARKS.<br /><br />Anyway, It's not that I'm bothered about this sort of thing. I just usually wing it. I'm usually out doing stuff like, having fun and partying.Richie Dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519912440753252776.post-14657205425958841652009-05-19T21:10:00.000+01:002009-05-19T21:10:00.000+01:00"Number" is a noun. It is the subject of the sent..."Number" is a noun. It is the subject of the sentence. As "A number" is singular, so is the verb.<br /><br />In "A great many colleges", "colleges" is a noun, whereas "great" is an adjective and "many" is an adjectival noun (singular, hence the A) modifying the noun.<br /><br />As "colleges" is a plural noun, the verb is also plural.<br /><br />Or something like that. Usually I just go by instinct.nonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00415222406280230021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519912440753252776.post-48439096383338486782009-05-19T18:05:00.000+01:002009-05-19T18:05:00.000+01:00Dan: I'm currently working on my second novel--for...Dan: I'm currently working on my second novel--for which you were kind enough to provide extremely helpful research tips. <br /><br />I still drop in at Lobotomy but I don't have as much time available. My presence is sorely lacked on the message boards, I'm sure!Richie Dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519912440753252776.post-27288016720263817322009-05-19T12:56:00.000+01:002009-05-19T12:56:00.000+01:00"I admit there comes a point when it gets pedantic..."I admit there comes a point when it gets pedantic, but I'm sure artists probably spend hours debating the merits of similar shades of blue"<br /><br />Whereas, as a former philosopher I spend much of my time discussing missing shades of blue...<br /><br />Haven't seen you around much at t'other places recently - how's it all going?Dan Hollowayhttp://agnieszkasshoes.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519912440753252776.post-17956803146080819282009-05-19T12:05:00.000+01:002009-05-19T12:05:00.000+01:00Buffysquirrel: So if I said, "A great many college...Buffysquirrel: So if I said, "A great many colleges" I should use "has"? That can't be right. <br /><br />Dan: I can't believe you still haven't won the "Nicest person on t'internet" award!<br /><br />Anyway, I'm quite prepared to be wrong on matters of grammar and in no way think I'm an expert. <br /><br />However, I do think it's important for writers to try and get it right as much as possible! <br /><br />I admit there comes a point when it gets pedantic, but I'm sure artists probably spend hours debating the merits of similar shades of blue. For the lay person it may not make much sense, but for the professional these details matter.Richie Dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519912440753252776.post-11461885903497662212009-05-19T08:14:00.000+01:002009-05-19T08:14:00.000+01:00Richie, I don't think I ever disagree with you on ...Richie, I don't think I ever disagree with you on matters literary, so I almost certainly bow to your superior doodahs on this. My approach has always been based on what my Latin teacher used to say on the subject of agreement (nouns and adjectives, not debating, although she was pretty hot on Cicero), whcih is that it's all about the answer to the question "how many"? If the answer to "how many colleges?" (reminds me of the wonderful Armstrong and Miller "how many hats?" sketch is "several" then the adjective is plural (but the qualifier should have been several - the word, after all, does exist, and would not do so were "a number" able always to be substituted), but in this case the answer is "a number". So in this case I think the question isn't that my "has" should have been replaced with "have" but that my "a number" could have been placed with "several", although that would have lost the rhetorical effect. <br /><br />That said, the main point I wanted to make was about whether this kind of grammatical exchange has any place in fiction. As Emma says, we move on. What I really wanted was to ask the question about grammar and voice. I assume no one would say Kelman, for example, should have jolly well checked his script for typos better, or that DBC Pierre should have been introduced to Fowler at an early age. So at what point does it become OK for someone to disobey the rules of grammar for the sake of the feel, or voice, of their work? And is there an inherent discrimination against new writers in the way I tend to feel there was against non CSM/Goldsmith's (sorry, Emma) artists in the 90s?Dan Hollowayhttp://agnieszkasshoes.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519912440753252776.post-2784817823491759292009-05-18T22:19:00.000+01:002009-05-18T22:19:00.000+01:00Fowler says, "a number of + plural noun" normally ...Fowler says, "a number of + plural noun" normally governs a plural verb in both BrE and AmE... By contrast, "the number of + plural noun" normally governs a singular verb...'<br /><br />I must say, I'd agree. 'A number of' is surely a way of saying it might be fifteen, or it might be five thousand, but it certainly doesn't include the possibility that it was one.<br /><br />Though if you don't like Fowler... I agree that 'different than' and 'different to' are both etymologically incorrect - different is from de+ferro - to carry away. But it's not ambiguous, and it has, like it or not, happened. Language changes...Emma Darwinhttp://emmadarwin.typepad.com/thisitchofwriting/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519912440753252776.post-41708384732260986212009-05-18T18:56:00.000+01:002009-05-18T18:56:00.000+01:00The clue is in the "A". If the noun is singular th...The clue is in the "A". If the noun is singular then the verb must be singular; subject and verb must agree in number.nonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00415222406280230021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519912440753252776.post-23910071473150859942009-05-18T17:39:00.000+01:002009-05-18T17:39:00.000+01:00Dan: I realise this is possible fighting talk but ...Dan: I realise this is possible fighting talk but I can't accept that "A number of colleges has accepted" is correct English.<br /><br />Surely the phrase "A number of. . ." functions as a determiner in the same way as "Many" -- so the sentence would be correct as "A number of colleges have. . . " <br /> <br />(My word verification text is "Somme" so this could be an omen!)Richie Dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519912440753252776.post-87861679943052242912009-05-18T09:19:00.000+01:002009-05-18T09:19:00.000+01:00I'm a grammar-holic but I wonder sometimes where g...I'm a grammar-holic but I wonder sometimes where grammar ends and pedantry begins (I remember going NUTS when a new version of Foweler claimed "different to" was acceptable - NO IT's NOT).<br /><br />I work as an administrator, and get deeply upset by my so-called elders and betters. I remember writing a letter for my senior boss to sign once about a student who'd been made several college offers. The letter came back, signed (i.e. too late to change) with MY contact details at the bottom (i.e. everyone assumes the eroors are down to "the dumb secretary", namely, me), the only amendment being to chaneg the correct "A number of colleges has made this student an offer" to the frankly illiterate "a number of colleges have". <br /><br />The thing is, I can sort of see their point (not in the context of an official letter, but in the context of a novel). "Have" is wrong but "sounds" right, and I think that's the question I want to ask people: we all accept (I assume we do, anyway) that in poetry we can do what we want, provided the sound gets across (or IS) the intention. But some "voices" of novelists also feed on this lyrical, lilting (yes, that's a deliberate reference to Nabokov) style where teh flow of the sentence means more than correctness. So, when the all-important "voice" is at stake, where does grammar end and pedantry begin? Or do we really fall back on that rather sad rule that (NOT which) seems to predominate in art - those who've already made automatically get the benefit of the doubt, whilst those who haven't get the assumption of dimwittery? Or is the answer that if the voice is THAT good, it doesn't matter (much more egalitarian).<br /><br />Or, am I missing the point? Are we talking about much more basicer errers like wot if I woz to use bad commers?Dan Hollowayhttp://agnieszkasshoes.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519912440753252776.post-22598386941620332052009-05-18T00:44:00.000+01:002009-05-18T00:44:00.000+01:00Wy is gramer such a big deel? I thinck its overrad...Wy is gramer such a big deel? I thinck its overradet, personily.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519912440753252776.post-7069574829715927292009-05-18T00:39:00.000+01:002009-05-18T00:39:00.000+01:00"to boldly go where no man has gone before!&q..."to boldly go where no man has gone before!" is perhaps the most famous split infinitive on the planet.<br /><br />In parts of Africa, the loo is called the choo (rhymes with show). I used that word in a short story without explaining exactly what it was (though the reader could figure it out). That story was recently published.<br /><br />I guess my "objections" to grammar are two-fold:<br /><br />As creative writers have have the privilege to break the rules if it suits our purposes. Any "automatic" insistence on adherence to the grammar rules seems to me to be coming from a timid writer.<br />The other objection I have is that so many people insist on good grammar (or Strunk & White, or the use or non-use of the serial comma, or only using Courier typeface, and so on) yet cannot say exactly why. They just seem to be parroting a rule simply because they were told it was a hidebound rule.Paul Lambhttp://www.paullamb.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519912440753252776.post-84865715997018068622009-05-18T00:14:00.000+01:002009-05-18T00:14:00.000+01:00The Americanisms I loathe the most are "gotten" - ...The Americanisms I loathe the most are "gotten" - especially as younger British people seem to be using it with no sense of irony - and "24/7", which is just HIDEOUS. I remember cringing the first time I heard it, and my skin crawls to this day at the expression.<br /><br />Split infinitives - I have learned to gradually become relaxed about them. :) Sometimes people put their sentences through all kinds of torture to avoid them and they can just sound worse than if they had done a nice, clean split.Daniel Blythehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07487799866651688342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519912440753252776.post-22283219930170608702009-05-17T23:33:00.000+01:002009-05-17T23:33:00.000+01:00Eh, I believe that the "no split infinitives" rule...Eh, I believe that the "no split infinitives" rule has been abolished; it being in any case a faux rule in English, as it was imported from Latin, where, of course, infinitives cannot be split; I still recall someone trying on me that old "there's no such word as 'can't' shtitch; I just looked them in the eye and said, "Can not, then"; I have no patience with fools.nonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00415222406280230021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519912440753252776.post-80777754795156119712009-05-17T23:09:00.000+01:002009-05-17T23:09:00.000+01:00A nursery in the U.S. is a garden center that sell...A nursery in the U.S. is a garden center that sells plants and shrubbery. An American nursery school is for children of pre-kindergarten age, i.e, up to the age of 5.<br /><br />During the copy editing phase of my novel, I had a quite the go-around with my publisher's English copy editor over toilet versus lavatory. I'm a Brit, but live in the US and my book is being published by Macmillan in London (next month, in fact).<br /><br />Americans use the word 'toilet' to mean a room with a shower, tub, sink, and a loo. It's also referred to as a bathroom, but never a 'lavatory.' My copy editor, however, changed all instances of toilet to lavatory, no matter if the character was English or American.<br /><br />So I changed them back; she changed them again, and we went round in circles till I rang my editor to insist they remain as toilet, because no American would be using the word lavatory. The only ones I didn't change were those attributed to my English characters, and those were few because mostly they called it the loo.<br /><br />I've been here for many years, but still stumble over Brit-Yank spellings, pronunciation (I still favoUr English-English), sentence structure, grammar, and punctuation. Well, most of the time.<br /><br />We are, indeed, two countries divided by a common language.Maggie Danahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09397320196343147825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519912440753252776.post-8450781603626358242009-05-17T20:05:00.000+01:002009-05-17T20:05:00.000+01:00Mags, I read the novel 'up a tree in the park at n...Mags, I read the novel 'up a tree in the park at night with a hedgehog,' set in London, some months back and it really jarred with me so much that the author used the word kindergarten instead of nursery that I couldn't finish the book.JP_Fifenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519912440753252776.post-33298147269813961462009-05-17T19:11:00.000+01:002009-05-17T19:11:00.000+01:00I was taught grammar twice. At school I was taught...I was taught grammar twice. At school I was taught a number of rules, handed down from on high.<br />We spent quite a time parsing, an activity I did not find useful. <br /><br />At university I was taught that grammar is a description of how a language actually works, not a set of rules we are supposed or expected to follow. <br /><br />It seems to me we understand each other by virtue of shared conventions and departing from those is seldom a good move. How many of us have finished Finnegan's Wake?Rod Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07014569899281085747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519912440753252776.post-34319447036531684922009-05-17T15:55:00.000+01:002009-05-17T15:55:00.000+01:00Sally, you took the words out of my mouth, but the...Sally, you took the words out of my mouth, but then many others did too. There's a huge difference between creatively twisting the rules of grammar for effect (the equivalent of Picasso, whose understanding of eg perspective was superb) and getting stuff wrong accidentally and in a way that creates something ugly, unclear or misleading. <br /><br />But I had noticed Iris M's comma splicing, too, Paul, and didn't like it one bit.<br /><br />Grammar is about creating a strong structure for the sentence, in order to make our point/ paint our picture more effectively. Pedantry or sticking doggedly to the past have no part in that. I'm a huge critic of sloppiness or inaccuracy (especially when I find it in my own work) but I try to be effective and stylish rather than pedantic. <br /><br />After all, if we were going to be pedantic, wouldn't we change Jane's title to "For what is grammar?" Or would you be really pedantic and say that hanging prepositions are style errors, not grammar ones??Nicola Morganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12189894289540344094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519912440753252776.post-51067491529210745242009-05-17T15:32:00.000+01:002009-05-17T15:32:00.000+01:00alternate has won in the US over alternative, whic...alternate has won in the US over alternative, which really annoys me because it's a very useful distinction.<br /><br />There are lots of things which are just two nations divided by a common language, and that I don't mind, though I'm astonished by how many: dual carriageway, dollshouse with no s, no 's' on towards, forwards, backwards, etc. My US copyeditor, quite reasonably, points out that my English narrator may know what's meant by 'a pair of trainers sitting on a window-sill', but my US readers will get quite a different picture! On the other hand, I refuse to swap in 'sneakers', since my narrator wouldn't say it. We settled on gym shoes, which isn't American, but wouldn't be mistaken...<br /><br />One odd thing is the way that auxiliaries appear and disappear: 'meet' has acquired 'with', but 'sort it' has lost 'out', and so on. But I don't much mind - language changes, sometimes for the worse, sometimes for the better - except that it'll mean my own writing seeming out of date that bit sooner.Emma Darwinhttp://emmadarwin.typepad.com/thisitchofwriting/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519912440753252776.post-9163836172336073822009-05-17T15:20:00.000+01:002009-05-17T15:20:00.000+01:00Train station: nope, that's Railway Station. And ...Train station: nope, that's Railway Station. And horseback riding, duh - what other bit of a horse would you ride?<br /><br />And others that impinge on the grammar rules ie 'different than...' which seems to be OK in the US.<br />(Damn, I can feel my BP rising so I shall desist forthwith!)Nicola Sladehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03076176253820195827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519912440753252776.post-48856045195895971292009-05-17T15:09:00.000+01:002009-05-17T15:09:00.000+01:00I'm English but have lived in the State for many y...I'm English but have lived in the State for many years and am still reluctant to use the word 'gotten' in my writing. Of course, 'got' doesn't sound much better, either.<br /><br />What other Americanisms jar English ears? Since my ears are now multi-lingual and therefore unreliable, I'd be interested to know what Yank terms don't sit well with Brit readers.Maggie Danahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09397320196343147825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519912440753252776.post-29856956387618005342009-05-17T13:00:00.000+01:002009-05-17T13:00:00.000+01:00Good god, a pickier pedant than I am! I did, of co...Good god, a pickier pedant than I am! I did, of course, mean 'Due to...' Emma, you're quite right! Another absolute no-no was the word 'got' which has left me uneasy with 'gotten' which is fine in US English.<br /><br />I once made the mistake of getting my husband to read something I'd written. He too corrected the grammar (tsk tsk, no verbs in some of the dialogue?) and turned it into a technical report! But he's an engineer and can't help it.Nicola Sladehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03076176253820195827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519912440753252776.post-15415990037918533572009-05-17T12:31:00.000+01:002009-05-17T12:31:00.000+01:00"loathly Strung & White" = pure gold..."loathly Strung & White" = pure gold!Paul Lambhttp://www.paullamb.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5519912440753252776.post-77928365846419804382009-05-17T11:31:00.000+01:002009-05-17T11:31:00.000+01:00Dialogue is dialogue, but even narrative in creati...Dialogue is dialogue, but even narrative in creative writing has a voice, and that voice may use non-standard grammar. It drives me nuts when my US copy-editor's otherwise admirable thoroughness leads her to correct things which might not please the loathly Strunk & White, but say what I want to say how I want it said.<br /><br />The point surely is that when good writers (and I hope I am one) go non-standard they do it in ways which don't compromise the communication, or only in fruitful ways. To do that needs an ear and eye for how other readers will read it, and developing that ear and eye is one of the chief aspects of learning to write.<br /><br />But I do think we should save our ire and reforming zeal for things which do actually obscure or change meaning, and not waste energy on things which may not be elegant, but are perfectly comprehensible. Besides, as David Crystal (and Winston Churchill) say, there are times when a split infinitive, or a preposition at the end of a sentence, make a better, clearer sentence than studiously avoiding those crimes. Personally, I'd rather fight battles over disinterested/uninterested, alternative/alternate, and may/might, where actual meaning is at stake.<br /><br />And, dare I say it, you can start a sentence with 'Due', if not 'Due to':<br /><br />"Due attention was paid to their material needs"Emma Darwinhttp://emmadarwin.typepad.com/thisitchofwriting/noreply@blogger.com