Language matters! And don't you forget it.

[JonH]

The rules change over time, for spelling, word meaning and even grammar.

For example, at one time "all right" was all right, but alright wasn't. Now I see alright used a lot. Is it still incorrect? It passes the browser spellchecker, but I know it doesn't pass the one in Open Office. Will it be incorrect if most people start to use it? My hard-copy dictionary, bought about thirty years back, gives Hallowe'en as the preferential spelling before Halloween, but I expect any modern editor would remove the apostrophe.

At one time you would use farther for distance and further for everything else, now people will cheerfully use further for distance too. Fewer is being pushed out by lesser. Elder by older, and older (as a comparative between two people) by oldest. Does anybody still distinguish between may the best man win and may the better man win? Are they more likely to balk at the non-PC use of man than best?

Consider: "the deep, green valley", "the deep green valley" and "the deep-green valley". (Ignore the missing Oxford comma before the and, as that's a whole other debate.) The first and last are classically correct forms and distinguish precisely between the ambiguous meanings, but the form of the one in the middle is taking over the first. I put up a story fragment and used the comma between unrelated adjectives, and was told one the readers found it intrusive. Correctly so, as the adjectives were not ambiguous as they are here, and the form now seems to be to only use the comma between two unrelated adjectives when the meaning would otherwise be ambiguous. (We can also argue another time about whether using multiple adjectives before a noun just means you have the wrong noun.)

So when you are writing on the cusp of a form change or a spelling change, what do you do? It depends for me on voice. When writing SF I tend to use the more modern form, but when writing non-urban fantasy, I use the older form.

 

[Dave]

As a punishment for creating this thread I think everyone who posted should be forced to read Feersum Endjinn by Iain Banks (1994).

 

[Ashleyne]

Good points. I know when it's time to admit that I'm wrong. I’ve just re-edited my entire manuscript to correct all apostrophes. It didn’t take long because I used c+f.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

As a punishment for creating this thread I think everyone who posted should be forced to read Feersum Endjinn by Iain Banks (1994).

verri good poynt.

 

[Kylara]

Talking of writing accents - there is a Will Self novel called The Book of Dave in which the "future" society speaks in such a way that it takes forever to read and work out what people mean to say.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Good points. I know when it's time to admit that I'm wrong. I’ve just re-edited my entire manuscript to correct all apostrophes. It didn’t take long because I used c+f.

Fair play to you. I'd have dug in for a week.

 

[Ransonwrites]

The rules change over time, for spelling, word meaning and even grammar.

To paraphrase the Dalai Lama, learn the rules then break them.

Narrative voice in fiction or non-fiction always uses a more archaic form of English than is spoken in the contemporary street, (fiction differing from non in that it can reflect up to the minute slang in character dialogue). In this sense it's like the law: always lagging behind developments in society and technology, but necessarily so because in both cases clarity is an absolute requirement and hastily crafted narrative prose, or legislation, both lead to a disaster of confusion and misinterpretation.

As a punishment for creating this thread I think everyone who posted should be forced to read Feersum Endjinn by Iain Banks (1994).

Oh god. Please. No. My eyes only just stopped bleeding!

 

[BelgarionOz]

I don't have a problem with impact. In the context that I think you're referring to it essentially means the same thing. Politicians use it a lot because it sounds more aggressive I think "The Government should drop this plan because of the negative impact it will have on people" Sounds a lot more immediate and potentially dangerous that "it will affect people" I think that's why that gets used.

I take your point and 'lay' and 'lie' and other tense related things. I'm forever correcting my friends on such things which annoys them no end. I find lots of other examples of such things, and I hate it when people do it.

Also remember that accent can play a part in that as well. many of the things people are mentioning (at least those people from the UK) seem to be picking up on various apparent lingual difference between say a Cockney, Liverpudlian and say an Oxford accent. Most people won't have a problem understanding them when they do speak perfect English, it's just the accent sometimes gets in the way.

But then I love accents.

 

[TheDustyZebra]

I don't have a problem with impact. In the context that I think you're referring to it essentially means the same thing. Politicians use it a lot because it sounds more aggressive I think "The Government should drop this plan because of the negative impact it will have on people" Sounds a lot more immediate and potentially dangerous that "it will affect people" I think that's why that gets used.

But that's how impact is supposed to be used. It's fine for things to have an impact on other things. The problem I have is when everything has to impact other things. That's when they should be affecting other things, instead. (And I think the OP had the same concern with a UK phrasing, where things impact on other things. That's how I read it, anyway.)

Impact really should not be a verb.

 

[Ronald T.]

You mean you wrote that *before* caffeine?

I wouldn't of thought that was possibule.

Things like that annoy me too. But I'm wary of being too critical, because sometimes I get anti some new language development that I later end up preferring (though I share you dislike of "impact", which must have been coined by someone making a business presentation who was desperate to make it seem as exciting as a disaster movie).

I have to assume this second sentence is meant as a bit of humor after what Ransomwrites said.

I agree with Ransom on this issue. I know that typos can happen to anyone, and it's, to a certain degree, forgivable. But the obvious use of incorrect English isn't.

We have endless resources. All we have to do is use them.

Choosing to use a variation of standard usage is fine when the writer has a particular and reasonable need for it. But it does prickle the senses when it's clear the writer doesn't know any better.

We're writers, which means we must learn how to use the tools correctly, and have sound reasons when we chose to manipulate those tools.

As someone who has spent much of my life building homes and carving wood, I can promise you this: if you use the tools of those trades incorrectly, you'll probably end up with the nickname "Jimmy nine fingers".

 

[Vertigo]

Fascinating thread that I missed first time around. Nearly all the points are ones that constantly irritate me. However, I would like to correct one and add another

First a correction from the first opening post:
Affect is a verb meaning 'make a difference to'.

Effect is a noun meaning 'a result' or a verb meaning 'to bring about a result'.

But if that's too much to easily remember (and I sympathise, honestly: I use grammar but hate studying it) then try this useful mnemonic:

The action is affect; the end result is effect

I have underlined 'a' and 'e' to illustrate how the mnemonic also contains clues to remembering it, correctly.

This is usually the case but not always.
Effect can also be a verb. From the Oxford dictionary:

Effect (verb): Cause (something) to happen; bring about:
‘the prime minister effected many policy changes’

And affect can be a noun. Also from the Oxford dictionary:

Affect (noun): Emotion or desire as influencing behaviour:
This, says Jung, is because they confuse feeling with emotion or affect

It's just that effect is more normally a noun and affect is more normally a verb.

Secondly I want to add one, which is why, oh why, do so many people add an unnecessary 'so' to the beginning of their sentences? Here's an example from Ann Leckie responding to a query about one of her books (twice in succession!):

So, I don't think I've ever said that Radchaai are gender neutral--just that they really don't care about anyone's gender, and don't mark it socially or linguistically. So, they're humans, and as such come in all sorts of genders, and they know gender exists, but it's not really a thing they care much about.

Now I'm not resurrecting the old argument here about starting a sentence with a conjunction. I have no problem with such usage but much of the time when I hear 'so' being used at the start of a sentence there is nothing to actually join; it is not being used as a conjunction. In Leckie's answer above the first 'so' is just wrong as far as I'm concerned. The second usage is possibly okay without the comma "So they're human" which would be a grammatically correct conjunction but I actually don't think that was how she was using it.

End Rant...

 

[HareBrain]

Secondly I want to add one, which is why, oh why, do so many people add an unnecessary 'so' to the beginning of their sentences?

I've noticed this too, recently, but I think it's just replaced "well", and it's only more noticeable than "well" because it's relatively new. Both are filler words, used by those who for one reason or another (maybe lack of confidence) feel that just launching into the statement would be too abrupt. Twenty years ago I witnessed an Italian giving some tuition, and he would preface every single sentence with "allora", so it's not just in English.

 

[Venusian Broon]

I've noticed this too, recently, but I think it's just replaced "well", and it's only more noticeable than "well" because it's relatively new. Both are filler words, used by those who for one reason or another (maybe lack of confidence) feel that just launching into the statement would be too abrupt. Twenty years ago I witnessed an Italian giving some tuition, and he would preface every single sentence with "allora", so it's not just in English.

I find that I tend to use 'well' quite a lot in speech and I find myself translating this, much to my chagrin, into the written word. Thinking about it, it's like a um or ah - a verbal pause that announces 'Stop talking - I will be following with a comment'.

 

[Vertigo]

I've noticed this too, recently, but I think it's just replaced "well", and it's only more noticeable than "well" because it's relatively new. Both are filler words, used by those who for one reason or another (maybe lack of confidence) feel that just launching into the statement would be too abrupt. Twenty years ago I witnessed an Italian giving some tuition, and he would preface every single sentence with "allora", so it's not just in English.

I'd be a bit more harsh and say that what it replaces is 'um' especially as it is usually followed by a pause as opposed to its proper conjunction usage with no pause as in:
"The boy was starving," said Fred.
"So that's why he asked for more," said Mary.

Edit: VB got in there first!

 

[Phyrebrat]

'So' is one of my irrational hate-rage triggers.

I don't mind 'Well' and caught myself using it when I started writing around 2011 in the first secret Santa workshop.

I think it's one of those filler words we can safely dispose of 9/10 times.

pH

 

[tinkerdan]

I suspect Ann Leckie's usage, since it is in response to something and has been taken out of context, would fall under the usage in logical argument that what follows might prove or disprove the above.

Much the same as these words
Therefore, hence, so, then, thus
So I can't see how it would equal um even remotely.
On the other hand, the comma might be considered one of those writer-ly mistakes often made and corrected during those first intense edits.

We hear the pause and put it in when it doesn't need to be there.

For clarity I might add that this is not at all like when someone walks into a room and says, "So what would you like for lunch?"

(Which just occured.)

 

[Vertigo]

I suspect Ann Leckie's usage, since it is in response to something and has been taken out of context, would fall under the usage in logical argument that what follows might prove or disprove the above.

Much the same as these words
Therefore, hence, so, then, thus
So I can't see how it would equal um even remotely.
On the other hand, the comma might be considered one of those writer-ly mistakes often made and corrected during those first intense edits.

We hear the pause and put it in when it doesn't need to be there.

As I understand it the conjunction 'so' has a similar meaning to 'therefore'; it is linking this assertion logically with the previous one, as in 'so it follows that...' Now here is Ann Leckie's full context:

"While I understand the concept of a gender neutral being, and appreciate the use of the feminine pronoun, I remain a little confused about the word 'human' when describing the beings. Are they human as we know human? And if so, how are they gender neutral? Is the word used to describe some evolutionary version of human far into the future where gender has become neutral? Thank so much."

Ann Leckie " So, I don't think I've ever said that Radchaai are gender neutral--just that they really don't care about anyone's gender, and don't mark it socially or linguistically. So, they're humans, and as such come in all sorts of genders, and they know gender exists, but it's not really a thing they care much about. They care about it, maybe, as much as we care about hair color."

She is answering a question; there is nothing to join onto; there is no logical continuation from a previous assertion. I can see no way that the meaning of 'so' has any place at the beginning of her sentence, accept in the sense that we are getting so used to it used in that context. I cannot see it as either a conjunction or an adverb (as it was in my previous sentence).

 

[tinkerdan]

Thanks for the link:: @Vertigo

Context is king.

 

[Wiglaf]

At one time you would use farther for distance and further for everything else, now people will cheerfully use further for distance too.

Actually, it was that you could use the newfangled farther in lieu of the hoary further in cases of physical distance, but now people use the upstart farther for everything.
* Further predates farther and could be conflated with fierr and later ferrer/farrer (from feor meaning far). Hence the creation of farther.
You had the Saxon equivalents of forther (more forth) and farrer (more far) to which has now been added a compressed far-forther (farther) which should mean more far forth which is mighty redundant.

 

[Ursa major]

A lot of writing is -- as would seem to be the case with the Leckie examples -- simply the writers' speaking voices written down, not the way they'd write prose or even dialogue**. As such, I think it's forgivable: most of us don't edit our speech, as it's produced instantaneously. We can, however, choose -- or train ourselves -- not to be upset by it.


** - Dialogue is, generally, tidied up speech.