Grammar and vocabulary

[Percival]

I spotted in the Critiques section that comma splices, something I'd never even heard of, are flagged up as serious grammar errors. (They don't teach grammar in school any longer, at least they didn't in mine.) I was quite taken aback.

It got me thinking about grammar and vocabulary more generally.

I want to say up-front that I don't believe in rules of any kind in language, they're pretty much all wrong historically [defiant comma splice?]. I do think it's important to know the accepted rules but I don't think it's important to stick to them.

I also don't believe in dictionary definitions of words. A word means what it is used to mean: its meaning is really an aggregate distilled from all the other uses of the word the reader has encountered. Different words really do mean different things to different people, at least in the nuances - and for me the great damage American education has done to the English language is not in coining neologisms, nor in preserving archaisms, nor in adjusting spelling in silly ways, but in making people learn word lists. A word list is a terrible way to learn vocabulary, because you learn a definition stripped of nuances instead of learning it organically as it has been used. (And this bleaching of the entire language, especially polysyllables, is behind the rapid coining of new words that is currently ongoing in my opinion - having trimmed hundreds of different words into the same definition and picked the longest one, we're now in the process of building the dictionary back up again - but these new words and usages don't have the beautiful ancient prose that used the old ones to give them texture). But I digress.

A word is a big blurry thing, and a sentence, a paragraph even, is a daubing of several of them. It's more like painting in watercolours than oils. For me, the important thing is to get the right tone where there colours blend.

So. I guess my question is this: does anyone actually count grammar or vocabulary against work as they read it? (I know some people do, I just wanted an idea for how widespread that feeling is). How badly am I limiting my readership by my weird vocabulary and, in places, deliberately incorrect grammar? (Without even counting my accidentally incorrect grammar; though given I now know about comma splices and don't see what's wrong with them, there will be a heavier weighting on the deliberate than the accidental than there was).

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Hi Percival; my husband, who is Jane Austen old school taught, groans at all my grammar and most of my vocabulary, whilst agreeing it's easier to read and follows the venacular better; but I'm Irish, and the venacular defies all logic lol all us Irish! Bascically, yes the laws need to be at least respected, but if you look at writers like Beckett/ Joyce in his Finnegan's wake sections, then we can play with it. Maybe, if you're James Joyce! Also, I think it depends what type of book, maybe; an easy to read story telling yarn probably needs to follow convention, a more progressive style; you can play around with a little more with. Maybe.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

It absolutely matters to me as a reader. If I see that sort of carelessness (and that's what it sounds like care-less-ness) I expect to see just as much carelessness in the plot and characters. I don't know you and you may be the most hard-working writer around, but when I hear the sort of thing you are saying here, I immediately think of it as an excuse for laziness ... and perhaps a touch of arrogance.

Writing is meant to communicate. Grammar is meant to make communication easier and prevent misunderstanding. The same is true with using words according to their accepted definitions rather than what you have "decided" they mean rather than choosing to pick up a dictionary and find out. (Dictionaries are not written by people who wish to stifle the language and free expression. They are written by people who love words and have studied them all their lives.)

The comma splice is not the worst thing you can do -- far from it. Many published writers use it. But using it over and over and over, as some people do, can be annoying. It can set up a kind of "jingling" repetition or rhythm in the writing that is very distracting.

Anything you write is yours to write in any way you choose to do it; but if you throw the rules out the window, you had better be prepared for misunderstandings and criticism. Maybe you want ambiguity. Many fine writers do. But the ambiguity should be planned and carefully executed. It shouldn't be the result of laziness in learning to practice your craft. If your work ever goes out in the wider world, you don't be there to explain your interesting theories on writing; it will have to stand on its own feet. Be prepared to take the heat if people criticize it.

 

[HareBrain]

Maybe, if you're James Joyce!

I think this is it in a nutshell. I'm fine with any deviation from "standard" English as long as I can see that the author has deviated deliberately to achieve an effect which is relevant to what he is writing. If this isn't the case, then it's better for the language to become largely invisible, which means used in the way I'm used to. Otherwise it becomes a barrier.

 

[chrispenycate]

Me? You know me, I was the one attacking comma splices. (A term that I have only learnt recently, although the sin it represents has long been recognised)

Yes, I'm old fashioned (about the only way in which I will ever approach fashion. And, in my own writing, will even start a sentence with a conjunction, despite pointing it out to others when they dare. (I won't split an infinitive, though, even in dialogue.)

I consider a language chiefly for communication and, while accepting that meaning can, and must, mutate, I attempt to slow this change as much as possible, to avoid linguistic "cliques"; small groups whose usage has drifted far enough from the norm concepts can no longer make the voyage.

Not that this is a recent development; trades and studies have always had their specialised vocabularies, symbols of things that interested no-one else. There have always been the pedants trying to maintain enough stability that various classes could talk to one another, and the freethinkers proud that their language reflected their philosophy, and if you didn't approve they didn't care if you understood or not. And the poets, of course, but they're trying to do something else with language.

Things change fast nowadays, including language. If we are not to end up fighting each other over misunderstandings the world needs a minority of stick in the mud stability enthusiasts, and I am not ashamed to be one of their number.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Yes, also I think with dialogue you can play about a bit more; put in accent's and whatnot, to give a voice, but with the story telling aspects, you need to be a bit more careful.

 

[Susan Boulton]

I also don't believe in dictionary definitions of words.

Huh? This has me totally confused. Though there can be slightly different nuances with regards to a single word, they all circle around one general meaning. With writing you learn to use words to create. Without a general definition for the reader to draw on, the word you choose to use is meaningless.

So. I guess my question is this: does anyone actually count grammar or vocabulary against work as they read it? (I know some people do, I just wanted an idea for how widespread that feeling is). How badly am I limiting my readership by my weird vocabulary and, in places, deliberately incorrect grammar? (Without even counting my accidentally incorrect grammar; though given I now know about comma splices and don't see what's wrong with them, there will be a heavier weighting on the deliberate than the accidental than there was).

I would suggest it is a bit like trying to fight with one hand tied behind your back. You need to prove you know the rules before you bend them, not an easy trick to pull off.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

Before one breaks the rules one should know and understand them. Now I am no saint my grammar and punctuation stinks like a dead rat stuck up a pipe. Having gone thirteen years between uni and actually writing anything longer than a letter my intial attempts were awful.

That doesn't mean to say I find excuses - I've been reading my punctuation and grammar books. Yes sometimes I do now tweek it to make it fit, but I am doing it because it works better not because I don't know any better.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

I have to agree with TE here. Grammar is a strong point of mine in writing, and I am a stickler for it. You use grammar properly to convey emotion, to help break up a winding thought, to combine two similar thoughts together that would not make sense being together without proper grammar use.


As for the purpose of dictionaries and word use, well, just think of how vocabulary and spelling was back before the printing press. It's not so much definition of a word, but spelling. Considering how "ti" together will often make a "sh" sound, consider how the word "enough" is pronounced at the end with that "gh", and how vowels can make all sorts of different sounds-back before print came into the mass public people wrote pretty much the way they wished, and might wind up spelling the word "fish" as "ghoti" or "ghiti", leading to great confusion of what the writer was trying to convey to the intended readers. One word out of place can make the entire thought break down, hence the institution of the rules of writing, punctuation, grammar, so that when they are used properly people can understand what the author might be trying to say when the author isn't hanging over their shoulder.

 

[Mouse]

I've got no idea what a comma splice is. But grammar is hugely important to me too. It irritates me seeing grammatically incorrect posts, let alone anything else! And my grammar's not perfect.

If I'm reading something, I don't want to notice the spelling or grammar. That is, I need it to be correct.

Incidentally, (kinda) I recently got lumbered with the job of proofreader at work. Tis huge amounts of fun.

 

[Percival]

Really interesting to see the responses. I guess I was more provocative than I meant to be. Long day here and I'm still winding down! So I apologise if I came across as confrontational, though I'd stand by what I said.

There's a really funny sequence about the harking back to old forms (which is not what I'm accusing anyone of, I was merely reminded of it, which is a different thing).

In a session of the Academie Francaise in 1843, an argument erupted between the philosopher and educationalist Victor Cousin and the novelist Victor Hugo. The discussion developed into a heated exchange about the state of the language in general, with Cousin proclaiming that the recent changes French was undergoing were nothing but decay. When Hugo questioned his reasoning, Cousin replied that he even knew exactly when the rot began. 'The decay of the French language,' he declared, 'started in 1789,' to which Hugo famously retorted: 'A quelle heure, s'il vous plait?'

(The end translates as "At what time, please?").

I'm not going to disavow arrogance, that would be the most arrogant response of all. So, sure, I think I know I best (who doesn't?).

And I don't know that there's a profitable debate on what is best. I don't know that anyone would disagree that there's a continuum between the strictest adherence to the rules and flagrant disregard for them, and that most of us find ourselves somewhere between the extremes.

I tried to give examples below; I just made these up off the cuff so forgive me if they're weak, I just wanted to give a feel for the things I like.

Example: I personally quite like joining speech with things that aren't speech tags, to give a run on effect.

"She's going to die," breathlessly, feeling the seconds scampering away, "can't we do something?"

I went through my draft and removed every one of the times I did this. Except one. I weighed and debated, and in the end what was expressed by the grammatically incorrect form struck me as more pleasing than anything I could do with correct grammar. Perhaps the fault is mine, a better writer would manage to convey the same thing without breaking the rules. Or then again, perhaps not.

Example: I like using adjectives to describe things they can't possibly describe, if the colour of the adjective shades the object in question in a way I enjoy.

The castle towered over them, reptilian and hungry against the tired sky.

I have many of these left, and in general I like weird misuses better than correct uses, because (with luck) a misuse is more informative than a correct usage. It suggests more for the same number of words.

Example: I like partial, improper sentences.

She fell. Not dead. Not fainted. Not still. But helpless.

In fact, my use of punctuation is often hazy. I judge it mostly by two things: how long the pauses are when I read it out loud, and what groupings of ideas I want in the sentence.

I don't think the strictest adherence to the rules is necessary for communication. Language is essentially ossified speech, and speech occurs spontaneously and fluidly and is seldom grammatical. I do agree that it's important to communicate (why else write?) and I do agree one has to know the rules (and the half-rules, the usages men of letters condemn) but I don't feel in any way obliged to stick to them if I like the alternative better.

Anyway, it's an interesting debate. It's clear a lot of people are sticklers! It changes nothing for me really, I write the way I feel I have to, but it is informative. I think my style may well grate on the nerves of much of my readership. So be it. I write what I enjoy reading.

 

[Hex]

I'm coming to this conversation late, but: I didn't know what a comma splice was before I came here either.

In terms of breaking rules: I'll forgive a lot if the story is interesting, and I'll forgive even more if the language works. Hard to say what I mean since I don't really know -- but some people have an ear for language and others do not. I rarely dig down into specific meanings if I like the image or the sound of the language in my head.

So, I especially liked the reptilian castle.

I find that I do this: "I passed him the plate of biscuits, leaned in to hear more." -- it really annoys some people. I don't even know what's wrong with it, although apparently something is. I like the rushed feeling.

The alternatives I can think of don't have the same effect in my head -- "I passed him the plate of biscuits and leaned in to hear more" sounds slower, somehow, and "I passed him the plate of biscuits, leaning in to hear more" sounds like it's all happening at the same time (which isn't what I meant).

Having said that, I find things difficult to enjoy when grammar is just wrong -- and mistake-wrong instead of deliberate-wrong -- obviously I only find it difficult when I know the rule myself.

Edited to add: I didn't learn grammar at school either, and I wish I knew more. I'd like to know the rules. I am trying to learn them. However, I don't think breaking them is inevitably a problem.

Edited again(!): I think what HareBrain said is pretty much it. You need to trust an author to let them tell you a story -- you need to be sure that they know what they're doing -- and if they obviously can't write English, you're not going to trust them, but if what they do works for you, then you will.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Very wise, Hex, and maybe what I was trying to say about the venacular; sometimes we have a way of saying something in our lingo/our dialect which doesn't translate well; which doesn't mean being hard to follow/ difficult neccesarily. Both have merit, but yes, the grammar/spelling, basic rules have to be there, because the reader has to still understand and want to read more.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

See, I don't think "reptilian" will work when describing a building; is it made of lizard skin? Is it a giant serpent? Words such as "reptilian" can be used to describe people very well, as they can have such qualities, but I don't think buildings do.


Some words CAN be used interchangeably when they mean the same thing; take, for example, "clown" and "jester". They're similar enough to use both to describe the same person: One who entertains others by way of jokes and humorous antics.


One thing that can often work that I don't think many people realize day to day-words that are used as nouns can often be used as a verb as well.

 

[Phoenixthewriter]

The problem with poor grammar is the jarring effect it has on the reader. You may desire a flow, uninterrupted and clear as water, but poor use of commas, words, and heaven forbid you screw up the period; ultimately results in the reader stopping and rereading just to understand what's going on.

Like many here, I'm not an expert, but I read a ton and write a lot for my time available. Grammatical/vocabulary errors stick out like sore thumb to me (if not in my own work), but even a casual reader should be able to spot basic grammatical errors a mile away, because it interrupts the flow like the Grande Dixence.

 

[Percival]

See, I don't think "reptilian" will work when describing a building; is it made of lizard skin? Is it a giant serpent? Words such as "reptilian" can be used to describe people very well, as they can have such qualities, but I don't think buildings do.

Which is how we get back to my point about dictionaries. Precisely this. If you're working from the dictionary definition then that example is indeed impossible and meaningless. How can a castle be like a lizard?

But, for me anyway, "reptilian" there has the overtones from its normal usage in this genre to describe dragons and dinosaurs. Thus the castle squats there like a dragon or a great dinosaur above them, menacing, potentially predatory; at the very least like a large, wild beast.

You disagree of course. It's your privilege.

Some words CAN be used interchangeably when they mean the same thing; take, for example, "clown" and "jester". They're similar enough to use both to describe the same person: One who entertains others by way of jokes and humorous antics.

And this is another way I disagree with you. "Clown" and "jester" can't be used interchangeably. A clown is a harmless, jolly fellow in a circus. Or a bit of an idiot in a highschool classroom. Or someone who just made a stupid mistake. Whereas "jester" carries distinctly mediaeval overtones. It suggests a suit with bells on and face paint, courtly jests, fawning for a crown. These words are not interchangeable because they are used in different ways, and those prior uses create different feelings when one or the other is selected. There are no true synonyms: each word has its own space, its own body of places it has occurred. A dictionary definition is a tiny part of the life of a word; a crushed butterfly collected in a book, not something live and vibrant and on the wing.

And don't get me started on thesauri.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Your example of the French Academy is not apt. We have no organization, nor indeed any organized movement to keep the English language pure. It is always borrowing from other languages and creating new words, which is it's strength. Sometimes the new words add something essential, and remain, and sometimes they become obsolete as whatever they describe becomes obsolete (particularly technical jargon), and sometimes they are lazy ways of almost saying something for which there are already perfectly good words, usually these, too,pass away quickly, but I would contend that when they linger they do represent genuine decay. Something strong, eloquent, passionate, has been replaced by something listless and vague.

Language is essentially ossified speech, and speech occurs spontaneously and fluidly and is seldom grammatical.

I'm sorry. I think that is just nonsense. Speech is the expression of language, and the one cannot be ossified unless the other is. Written language, the language of educated people who appreciate language, can be spontaneous and fluid AND grammatical. Why? Because they have internalized the rules to the point where they don't have to think about them, nor do they interrupt the spontaneous flow of eloquence. Only those who have not bothered to learn grammar, who must struggle with it, find that it impedes them.

She's going to die," breathlessly, feeling the seconds scampering away, "can't we do something?"

This just sounds awkward to me. The adverb is unnecessary. We can guess that part, and it slows things down when you apparently want to speed them up. "She's going to die." The seconds were scampering away. "Can't we do something?"

She fell. Not dead. Not fainted. Not still. But helpless.

I think you are confusing formal writing -- academic writing, journalism, the writing of essays -- with fiction writing. In fiction, it is perfectly correct to use sentence fragments if you use them effectively. Used too often, the result appears pretentious and too much too consciously artistic. It also becomes less effective with frequent use.

I like using adjectives to describe things they can't possibly describe, if the colour of the adjective shades the object in question in a way I enjoy.

Quote:
The castle towered over them, reptilian and hungry against the tired sky.

This is not some quirk of yours. It is called metaphor; it is figurative language. It is perfectly correct in any kind of writing, so long as it is apt, so long as it causes readers to look at something in a new way and say, "Yes, it is like that," or "Yes, it could be like that." Your reptilian castle does not quite work for me. Reptiles, as a rule, do not tower, and generally they are not hungry because they are digesting their last meal. If you went on to tell me in a few words how the tower resembles a hungry reptile, it would be effective. (The scaly tiles on the roof, or a drawbridge split down the middle so it looks like a forked tongue. " One almost expected it to flicker in and out of the open mouth of the gate." That's just off the top of my head. Naturally it could be done better.) The way you have it just makes me makes me feel that it is almost there, but the image is incomplete.

Some of the things you think you have invented here have already been invented. Perhaps if you understood a little more about figurative language you might have added that little extra touch that would have made the metaphor better.

Crossposted with you and Karn --

But you said that it "towered" not "squated." Squated works better because it apparently explains what you wanted to say; when you extended the metaphor it came closer to working.

 

[Percival]

Your example of the French Academy is not apt. We have no organization, nor indeed any organized movement to keep the English language pure.

I think my point was that each new usage is always attacked. How do new usages come about if no-one attempts them? The French Academy was a formal attempt to halt the language's development, as I understand it - but Strunk & White could be considered its replacement in some ways in English.

I'm sorry. I think that is just nonsense. Speech is the expression of language, and the one cannot be ossified unless the other is. Written language, the language of educated people who appreciate language, can be spontaneous and fluid AND grammatical.

I did indeed mean written language, forgive me. One has only to look at French to see the extremes this can be taken to: written French diverges greatly from the spoken form. I don't write the way I speak, but I do think that there are interesting possibilities when the rules are put aside in part, to change the tone or to give a different impression. I see that you disagree. Vehemently. Or at least with the way I have phrased my position. I don't have anything to add on that front.

Why? Because they have internalized the rules to the point where they don't have to think about them, nor do they interrupt the spontaneous flow of eloquence. Only those who have not bothered to learn grammar, who must struggle with it, find that it impedes them.

Evidently. I'm not quite sure about the source of the outrage here. I apologise if I have caused offence.

This just sounds awkward to me. The adverb is unnecessary. We can guess that part, and it slows things down when you apparently want to speed them up. "She's going to die." The seconds were scampering away. "Can't we do something?"

Whereas I dislike italics for emphasis. And I don't like the alternative version. I could, of course, have recast as you have. But I don't find it as pleasing. I guess it's a matter of taste - you will say correctness, and I won't argue it further.

I think you are confusing formal writing -- academic writing, journalism, the writing of essays -- with fiction writing.

I think I'm clear on the distinction, though I appreciate the help.

This is not some quirk of yours. It is called metaphor; it is figurative language.

Ah. "Metaphor."

I agree up to a point of course. But I do think it's rather different as a single word, rather than an extended piece as you go on to offer. To me, these extended metaphors (unless wonderfully done) read poorly. For the most part I don't wish to slow things down with a long swathe of point by point comparisons that add little, once the original idea has been grasped.

Some of the things you think you have invented here have already been invented. Perhaps if you understood a little more about figurative language you might have added that little extra touch that would have made the metaphor better.

Thanks for the tips.

I don't know quite when this became a hostile exchange. I guess my attitude and writing caused offence, and that was honestly not my intention. I am unfortunately opinionated, and I would enjoy a lively debate on the subject. But I don't think the way this is going is very productive.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

I'm sure none of what's been said here has meant to be hostile; just sometimes people have a very strong opinion on the structure of writing. You CAN bend the rules, if you have the experience and knowledge of how to do so. But the rules are still in place to prevent language, both written and spoken, from just flying up into the air into oblivion-such as having to space individual words when writing sotheydon'tlooklikeabunchofunintelligibledribblelikethisdoes.

Also basic punctuation rules are in place so sentences don't become too long-winded and remain separate. You seem to have more of a rebellion against more advanced punctuation and grammar, as can be seen in your dialogue structure example. The trouble is, the way you put it up is extremely awkward, choppy, and rather unbalanced. This isn't to say you can't do a dialogue break within a single line or sentence, but that extra bit you put in, the adverb and "feeling the seconds scampering away" does not warrant keeping the dialogue as a single sentence.

And yes, "clown" and "jester" can be used interchangeably, despite the undertones each one has. "Jester" isn't really used much anymore, true, but its verbal cousin, "jest" is still used heavily today and "jester" can still apply. And beyond the point, you can set into certain genres of writing in which both terms can be accepted.

Also-I don't know how old you are, but I'm only 25, and I was taught proper grammar, spelling, vocabulary, and punctuation throughout my entire school career, so when you say "I don't know if they teach grammar in school ANYMORE" I'm wondering if you're just fresh out of high school or even younger....just a curiosity.

 

[Percival]

I'm sure none of what's been said here has meant to be hostile

Great to hear.

The trouble is, the way you put it up is extremely awkward, choppy, and rather unbalanced.

It's unfortunate that we disagree: those people who hold your views won't enjoy my style at all. I like it as as it is, and I think one is cursed to produce writing of the form one enjoys. If I like one option better than another, how can I polish my script by selecting the version I like less?

And yes, "clown" and "jester" can be used interchangeably, despite the undertones each one has.

I think we'll have to disagree on that point. For me, the over- or undertones are a crucial part of the impression a word creates, thus differing tones can't produce the same effect. Any more than substituting a clarinet for an oboe in an orchestral piece gives the same effect.

Also-I don't know how old you are, but I'm only 25, and I was taught proper grammar, spelling, vocabulary, and punctuation throughout my entire school career, so when you say "I don't know if they teach grammar in school ANYMORE" I'm wondering if you're just fresh out of high school or even younger....just a curiosity.

I take it as a terrible sign that things have degenerated to the "fresh out of kindergarten?!" question.