Grammar Question - One sentence.

[barrett1987]

All the beatings, all the kicks, all for nothing.

Word is telling me this doesn't work. But i really like it.

Is there a website that checks grammar and offers alternatives? Or do one of you grammartarians know?

 

[AnyaKimlin]

All the beatings. All the kicks. All for nothing.

or

All the beatings, all the kicks and all for nothing.

But if you like it the way you have it then keep it. Sometimes grammar should be ignored .

 

[Ursa major]

All the beatings, all the kicks; all for nothing.

I used the semicolon not just because I like them, but because there's a difference between the first two items and the third, so the semicolon helps to emphasise that, but without hammering it home.

But if you like hammering, or dislike semicolons, you could try:

All the beatings, all the kicks. All for nothing.

or

All the beatings, all the kicks... all for nothing.

 

[barrett1987]

All the beatings, all the kicks... all for nothing.

Winner!

 

[JonH]

You don't want to pay too much attention to Word's grammar checker. The implemented rules are incomplete and complex syntax defeats it.

There was nothing wrong with your original punctuation, even though I do prefer your winner.

 

[HareBrain]

What JonH said, except that I prefer the original. The rhythm of three equal parts works better for me when separated by identical punctuation.

 

[Hex]

What HB said. I liked your original a lot.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Word is absolutely right in that it is not grammatically correct. But it is effective, and it does work, so I think you can safely forget the rules there.

Word can only tell you if you are following the rules it has set down. It can't give you creative alternatives if you break one of those rules.

If you feel strongly about something you have written and Word has a different opinion, it's usually best to go with your instincts.

(Unless it's semicolons. Semicolons take enough abuse as it is.)

 

[JonH]

Word is absolutely right in that it is not grammatically correct.

Interesting. The reason I feel it's correct is that the first two are just nominal groups and the latter functions as a principle clause with an implied verb (was or went). Do you read it differently, or do you think that structure needs something stronger than commas?

 

[paranoid marvin]

With grammar (unless you're sitting an exam!) the end always justifies the means; if it works effectively, then whether it is precise or not, use it.

My suggestion

All the beatings... all the kicks... for nothing.

 

[chrispenycate]

Since there is no transient verb in the vicinity, Word's pea-brained little analysis program is never going to accept this as grammatical, and this time it does have its arguments. But unless you're going to rewrite it as something like:- 'All the beatings and all the kicks had all been for nothing.' (which I believe everyone can understand you wouldn't want to), Word is going to complain at you. It's developed for people writing business letters, not creative writing, and its rules are more rigid than mine (which is saying something).

So punctuate it as pleases you, and ignore the green squiggles, except in guiding you to places you might want to look at.

Much like my red penning in critiques, actually.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Interesting. The reason I feel it's correct is that the first two are just nominal groups and the latter functions as a principle clause with an implied verb (was or went). Do you read it differently, or do you think that structure needs something stronger than commas?

Personally, I don't think it needs anything. I did give some thought, before I posted my previous message, to the fact that there is an implied verb. But then I thought that if it were my job to mindlessly correct the grammar, like a software program (or possibly if I were a very rigid High School teacher, correcting papers), that would not be enough for me.

 

[Mr Orange]

All the beatings, all the kicks... all for nothing.

Winner!

i'd go for that one too

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

I do have to say that I would disagree with TE here, actually. It is grammatically incorrect, that is true, but I do not find the original effective as it is very choppy and pretty awkward. You chose correctly with the ellipses. Ursa wasn't wrong either with semicolon, but ellipses is a different tone that fits better because it isn't an abrupt stop like comma, period, or semicolon, and the all for nothing thought deserves that gradual stop and hard start that the ellipses provides. It is meant to read in a suspenseful manner, and no other form of punctuation that I know of sets up so well.